Why the beer hate? (Forked Thread: What are the no-goes...)

[Fifth Element]

The mere potential for his belief system to be infringed is insufficient for him to try and dictate rules or not attend or leave (see rule 3). It's only if actual drunkeness or bad behavior result that it becomes polite under those circumstances.

Emphasis added.

You lost me here. The potential for one's belief system to be infringed is, IMO, certainly a valid reason to decline to attend the event. An invitation does not compel attendance.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, if you were concerned about the 2 of those 3, I can only say this thread should disabuse you of that. We done worrying about them?

Well which is it? Are you ignoring the rule that a guest should not decline an invitation based on a potential problem rather than an actual one, or disputing that rule, or were you unaware of it?

Whichever it is, can you explain why being inhospitable is justified to further your belief that avoiding potential problems is a good thing, and how it is not self-centered?

 

[Fifth Element]

Nope. It's rules. Going back thousands of years. There are whole biblical chapters on the topic, and the rules have been built on through many different cultures and years. These are the rules of our society.

Random thoughts related to this:

A. Where can I get a copy of these rules?

2. "Our society"? Of which society do you speak? How do you know "society" is the same where you live as it is where Bumbles lives?

iii. Thousand-year-old rules of behaviour are probably of little relevance to today's world.

IV. You'll never get people, even those raised in exactly the same society, to agree completely on these "rules". Your "rule" is someone else's "bizarre behaviour."

e. Different cultures have very different societal norms. I don't see how other cultures' rules of behaviour apply to ours.

 

[Fifth Element]

Well which is it? Are you ignoring the rule that a guest should not decline an invitation based on a potential problem rather than an actual one, or disputing that rule, or were you unaware of it?

I would personally go with #2: someone might not recognize your "rule" as such. Perhaps they disagree with you. I know I do.

Or really, I dispute the idea that there are "rules" for such things. Unwritten guidelines perhaps, in many cases, but "rule" is way too strong a word. There is usually more than one appropriate way to resolve social situations.

 

[Mistwell]

Random thoughts related to this:

A. Where can I get a copy of these rules?

1. What Is Best Society? Post, Emily. 1922. Etiquette

2. "Our society"? Of which society do you speak? How do you know "society" is the same where you live as it is where Bumbles lives?

Being polite and having good manners is universal. You adapt to the rules of your region. If it is polite to say thank you in your region, you say thank you. If it is polite to burp after a hosts meal, you burp. You adapt to the rules of your region. But, there are rules for every region, and it is your responsibility to learn them. Usually your parents teach them to you when you are young.

iii. Thousand-year-old rules of behaviour are probably of little relevance to today's world.

I said which evolved and were expanded on over many years. I was giving some history of how they came about to refute someone saying it was just an artifact of a modern subculture.

IV. You'll never get people, even those raised in exactly the same society, to agree completely on these "rules". Your "rule" is someone else's "bizarre baheviour."

Nope. It's pretty universal. There can be corner cases (which is why Emily Post was gainfully employed), but this issue we are discussing is well outside the corner cases. Fear that something may go wrong, despite no evidence that things are likely to go wrong, is no excuse for being rude and inhospitable to a host.

e. Different cultures have very different societal norms. I don't see how other cultures' rules of behaviour apply to ours.

I agree. Which is why I said you adhere to the rules in your region. And this is a rule in his region.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The thing is you're making a judgement on the suitability of the environment for you to spend a long period of time within,

No, he's making a judgment on the suitability of the possible environment. By the rationale he's using, nobody can ever go on a picnic outdoors, because it has rained in the past, and might rain in the future. (Oh, nor indoors, if there is a sprinkler system. Best not to risk it being accidentally triggered, right?)

which is being misinterpreted as a judgement upon their character.

Actually, it's being correctly interpreted as the refusal to make judgments on character based on actual experience, choosing instead to make judgments based on "what could conceivably happen." In other words, it's prejudice against anyone who drinks alcohol, however infrequently, however moderately, and however responsibly.

Everyone has the right to be prejudiced (and even to act on it, subject to statute in some cases), and IMO society actually couldn't function without a good deal of prejudice. But this particular prejudice, in this particular context, is damned peculiar.

