[FoRK] The Shift...

Jim Whitehead ejw at soe.ucsc.edu
Thu May 26 14:33:02 PDT 2005

So, if when taking an action we find that we are not totally free from
hypocrisy, then we should not act?

The slave-holding founding fathers of the US were a bunch of hypocrites, no?
I'm glad they didn't let that stop them from issuing the Declaration of

- Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: fork-bounces at xent.com [mailto:fork-bounces at xent.com] On 
> Behalf Of Jeff Bone
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 2:03 PM
> To: forkit!Now
> Subject: [FoRK] The Shift...
> Matt says:
> > The purpose of the smoking ban is to protect employees from second- 
> > hand smoke, not to protect the smokers from themselves.  If 
> the club 
> > members would fire the staff, and volunteer to handle the duties 
> > themselves, my two-bit guess is that they would then be free of the 
> > ban.
> What a load.  Do you really buy this line of thinking, Matt?  
> So let's see if I can shine the harsh light of truth on this 
> claim and reveal the hypocrisy.  (Note I'm not accusing *you* 
> of this hypocrisy, Matt --- indeed this claim *is* advanced 
> as one of the major arguments for banning smoking.  I just 
> believe that the claim is hypocritical and not a little cynical.)
> "We want to ban smoking in bars, etc. to protect bar workers 
> from exposure to smoke.  We can't allow people to take 
> responsibility for selecting jobs with various levels of 
> occupational hazard."
> So we probably need to ban coal and other mining, steel 
> foundries, petroleum refineries, crop dusting, deep-sea 
> welding, auto racing, contact sports, firefighting, law 
> enforcement, high-rise construction, lumberjacks, truck 
> drivers, anything involving demolitions, the military, x-ray 
> technicians, nuclear power plant technicians, cab drivers, 
> most heavy industry, all jobs involving installation or 
> maintenance of the power grid, and all sorts of other 
> vocations, right? ***  I mean, after all, these dangerous 
> blue collar jobs "exploit" poor people and put them in harm's 
> way daily --- far more clear and present danger than 
> second-hand smoking.  I mean, it's a principle of the matter, 
> right?  Workers can't be responsible for their own choices 
> and MUST be protected from the evil exploitation of business 
> owners or even civic and government agencies.
> Wrong.  Most prohibitionists don't give a rat's ass about the 
> fucking bar workers.  That's just cynical misdirection at 
> worst, totally transparent self-delusion at best.
> Bzzzzt.
> The bottom line is that the prohibitionists have, at the end 
> of the day, NOTHING more than an aesthetic argument.
> Next.
> jb
> *** Holy Fuck, if we *really* want to be sincere about this 
> totally bogus claim then we'd better either (a) get robots 
> pronto or (b) just roll back society to some agrarian 
> pre-industrial norm.  Hmm, but if we do *that* we're gonna 
> have to have to encourage a massive "die- back" (cough) 
> which, hmm, might be worse than second hand smoke in the first place.
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork

More information about the FoRK mailing list