🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <53m9sr$pft@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>, Debbie O'Leary
<doleary@falstaff.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:

> jam81@columbia.edu (Jake Minas) wrote:
> >In article <53ksmd$1ff@news2.cais.com>, b@bb.net wrote:
> >
> >> My God!  anyone with these ideas would be an outcast in European
> >> countries.... they'd view you as a pedophile or a pervert if you
> >> proposed regulating breastfeeding. They would (properly) assume that
> >> you have some guilt or pre-concieved misconceptions about sex that
> >> would make you a danger to society.
> >
> >So I take it if I were opposed to public defecation, these enlightened
> >Europeans would think I'm a coprophile (someone with a sexual fetish for
> >feces).  I imagine the vast majority of Americans oppose public
> >defecation.  Do we all just get really horny around shit, then?
> >
> 
> You teach law or you are studying to be a lawyer? Either way, I'm 
> surprised with the logical leap you just took here. 
> Debbie

Its easy to make snotty comments, but if this is such a "logical leap,"
surely you can point to the hole in my analogy.  Poster 1 favors that
public breastfeeding be prohibited, curtailed, or regulated.  Poster 2
claims that anyone who proposes that must have some sort of fetish for
breastfeeding, children, or something.  The principal poster 2 seems to be
articulating is that if you propose the public display of some act, you
must find that act to be sexually arousing.  Therefore, I say, it should
follow that if the vast majority of Americans favor the banning of public
defecation, said vast majority should be coprophiles.  Unless you think
that people only oppose defecation as a sewage issue (think: would it be
okay with the Joe Sixpack if I were to walk down the street and shit in a
jar?), the analogy fits.

Poster 2's claim strikes me as patently silly.  The only reason that I
responded to it was the visciousness of the ad hominem, essentially a
claim that poster 1 is some sort of sex criminal.  Such accusations are
serious and should not be made lightly.  It was highly uncalled for.

-- 
Jake Minas
Columbia Law School
jam81@columbia.edu