[FoRK] The Shift...
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
> -----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.
> The bottom line is that the prohibitionists have, at the end
> of the day, NOTHING more than an aesthetic argument.
> *** 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
More information about the FoRK