Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!gummo!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!we13!otuxa!ll1!sb1!burl!duke!mcnc!unc!tim From: tim@unc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Farters Rights and unclean hobbits Message-ID: <5598@unc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 21-Jul-83 22:48:41 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.5598 Posted: Thu Jul 21 22:48:41 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 27-Jul-83 22:57:36 EDT Lines: 112 Here is a letter from my little friend Frodo. Dear, sweet Frodo has threatened to piss in my dinner, as you may recall. I can certainly understand why the poor dear feels that I am victimizing him. Certainly if I threatened to mix my processed bodily fluids with a person's repast in a urinary fashion, I would feel quite bad about the person having attacked me. What could the provocation possibly be? We can see the hairy little devil thrashing here on the horns of his dilemma. In your attack on myself and jrf, you did just what you accused both of us of doing. Attacking, without understanding what we were trying to say. The quote that you pulled out of my article was a tail end comment directed in general, not necessarily toward you. Poor guy. It really breaks my heart when someone goes out of their way to be nice to somebody else by mixing his kidney-transformed liquids with the other's hard, indigestible meal, only to be met by a totally irrational outcry. The gist of the article was a response to your statement that unless there was "substatial evidence" (or something like that), you would oppose laws...etc..etc...which I understand. I just can't believe your logic. From your article in defense of smokers' rights, I concluded that you were a smoker. An obvious conclusion, since you did not state that you were a non-smoker. Obvious if you are attempting to show that your view of the issue is so limited that you can't conceive of any rational disagreement, that is. But with you, I guess we can take that as a given. Frodo is not a "half-witted, deformed little beast". I think you will find many people that will disagree with you. If you want to attack me, attack ME. I put my real name in the articles. There is no reason to attack a Hobbit. Now, search your memory here, small guy. Who attacked whom? Now, can the cute widdle hobbit really expect that if he takes gratuitous pot shots at someone, that someone will become his good friend and treat him real nice? Or, to put it in human terms: I'll treat you well until you take a pot shot at me, after which I'll feel free to enjoy myself. Oh yes, and I hardly consider "hou5f!jrt" to be a "real name". Or did they forgot to give your mother the Thorazine that day? In your attack you argue that you are against restricting the "liberties" of anyone, in spite of the fact that there is a general consensus. Gee, there is a general consensus that murder is not appreciated. You must feel that there should be no laws restricting anyone's "liberty" or "right" to murder, even though most people feel that murder is bad. I do not think that murder laws should be considered to be just simply because of the fact that societal consensus supports them. I think they should be considered to be just because murder is depriving someone else of his or her liberty wantonly and without sufficient cause, in an objectively observable fashion. Similarly for rape, slavery, etc. Societal consensus is notoriously repressive and cruel. It is not a fit basis on which to restrict liberty. That approach is nothing but social behavior control, with people imprisoning others for what can be considered at most an unwillingness to conform. There must be a need for a law. I have deliberately avoided mention of "rights" because the word carries a lot of philosophical baggage around; "liberty" is an exact statement of what I mean. Liberty is the ability to do a thing. To restrict someone else's liberty, there must be a need. I agree with you on one thing (yes AGREE), that people should not be restricted in their liberties and freedoms. I differ from you in that I do feel liberties and rights should be restricted when they infringe upon the freedoms and rights of others. For example the right to life, or the right to breath CLEAN AIR, etc. What do you think I am, some kind of marauding ogre??? I consider this statement to be extremely insulting to my intelligence, probably deliberately so on your part. Have you read any of the seemingly hundreds of articles I've posted recently on this subject? IF SO, THEN WHY DO I HAVE TO KEEP REPEATING THINGS, GOD DAMN IT? I favor environmental legislation. Dumping your poisons on someone without their consent should be considered a crime because it deprives the person of liberty by shortening their life, reducing their mobility, etc. No one has yet produced evidence that AMBIENT cigarette smoke is a poison worth the restriction of liberty. It is not clear that the studies on direct ingestion of the smoke should be considered generalizable to the ambient case. How the hell am I supposed to get anything said if people won't listen to me? There is nothing, no thing at all, about smoking in this article which I haven't said before. That's why I'm so pissed off. Frodo shows no signs of having even read any of my submissions before charging to the attack. Apparently he already knows what I'm going to say, so he doesn't have to confuse himself with the facts of what I actually am saying. The anger in my article is not just show, it is very real. I hate repeating myself, you hairy-footed fool, so don't expect me to be nice to you when you refuse to grant me even the courtesy of your attention, and don't cry when I respond to your attacks in kind. ______________________________________ The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney duke!unc!tim (USENET) tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA) The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill