Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site grkermit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!grkermit!larry
From: larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: reply to ** FRODO ** from laura
Message-ID: <578@grkermit.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Aug-83 09:52:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: grkermit.578
Posted: Tue Aug 16 09:52:46 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Aug-83 21:56:21 EDT
References: <854@utcsstat.UUCP>, <358@hou5f.UUCP> <880@utcsstat.UUCP>
Organization: GenRad Inc., Concord, MA
Lines: 83

From Laura@utcsstat:
you miss my point. You want to ban smoking because you find it
offensive, right? Suppose I find computers offensive. Do I get
to ban them? Suppose I find Blacks offensive. Do I get to ban
them too? I gather, from your last article that you do not think
I should get to ban Blacks. What I want to know is what mechanism
you have for stopping me? How do you prevent injustice in a society
where 'likes' and 'dislikes' are sufficient grounds for legislation?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Your argument about computers is just plain silly.  Nobody forces you
to stay in the same room as a computer.  In fact, I'm sure if somebody
went around public places with a VAX that was running and making LOTS
of noise, they would be arrested for disturbing the peace.  

In fact, now that I look at it your whole argument is specious.  The
reason why things are banned or not has to do with the normative values
of society.  Thus, in this society, public defacation is considered
indecent, and it is banned.  So is publicly swinging a battle ax over
your head in crowded rooms.  Now I may be an expert in handling the
battle ax and might have perfectly rational arguments why I should be
able to do it, but as long as it goes against the societal norm I can't.  

It used to be a societal norm in the US for blacks to be second class
citizens.  Gradually through education, much of the public now accepts
civil rights for minority groups.  THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON
FOR THERE TO BE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION EXCEPT FOR IRRATIONAL HATRED.
PEOPLE WHO BELEVED THIS FOUGHT FOR IT AND WERE ABLE TO CHANGE PUBLIC
OPINION.  THERE *IS* A REASON FOR BANNING SMOKING.  THAT IS BECAUSE A
GREAT MANY PEOPLE FIND IT *PHYSICALLY* IRRITATING.  THIS IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT CAN BE UNLEARNED, IT IS A PHYSIOLOGICAL REACTION.

Ahem.  In your article, you use the word 'I' at least 6 times.  This is
a key to your misunderstanding.  The operative word here is 'we'.  As
long as 'we', meaning a signifigant portion of the population, find
smoking offensive, we are going to work to ban it in public.  If you
want to continue living in our society (US or Canadian), the onus is on
you to convince the rest of us that we enjoy getting smoke blown in our
face, otherwise, majority rules.  Or, if you find the laws to be
utterly morally repugnant, you can choose civil disobediance, and face
the wrath of society.

Before anyone counters this argument by bringing up the issue of Draft
registration, which I oppose, let me address it.

Currently, there is a law which requires students receiving financial
aid to certify that they have registered for the draft.  I am actively
opposing this measure.  I see three major differences between this issue
and the smoking issue.

1.  This is a case of affirmative coercion.  That is, they are making
me do something (i.e. register), rather than setting guidelines as to where
I can do something, (i.e. smoke).

2.  It is not at all clear that there is a societal consensus on this
issue.  In fact most surveyed before the 1980 election opposed the idea.

3.  Draft registration involves a much more basic moral issue, forcing
people to kill.  It is a law which contributes to a system which may
force me to kill someone, thus depriving them of their most fundamental
right.  I really don't think that compares with forcing people not to
smoke in limited areas.


This is getting much longer than I intended, so let me finish up.  The
problem with people like Laura is that they spend too much time around
computers :-), and thusly want an ALGORITHM for everything.  In
reality, much of social descision making can only be done with
heuristics.  Laura keeps insisting on absolute declarations, which
would allow you to ban blacks as well as smoking, or neither.  Things
are just not so black and white.

Whew.


Sitting in my fallout shelter,

-- 
Larry Kolodney 
{linus decvax}!genrad!grkermit!larry
(ARPA)  rms.g.lkk@mit-ai