Still I am not able to understand what is the connection between a lady sitting outside on account of periods and an established rule as per traditions in a temple.
A temple or any institution must have evolved their rules and traditions as per the beliefs and practices of the persons who brought that institution into existence.
The people at large entered, visited, and worshipped the deity enshrined.
However, such entry and worship-- should that give the crowd or the State the right to interfere with the in house practices of the temple?
It looks as if a person must change the way he should behave in his bedroom just because many people visited him, and therefore the privacy of the bedroom is not in his control but the visitors have vested rights.
It is mobocracy.
The experiences of some particular individuals, and emotionally articulated stories might make nice read.
But often it is a lawyer's trick that he looks to be very rational and logical in all his arguments, and the orderly way in which he presents would convince the Bench too. However, in some particular step of his argument he would have introduced some tricky twist. With that, he would have turned the course of argument by 180 degrees, often without the listeners getting conscious of it.
Here, the person who posted the thread, actually uses personal experiences or the story of her personal alleged sufferings to turn the argument in her favour, and when someone just tries to return the favours, by pointing out the personal element involved, she, and some supporters too, accuse the other person as being personal.
Is being personal a privilege only for women, or for a young person who is supported by a few. Alternatively, even by a motley crowd?
No comments:
Post a Comment