From: usenet@delete.this.baradel.demon.co.uk   
      
   In message , Graham Woodland   
    writes   
   >Helen Hall wrote:   
   >> In message   
   >>, David   
   >>Friedman  writes   
   >>> At a slight tangent to the general discussion, I suspect one of the   
   >>> things going on is the clash between two different attitudes to certain   
   >>> sorts of interactions.   
   >>>   
   >>> Imagine that A and B do not have a close relationship--aren't lovers,   
   >>> roommates, siblings. A does X, something which, under ordinary social   
   >>> rules, he is permitted to do. B responds with "don't do that, it hurts   
   >>> me/makes me unhappy/ ...  ."   
   >>>   
   >> Then A shouldn't do it. Full stop. I adore having my hair stroked and   
   >>combed, my husband loathes it, it actually makes him shudder. Despite   
   >>the fact that I like the feel of his hair running through my fingers,   
   >>I  respect that fact that he hates it and refrain from upsetting him.   
   >>>   
   >   
   >That is certainly not something that A and B, lacking a close   
   >relationship, would be permitted to do to each other under ordinary   
   >social rules.  Grooming is an extraordinary privilege which specially   
   >intimate individuals may grant each other, but need not, either.   
   >   
   Apologies, I somehow omitted to read the "not" in David's post. (Note to   
   self, don't post to rasfc when in a hurry.)   
      
   >Returning to the given case, suppose that B is being utterly truthful   
   >and has no ulterior motives -- they are observing A engaging in   
   >behaviour which is, according to B's religion, a mortal sin worthy of   
   >damnation.  B is a sensitive and compassionate soul, and cannot bear to   
   >see anybody do that: it really hurts them and makes them very unhappy   
   >indeed.  So whenever any A does something which B's religion condemns,   
   >in B's presence, B immediately demands that they cease sinning.  I   
   >don't know about you, but I've certainly encountered behaviour that   
   >comes close to this, even from perfect strangers.   
   >   
   >I think you will agree that this is well beyond all civilised bounds --   
   >as well as rendering the co-existence of radically different religions   
   >socially impossible.  So presumably your full stop is not quite as full   
   >as that, and the answer must be more complex.   
   >   
   The answer is *always* more complex and always involves phrases like,   
   "Well, it depends..."  :) I mean David said, "Under ordinary social   
   rules," but what exactly does that mean? Whose rules? There actually is   
   no such thing as "ordinary social rules", only social rules that apply   
   in different places at different times and also varying according to   
   class, religion etc.   
      
   Helen   
   --   
   Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)