Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!jj
From: jj@alice.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Noise pollution (flame)
Message-ID: <4412@alice.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Oct-85 13:00:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.4412
Posted: Thu Oct 10 13:00:35 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 18:22:15 EDT
References: <1227@ihuxe.UUCP> <771@rduxb.UUCP>, <5241@allegra.UUCP>
Organization: New Jersey State Farm for the Terminally Bewildered
Lines: 98
Xref: watmath net.flame:12251 net.politics:11407

Dewayne Perry points out quite politely the utter falsehood of
the "majority rules" article.  My own reaction to that
same article was disgust, in fact I was disgusted enough to
not reply for fear of flaming, at least initially.

The writer of the "majority rules" article made several completely
unjustified statements, among them the completely false statement
that the writer of the noise polution article was trying to impose
his (or her) own preferences upon the general population.  

In addition, the style of writing, and the use of language,
was deliberately emotional, clearly seeking to belittle
the original writer without mercy or consideration, 
and seemed to me to show a total
lack of understanding of the initial complaint, as well as
a total (and quite selfish) disregard for the original poster.

One of the most significant problems of the modern day
United States is the compulsion (some call it, perhaps
justifiably, "tyranny") of the majority.  This compulsion
is evident in music, popular entertainment, and most of all, in television
programming.  

This sort of compulsion has been spreading in influence for
quite a while, and it is clear that at some point the rights of
the individual must be defended, if the individual is to have
any right to opinions/actions/preferences that differ from the
majority's.  The second writer's attitudes show no understanding
of that problem, and in fact actively worsen the problem by
belittling the writer who goes against the popular trend of
the day.  

In the original article, there were three complaints:


	The first was involving work, where the use of personal
stereos, etc, was creating a work environment that was
counterproductive from the writer's viewpoint.  This interference
with his work environment is detrimental to him, his (or her)
family, and to the company that he works for, hence the problem is
clearly of significant extent, over the long run.
The second poster's total disregard for
the first poster's complaint is simply uncalled for, even if the second
poster feels that the other individuals are being infringed upon
by the first individual's complaints and actions.  A more constructive
path would be to for the second writer to point out his or her
beliefs and argue for/using those beliefs.


	The second complaint involved a public place, where
the first poster complains about the use of Muzak (tm, by the way)
at a swimming pool.  (s)He details the results of a complaint
to the management.  While the management's position is supportable,
if they indeed have information to support their position, the
writer is completely justified in asking for a change.  If, of course,
the management is PRESUMING that the "noise" is justified, then
the writer may have more complaint than is clear from the
posting.  The second writer, perhaps predictably, makes an emotional
point that seems mostly devoid of meaning.


FINALLY:  THE THIRD COMPLAINT:
	The third complaint involves the INVASION of the
writer's property.  It's clear to me that this involves
the abridgement of the writer's constitutional right
to self-determination and happiness.  I simply cannot understand
why the second poster can even pretend that the writer of the
first posting is unreasonable, since the rock concerts are 
affecting the individual's actions and well-being inside of
his (her) own home.  While it is well withing my imagination
to conceive of a person who is overly sensitive to the
sounds that penetrate his (her) dwelling, I can, and will not,
assume that such is the case.  The second writer writes from the
presumtion that anyone complaining about noise from outside the home
must be unjustified.  As any city dweller knows, that presumtion
is simply false.


I contend that this exchange is a clear, and relatively noise-free 
demonstration of the abuse of a public forum, i.e. nutnoise, or
netnews, as it is commonly known by.  I am compelled by honesty
to point out that this exhange is by NO MEANS THE WORST SUCH
example.  I am using it because, and ONLY because, the
path of discussion and rhetoric is clear.

Many individuals have asked why questions of substance are
rarely argued, and this exchange shows that whenever questions
of substance are raised, the destructive, ad hominem attacks
from other "participants" so pollute the ?pages? that serious
discussion is essentially prohibited by the resulting emotional
upheavals.

NUTNEWS:  Clean up or give up.
-- 
SUPPORT SECULAR TEDDY-BEAR-ISM.
"From the cradle to the grave, from the cradle to the grave..."

(ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj