Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou5e.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!mat From: mat@hou5e.UUCP (M Terribile) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Farters Rights and unclean hobbits Message-ID: <677@hou5e.UUCP> Date: Tue, 26-Jul-83 17:08:23 EDT Article-I.D.: hou5e.677 Posted: Tue Jul 26 17:08:23 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 27-Jul-83 04:28:54 EDT References: <5598@unc.UUCP> Organization: American Bell ED&D, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 120 The saga continues. Our hero Frodo and the evil unc!tim are engaged in a struggle for truthm, justice, and clean or dirty air unc!tim Here is a letter from my little friend Frodo. Dear, sweet Frodo has threatened to piss in my dinner, as you may recall. ... . . . unc!tim 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? Pos shots indeed! Frodo 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. unc!tim 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.** Ok. But who is to judge that an objective and observable act robs people of their liberty? Societal consensus, with some procedure thrown in, is about all we have ... and ultimately is what our government is based on. If the gevernment can or proscribe the emmission of toxic manufacturing products or byproducts into the environment, then why can it not regulate the emmision of KNOWN CARCINOGENS and ALLERGY-TRIGGERING SUBSTANCES into the environment by individuals. 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. Is prohibiting public smoking the same as imprisonment? If you can't do better than that, perhaps we should stop taking you seriously. unc!tim 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? Yes, and if I am to believe that you mean what they seem to say you are either an imbecile or a sadist. An imbecile if you don't recognize the rather high probability of danger to my health from nearby smokers, or a sadist if you want to keep me exposed to it knowing the dangers. IF SO, THEN WHY DO I HAVE TO KEEP REPEATING THINGS, GOD DAMN IT? I thought that you didn't believe in either God or hell? As to why you have to keep repeating things: you don't. I suspect most of us, having rejected your arguments as foolish and insulting, have decided that you are indeed an imbecile. I for one would like to see you shut up (this IS net.flame, so I can say what I want). unc!tim 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. No one is SURE that red dye #2 or any of a large number of other chemicals proscribed from products destined for human consumption is dangerous. We have very good evidence that some of them are, and rather tenuous evidence against others. But we forbid them. Why? Because in SOME situations that are expected to mirror real life they are found to be dangerous. We KNOW that cigarette smoke is harmful to the smoker. Further, there are many compounds in it that are dangerous, and that are bioactive even in minute quantity. Should I assume that because I am not absorbing as much of these compounds as the smoker I am not going to be injured? I KNOW my health is being affected. If you do not believe me I suggest that you bring an allergist and an ear, nose, and throat specialist into my office. My officemates will be GLAD to light up, and then we can observe, in an objective and measurable fashion, the effect of these poisons on my body. unc!tim How the hell am I supposed to get anything said if people won't listen to me? We are listening to you. We find your position undefensable. It is you who are not listening! unc!tim The anger in my article is not just show, it is very real. So is my anger when somelights up on the subway next to me and then some pretentious twerp from a college that I never heard of before tells me that the is not violating my rights. unc!tim 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 Nice! We don't expect you to be nice. It is obviously beyond your powers to be either nice or rational. And your keyboard certainly IS overworked! Do you do ANYTHING besides reply to netnews? Mark Terribile hou5e!mat