I have a friend who is a vegetarian, based on her belief that she does not wish to bring harm to anything “with a mother or a face.” I respect her belief, and although I am not vegetarian, find nothing rediculous about her position. However, she sincerely believes that wearing leather is OK because “they were dead anyway, and the hide is just leftover.” My point is that while leather is a necessary byproduct of the slaughtering process, it is disengenuous to state that the sale of hides does not support in any way the cattle industry. I feel similarly about the man who was offended that his guest ordered meat. By patronizing the restaurant at all he was supporting financially and and with implied consent the eating of meat. I understand that religions contain inconsistencies; are *all * inconsistencies thus ecxused? If the consumption of meat is so abhorrent how can he knowingly place himself anywher near it?
And Lefty, I understand that social apologies smooth the social process, and there are plenty of times when I have apologized because it would have been disruptive to the general atmosphere, but I have to agree with those who claim that an insincere apology is worse than none at all. I prefer plain speaking, and prefer to interact with others who also prefer it. (Perhaps this is why I spend so much time alone )
Very clever, LHD! In response to a request for a clearly undeserved apology, you say something that actually merits a brief social apology and then you apologize for that – thereby neatly side-stepping the issue of whether you actually would apologize for something that didn’t really merit it. A nice feint; I admire it.
And to be clear, the difference between your example and the Jain’s case was that, when you said you were offended, you were being insincere. (Because you didn’t expect me to believe you, I can’t quite say you were lying). That you were using insincerity as a means to castigate me for destroying the value of insincere apologies was, I trust you understand, a bit vexing :).
Had you really been hurt as a result of what I’d said, that’d be a different kettle of fish; I try not to cause pain, even inadvertantly. But you can’t conjure hurt out of snarkiness or insincerity. That’s not how it works.
)
In response to a request for a clearly undeserved apology, you say something that actually merits a brief social apology and then you apologize for that – thereby neatly side-stepping the issue of whether you actually would apologize for something that didn’t really merit it. A nice feint; I admire it.