Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!hogpd!jrrt From: jrrt@hogpd.UUCP (R.MITCHELL) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Laura vs. Larry Message-ID: <111@hogpd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Aug-83 11:07:55 EDT Article-I.D.: hogpd.111 Posted: Wed Aug 17 11:07:55 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Aug-83 23:37:13 EDT Lines: 145 I've been a passive, but vitally interested bystander in the wide-ranging debate that has been going on about smokers, rights, and Society's role in regulating behavior. I'll warn everyone in advance that in general Laura gets my vote as Most Sensible Person on the Net. As a gesture of support for a beleagured (in *my* eyes, perhaps not hers), I hereby donate my tuppence worth: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Larry Kolodney: ... your [Laura's] 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ First, this is a non sequitor. Your example does not support your thesis (or if it does, you must more actively draw the connection for weak-minded people such as I). Second, I respectfully disagree. If I may interpret "banned" to mean "designated as illegal, with punishment for violation of the law", then I suggest "banned" behavior mirrors quite well the normative values of society. By Webster, "normative" refers to "of, relating or conforming to, or prescribing norms," so that society's normative values must be expressed in the legal restrictions that form "normal" behavior. Of course, the legislators get to define normal, but in a democracy, at least in theory, the majority of citizens will agree on a case-by-case definition of "normal". The poor minority, and people who disagree with the process on philosophical reasons (Libertarians, etc) have to decide for themselves whether to compromise their beliefs or compromise their "normality". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Larry: 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I completely agree with your discussion of the black situation. Note that it supports my position that laws reflect Society's [aggregated] values. When Society believed that blacks were second-class citizens, then interracial marriage was sodomy, hence abnormal, hence illegal. Once people were educated, Society's values changed, and blacks could be treated (at least superficially) as normal citizens. I believe the second half of that paragraph is another non sequitor. I also believe you are wrong. First, just because a "great many people find it *physically* irritating" is no reason to ban something, although this is a philosophical point that I don't see us ever agreeing on. A quicker person than I has already commented on the individuals who are ultra-sensitive to perfumes, synthetic fabrics, and so on -- since such items are *physically* irritating (and sometimes fatally so), they should likewise be banned. (While we're at it; I'm horribly allergic to beestings -- you should support me in my campaign to rid the earth of these deadly creatures! :-)). Second, the "physiological" approach is specious, to use your word. It *can* be unlearned (after all, the smoker had to unlearn it). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Larry: 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes, go ahead, work to ban it. Meanwhile I, a non-smoker, will work to stop you. Your "onus" sentence is silly. No one is trying to tell you what you find enjoyable. What I am suggesting is that your (and my) evaluation of an action as good or bad should not be imposed on all members of Society. Besides, you want to add to the already over-legislated American legal system. I respectfully suggest that the onus is on *you* to prove that your ban will improve the quality of life (whatever *that* may be). As far as "majority rules", what makes you think you have a majority? (I don't know either, we'll find out either way as we work on our respective positions). By the way, "majority rules" sounds an awful lot like "might makes right". Are you sure you want to say that? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Larry: 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). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Setting guidelines" is a euphemistic way of saying "prohibiting under penalty of law." Also, I see no difference in the nature of coercion for the two cases. Yes, Draft registration is wrong (in my eyes) for the reason you mention (and I say this as an ex-Naval officer who served in the days when the military was grossly undermanned, but the draft was not in effect). However, John Q. Government has no more right to say "You can't smoke in public" than he has to say "You must serve in the military". {No sexism intended}. This is an ideological claim, however, and I don't expect you to agree. I'm probably not eloquent enough to convince you of what to me is a crucial identity. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Larry: 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am not convinced that there is societal consensus on either issue. See Laura's comment about the 49/51 percent controversy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Larry: 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I really don't think you're correct. I think the moral issue is identical in either case. Should Society (or Government) mandate laws that limit the citizens' behavior? If the answer is "it depends", then what are the specific considerations and limitations? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Larry: 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Alas, Larry's sins are mine own, too. This is too long a response, but be gentle, it's my first time. As a parting volley, let me suggest that Larry is partially correct when he states that the world is not black and white. However, once you've taken a stand on a position, and fully understand the presumably rational reasons why you've taken that stand, then to be completely rational you must absolutely insist on applying those rational reasons to any corresponding situation. To do less would be hypocritical at best. Whew. Rob Mitchell hogpd!jrrt