September 27th, 2006


Previous Entry Next Entry
01:51 pm - on banning public smoking...

(87 comments | Leave a comment)

 
on banning public smoking... - graffiti.maverick

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile


Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

Wrestling
> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

Other
> 1KWFFH
> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr

Comments:


[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:25 pm (Link)
no its not... its intentionally ludicrous... which was the point all along. If I wanted to make a logical one I would have pointed out what I pointed out elsewhere. Its the same as banning gay people. You say "the gay people aren't hurting anyone." But the religious right says they're as dangerous as the smokers. Same with abortions. Or rap music. Or black people not being slaves. Or the blinding glare from your forehead.
[User Picture]From: drspooky Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:28 pm (Link)
Yes, but none of those comparisons have science on their side. A ban on smoking does.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:49 pm (Link)
sure they have science. its just christian science instead of your crazy pagan alchemybiology. :-)

But ok, let's say homosexuality. Western science certainly tells us that if we allow legalized sodomy the rate of HIV transmission for the public goes up even among those not engaging in the practice themselves since they can't know for sure that their monogomous partners or their partners former partners never engaged in the practice. But I can't support a ban on that either.
[User Picture]From: drspooky Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:51 pm (Link)
It's also my choice to engage in sodomy of it's related activites. Hell, you can have anal sex on a table right in front of me and it isn't going to do a thing to me. However, you can't have a cigarette at that same table and expect me not to breath in your exhaust.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:55 pm (Link)
right... but assuming Laura decides to have anal sex, she has now put you at risk. The solution isn't to outlaw her from having anal sex. The solution is that if you don't want to be at risk, you shouldn't fuck her.
[User Picture]From: drspooky Date: September 27th, 2006 - 08:01 pm (Link)
But the point is that inhaling someone elses smoke is not a choice that I've made. Choosing to be sexually active is a choice that I have personally made for myself.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 08:24 pm (Link)
Yes, but you chose to walk in to Mav's Bar and Grill where smoking is accepted. If it really bothered you, you could go to Jameel's Bar and Grill where it is not. The only time its a problem is when you want to go Jameel's Bar and Grill and Laura wants to go to Mav's Bar and Grill. Then you simply have to make a choice. One of you sucks it up or you go to separate places.

The smoking is just a red herring. It would be the same problem if my bar played country western and Jameel's bar played jazz. Its just that its easy to single smoking out because "of course it caused a health risk and country western music doesn't." But that's my point. Plenty of so called people would also say "of course sodomy causes a public health risk" or "of course abortion causes a public (moral) health risk."
[User Picture]From: froggiesocks Date: September 27th, 2006 - 09:17 pm (Link)
"Western science certainly tells us that if we allow legalized sodomy the rate of HIV transmission for the public goes up even among those not engaging in the practice themselves"

Can you direct me to a reference supporting this? I don't think I've ever seen this particular claim made before.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 09:59 pm (Link)
Oh, pretty much all HIV literature states that its more easily transmitted through anal sex than vaginal. Therefore, in theory, if we outlaw anal sex, HIV transmission goes down. The reason it affects those who don't engage in it is because raising the chance of infection on any given person raises the chance of infection among all of their partners.

Similarly, I could have just as easily pointed to polyamory, or shared needle use. If we suddenly magically force people to be lifetime monogomous then HIV infection goes WAY down regardless of the sexual practices of any given lifetime pair as the means of infection for any lifetime pair who doesn't already have the virus present in one partner or the other is now severely limited without the option of sexual transmission.

And my claim is pretty much false if you assume that the legality or illegality of sodomy doesn't affect the number of people who engage in it. But we don't have a way of magically stopping any practice.

That said, its a load of hooey, which is why I brought it up in the first place. I brought it up as an easily torn down strawman akin to the theory that aborting all black babies will lower the crime rate.

Oh, and hi there... nice to see you commenting again. :-)
 

• Go to Top
LiveJournal.com