Mark W. wrote:
... Remember that I started this whole thing by reflecting on differences between reactions to Simon Lovell and to Al Flosso.
Yes, thats correct, and you have neglected to answer what I feel is an important question in light of the development of this thread: why is it useful (instructive? beneficial?) to compare standards of conduct from two very different eras?
Weird that you should call my "black and white" attitude "relativistic." I thought I was saying that some standards are not relativistic.
Please re-read what I wrote. I said no such thing.
And if you want to argue that some standards are not relativistic vis--vis other times and cultures (which is the context of this discussion), then rudeness is not a very good example. What is rude in this country may not be rude in another, and vice versa; and what was rude 50 years ago in this country may not be rude now, and vice versa.
There is nothing intrinsically bad about belching. It's just a noise. That's a lot different from making a spectator feel stupid, and jerking him around physically, just to get some laughs.
In some cultures and/or at certain times in history, you may be correct. In other cultures and/or at other times in history, you may be dead wrong. The fact that you are willing to state categorically that theres nothing wrong with belching ably demonstrates (to me, at least) a blind spot when it comes to understanding that different standards apply to different cultures and/or different eras.
I dont sense that anyone here begrudges you your opinion of Flossos act. What troubles me is how easily and absolutely you can judge someones act from another time and flat out say it was wrong.
Again, why is it useful (instructive? beneficial?) to compare standards of conduct from two very different eras?