Why is it that if someone has a conviction about something that goes against what is considered a societal norm, or custom,they are put into a position of needing to explain themselves. Generally, there is an explanation, and it likely makes sense to the holder of said conviction, but then the one who notices tries to find reasons why that person is wrong.
If someone is running around pointing fingers and shouting about why they think what everyone is doing should or should not be done, then by all means, they deserve to be called upon their own actions. But if someone just does or doesn't do something within their family and people hear about it (and don't be disingenuous in the comments, people hear things, it comes up in conversation, and in no way am I saying that it needs to be kept secret) why do they need to prove that that person is wrong?
Is it because deep down they agree? Is it because it rankles them that someone can so easily NOT do what everyone does?
2 comments:
??? could we be more specific here, please?
Because it IS against societal norms and customs. By its definition that means the person is non conforming which is curious and curiosity brings questions Generally if one has strong enough convictions to adopt non conforming attitudes and positions they ought to be strongly enough held that a) they stand up to questioning and b) the holder thereof would want to educate others in their belief and convice them to change the norm. Now, I don't know what you are speaking about specifically but I'm not so sure that all non conforming behaviour is practiced out of conviction. Sometimes it is rebelliousness sometimes obstinance and sometimes ignorance,whatever it is if the "perpetrator" does not want to give answers he/she should practice the non conforming behaviour in private. I don't think that the queriosity or indignation fueled by the behaviour in those observing ut is a flaw, as you suggest, in the beholder.
Post a Comment