Text 174, 95 rader
Skriven 2005-02-17 17:41:08 av Marius Bendiksen (2:211/37)
     Kommentar till en text av Bob Lawrence
Ärende: Fantastic fantasy!
==========================
>> Irrelevant. I don't want to breathe your smoke, regardless of
>> risk. You don't have the right to impose so much as discomfort
>> on me.

> There is an obvious reply which I won't use, but it goes something
> like ... you. Who lets you decide what *I* can do? What made you
> superior to me in a public place? If you don't like me, go away. And
> if *you* can decide what *I* can do, then what if I insist that you
> only wear black because colours offend me? Where does it end?

A better counterexample would be body odor. If one person is not allowed to
impose the discomfort of passive smoking on another, it stands to reason that
BO would be treated the same. Potential health risk aside.

Maybe it could be resolved by formalizing a first-come-first-served thingy.

That said, I positively hate passive smoking, amongst other things because it
irritates my airways, and causes my eyes and nose to be runny for days, but
more importantly because it is a symbol of the inconsiderate attitude of most
smokers. If I can avoid disturbing someone at little cost to myself, I do so.
Similarly, if they'd just move downwind of me, or sit down at a table further
away, or wait until I was done eating before lighting a cig (assuming I was
almost done), that'd be considerate. While I don't have a right to demand that
people be considerate, I do feel justified in being angry with them.

Either way, I'm more opposed to using law as a means of "social harmonization"
then I am opposed to smoking. In a democracy, however, social harmonization is
one of the primary uses of the law, especially in socialist countries (e.g.
USA).

As a side note, after Norway banned smoking in restaurants, bars and so forth,
a number of people are now able to enjoy the night life that weren't previously
able to do so. As a result, the profit has actually climbed, much to the
chagrin of the naysayers ;)

> It amazes me that you can say that, and advocate the freedom to bear
> arms! ROFL! I'd rather take my chances with a psychotic poodle than a
> psycho with an M-16.

Definitely. While there is some truth to the statement about guns not killing
people, rather people killing people, there is also the point that they do make
it easier to kill someone, especially at a distance, thereby amplifying the
destructive potential of an unstable person. Up close, a knife is still much
more dangerous, though.

As for dogs, I don't see why people can't realize that it's much the same
thing, although with much more limited potential for damage. I don't see why
dogs should be penalized for having been unfortunate enough to end up with bad
owners, or for having been provoked. I mean, it's simple enough to avoid
provoking a dog, even one that is inherently agressive: don't make sudden moves
toward it. Even a child can be easily made to understand this.

> ROFL! A trained attack cat! This is going from the sublime to the
> ridiculous, Bob. Are you having a lend of me, or what?

Er. Excuse me?

You are, I hope, aware that Siamese cats were originally bred to be bodyguards
in Siam? They are very possessive and quite protective of their owners and
territories.

I take it you have not been attacked by a cat. I have, and would take an attack
by a dog over an attack by a determined cat any day. They move so damn fast
that you don't have a chance at stopping them, they can climb on your clothes,
and they always go for the eyes and throat when they want to take you down.
Those claws and fangs are *damn* sharp. An attack by a dog is simple enough to
handle, by contrast, and I have tried both.

>> Would you allow mice to run free around your children?

> I'd rather do that than put them on a leash. People would giggle at
> me.

Yeah. Besides, what gives us the right to displace all other life on this
planet to make things more comfortable for ourselves?

> Then substitute any succulent fruit. Alcohol production is a natural
> process in ripening fruit. Mangoes are best when a bit "off." My point
> is that ZERO is an insane level for *anything*. It can't be measured.

You seem to forget the direction in which the detection error goes. Anything
below 0,02% (in Norway, other countries may use other measuring instruments
with different tolerances) turns up as zero. Hence, zero, rather than setting
some arbitrary limit. The error rounds down.

> I don't think so. Law only seems to go one way... more and more
> restriction for better and better reasons.

Er.. I'd beg to differ. Law only seems to go one way... more and more
restriction and vagueness for more and more popular, short-term reasons.

Marius

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Circle Of Protection (2:211/37)