Re: Society

Michael Lorrey (
Mon, 29 Dec 1997 21:45:18 -0500

Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> (Lorrey's socially unacceptable behaviors)
> > 2) Rudeness
> > ...
> > 8) lying in general
> How do you reconcile the conflict here? And isn't calling
> "rudeness" a "socially unacceptable" behavior a circular
> definition?
> I think I'd list "politeness" for its own sake the most
> destructive behavior to effective social interaction.

Put politely, 'rudeness' is treating others how you think they deserve
to be treated. 'politeness' is treating others to a best approximation
of how you think they might like to be treated. Notice that there is a
significant gap in between the two. Just because you can't be polite
because your approximation of how another might like to be treated goes
beyond the limits of your ego, pride, self respect, forebearance,
whatever, does not mean that you therefore MUST be rude. Also note that
I did not mention the precept of treating others as you would like to be

As to your question about circular logic, I can easily imagine a society
where rudeness is socially acceptable. Its called America in the 90's.

While I can easily see your point that excessive politeness can be a
destructive force, I look at it as an equal and opposite destructive
force as rudeness. Taken to an extreme, either is harmful to a society.

Witness, as juxtapositions, Victorian England and 90's New York City.

			Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------	Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?