 

[Fifth Element]

1. What Is Best Society? Post, Emily. 1922. Etiquette

Dude, 1922 is when my grandfather was born. I'm going to have to refuse to behave as if it's 1922. What does that book say about internet forum etiquette, I wonder?

Nope. It's pretty universal. There can be corner cases (which is why Emily Post was gainfully employed), but this issue we are discussing is well outside the corner cases. Fear that something may go wrong, despite no evidence that things are likely to go wrong, is no excuse for being rude and inhospitable to a host.

Declining an invitation is not inherently rude or inhospitable, regardless of your reason. That's the specific claim I was disputing: that potential problems are not enough to refuse to attend. You apparently see this as a rule of "our" society. Demonstrating my point above, as a mature, well-adjusted member of society I disagree that it is a rule. Who's right?

Or is New Brunswick different enough from California that we can't be directly compared? I could ask my brother, who was raised in NB but lives in CA, and had little trouble adjusting.

I agree. Which is why I said you adhere to the rules in your region. And this is a rule in his region.

What is his region? I can't tell from his (her?) profile.

 

[Mistwell]

I would personally go with #2: someone might not recognize your "rule" as such. Perhaps they disagree with you. I know I do.

Or really, I dispute the idea that there are "rules" for such things. Unwritten guidelines perhaps, in many cases, but "rule" is way too strong a word. There is usually more than one appropriate way to resolve social situations.

You can call it whatever you want. But you know if you and your significant other are invited to a formal dinner at another couple's home, it's darn likely it would be a bad idea to pick your nose, loudly fart, or attend with obviously dirty and smelly clothing. You can call those rules, guidelines, or a turtle. But we both know they are "things" which apply to that situation baring something specifically going against them (like instead of a formal dinner it's the annual nose picking farting and smelly cloth wearing dinner).

Baring facts to the contrary from Bumble (and he is quite guarded in revealing any specific details about the people he is declining invitations from), we have to go with what the general "rules/guidelines/things" which apply to such situations. And in this situation, baring any specific details, it sounds to me like he's being impolite for self-centered motives (assuming the motives he has given us are the actual motives in the situation).

Again, it's not that he doesn't like it when people drink alcohol. He's objecting to the mere potential that adult close friends who drink might become disruptive, maybe, possibly, because he saw something like that happen a couple of times in the past with some other people maybe. Those are not good reasons to be inhospitable to your friends and decline to go to someone else's home if they don't change the rules of their house to accommodate your fears.

 

[MichaelK]

Nope.

I emphatically disagree.

It's rules. Going back thousands of years.

The concept that rules of behaviour exist certainly extend back that far, they are far from static throughout that period though.

There are whole biblical chapters on the topic

That is true. However a quick read through leviticus and deuteronomy will show you just how much they have changed. I refer you to the variety of rules upon menstruation and just how different they are to any sort of values we hold now. That is just one example amongst many.

These are the rules of our society.

Unless you mean ENworld, we do not share a society. I'm not American.

They include such things as don't pick your nose in public

And if you visited south east asia of 20 years ago, you'd find their treatment of nasal mucus scandalous by your standards. Yet perfectly acceptable by the standards of the society of that era and location.

and making sure you do not excessively smell in public for example.

Lets set our hypothetical time travel machine for the victorian era of england and see how you find that rule applied there.

Not to mention the disastrous attempts at diplomacy between Sparta and Egypt several thousand years ago.

Those are real rules that apply to everyone in our society. It's just that women seem to instinctively grok these rules while men tend to learn them slower.

Sexism is an interesting example of something that was quite acceptable just a few decades ago.

Now however people tend to frown upon it.

 

[Fifth Element]

No, he's making a judgment on the suitability of the possible environment. By the rationale he's using, nobody can ever go on a picnic outdoors, because it has rained in the past, and might rain in the future. (Oh, nor indoors, if there is a sprinkler system. Best not to risk it being accidentally triggered, right?)

That's absurd, and a misrepresentation (or misunderstanding). One has no control over when it rains.