[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [ProgSoc] Have you registered to vote yet?



John, your argument is particularly ridiculous.

There's a big difference between homosexuality and smoking.

You can't really compare the idea of forbidding 5% of the population to find
companionship to not allowing somebody to get their nicotine fix in a public
place by inhaling smoke.


Gayness doesn't cause AIDS. Unsafe sex spreads AIDS - like Smoking, the
media is already quite aggressive (and is getting increasingly aggressive)
in discouraging unsafe sex.


You keep ignoring the fact that you're trying to compare a specific action
(a method of getting nicotine into the bloodstream) that negatively affects
the lives of other people with a personal trait that (in itself) does no
harm.

You can smoke at home or a cigar club for all I care (provided you don't at
a later age expect non-smokers to foot your medical bills), and you can use
chewing tobacco or snus when you need a fix in places that non-smokers or
children share. I don't see the problem with a ban on smoking in public
places, in the same way I don't see a problem with the government very
aggressively discouraging unsafe sex that spreads AIDS, or in, say, having
it illegal (and seriously punishable) to knowingly have unprotected sex
without disclosing that you've got AIDS.


If you want to make a point, I think you need to come up with a better
example, because your current argument is very confused and insulting.

-Ben

-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: [ProgSoc] Have you registered to vote yet?

Andrew Halliday wrote:
> Interesting. I counter your pro-smoker argument that we are right in
> encouraging people to quit by limiting their freedom to impose their foul
> atmosphere on others and you counter that with making being gay illegal.

The last time I was up on the second level of Arq the distinct smell of 
anal sex was in the air.

Of course, I didn't have to be there.

> I struggle to see the validity of that argument.

It's metaphor. It's allegory. I'm demonstrating the concept of freedom 
in a paradigmatic fashion.

Perhaps you suffer from the form of aphasia that leads to a substitution 
deficiency.

> My being gay does not impact on your health or the health of others. Your
> smoking however does impact on the health of me and society.

The problem is one of degree. The health risk of passive smoking is 
tiny. Smaller than all sorts of other far more serious risks that you 
take every day. Further, if you don't want to be in the vicinity of 
smokers, then don't go into smoking spaces. (Per the analogy: if I don't 
want to be around the smell of anal sex, then I shouldn't hang out in 
dodgy gay bars at 3am. Or, if I don't want to have a statistically 
significant increased risk of contracting aids, then I should refrain 
from homosexual practices.)

> Sorry, but if you're going to attempt to counter my argument with that
kind
> of crap I would have thought you would have at least tried the pathetic
> stance of first limiting gay rights (oh wait, we don't really have any to
> limit do we?) and freedom of assembly first.

I have pretty much just fled into the exile of my own home, anyway. I 
don't much enjoy going out these days, as I find the increasing 
sterility and regulation of social spaces depressing.

If you can't see the analogy between "gay bars" and "smoking in pubs" 
then I can't help you.

How about we don't make being gay illegal, we just make it illegal for 
gay people to congregate in and/or advertise "gay bars". You can be gay 
at home. For now.

Oh, except you'd need to get a picture of a young man with aids tattooed 
to your bum, so even when you *were* at home, we'd have the state there 
reminding you that you really shouldn't be doing that. It's a health 
risk. We're just here to help. (Per the analogy: in my own home I have 
gross images and alarmist depressive propaganda on my cigarette packets 
and therefore in my presence. I don't want it there, but the state 
thinks that's a good idea. It's for my own good.)

Oh, and you need to pay the "gay tax". This is because by being gay and 
thereby creating more of a market for others to be gay you are effecting 
the ability of society to produce children, and this is damaging to the 
economy. (Per the analogy: smoking is taxed because of the alleged 
'economic burden' of those who suffer from smoking related illness.)

> I suppose I should counter your argument by suggesting a prohibition on
> tobacco related products and all smoking in public places.

The problem is that (per the numbers you quote) one fifth of the public 
enjoys smoking. That's *twenty percent* of the public. In view of this I 
think it's reasonable that something in the order of twenty percent of 
public space should be "zoned" as a smoking area. That's assuming you 
let the state regulate it at all. What's wrong with letting the market 
decide which venues and/or public spaces it is acceptable to smoke in?

> My life is not defined by my sexuality. Just like not all peoples lives
are
> defined by their faith or culture.
> And although your life is not defined by your smoking habit, your habit
> impacts on those around you.

Of course it does. Just like your sexuality impacts on those around you.

The idea is that we find ways to accommodate each other.

> I realise this. I find your frustration with the "life's not just about
you"
> statement quite amusing considering you were the one whinging about your
> wanting to smoke therefore making this all "about you". The problem is
that
> you smoking in your space is unacceptable when the smoke impacts on my
> space.

No, the problem is that you would claim for "your space" *all* public space.

> Correction. The State acts to protect the individual from itself and the
> rest of the society from the individual.

Who is protecting the interests of smokers from those individuals who 
would seek to manipulate and/or oppress them?

> Indeed. The smoking individual is encouraged (but not forced -the choice
is
> still with the individual) to be liberated from their addiction. I think
> that the measures currently in place reflect the fact that over 80% of the
> population (and growing) does not smoke and does not want to be imposed
upon
> by those that do. You have a choice. You can smoke in your car, in your
> house and you can still buy tobacco products. We are limiting your ability
> to impact on others.

No, what you're doing is trying to destroy smoking culture because you 
happen not to like it.

> I would strongly advise you to resist any future urge to make further
> homophobic comments.
> They are ignorant, offensive, provocative and misleading.

I think it's funny to witness your implicit threat. Do you concede 
defeat? You haven't got a principled leg to stand on, have you?

My comments aren't homophobic. That's not possible, as I'm not a homophobe.

My comments may be provocative. To the extent that you find them 
ignorant, offensive, or misleading, I imagine that's because you're 
suffering cognitive dissonance. You're having trouble resolving the fact 
that your treatment of smokers is likewise ignorant, offensive, and 
misleading -- which is, frankly, exactly how I feel, and exactly what 
I've shown.

I would hope it would go without saying that I wouldn't for a minute 
support the persecution of gays. Then again, I would also hope it would 
go without saying that people wouldn't for a minute support the 
persecution of smokers.











-
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to progsoc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you are having trouble, ask owner-progsoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for help.


-
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to progsoc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you are having trouble, ask owner-progsoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for help.