🚀 go-pugleaf

jam81@columbia.edu (Jake Minas) Said this:


>Your diatribe might have some basis if the *only* reason that society bans
>public defecation is concerns over public health.  It is true that public
>health is a valid and sufficient justification for the ban, considering
>the awful experiences medieval European cities had with disease
>transmission through feces.  But its hardly the only reason.  Because
>society also punishes relatively sanitary public defecation.  Here's a
>test.  Walk out on a crowded streetcorner, drop your drawers and defecate
>into a jar, seal the jar, and throw the jar away.  1) did passersby look
>nonchalant while you did it and 2) did the cop on the corner not give you
>a good dressing down and a heavy fine?  For extra points, you could offer
>to show it and/or sell the jar to people (now, don't forget our favorite
>peace officer) and gauge their reactions.

>Now, I suppose you can say that when defecation is banned for "public
>decency" as opposed to "public health" reasons, then its banning is
>illegitimate.  But it is just plain disingenuous for you to argue that
>prevailing social standards agree with you.

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

That is a typical lawyer tactic isn't it?  Let's mince words, even
though it was clear to everyone what the point was.   Not to mention
that you have gone from one angle, and then countered the argument in
a completely different manner.  Let me tell you this before you
graduate from columbia and begin practicing law... Judges are very
good at recognizing the relevance of an argument, juries are not....
choose a jury for every case you argue!

>
>>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?
>

The argument I offered was to counter your assertion which didn't
follow logic.  You were using algebra to come up with the above
conclusion, and then you have extended it even further in the latest
argument, but in a totally different direction.  "if a = b and c = d,
then we can stretch and say that a = d, and while we're at it, c = z"

To the argument that europeans would view a person proposing
legislation against public breastfeeding as a pedophile or sexually
deranged, you compare that to someone who is against public defecation
being a coprophile.  

My argument is that no, the public attitude would be different, since
there are truly BONA-FIDE medical/health/cleanliness issues that
support that view, whereas your own personal views about breastfeeding
do not have any FACTUAL basis, they are merely based on your OPINION,
your HANG UPS, and thus, people WILL question those views, and will
conclude that the reasons are deviant tendencies on your part. 

So, this doesn't have anything to do with WHY it is not acceptable to
shit in public, it has to do with what people would THINK of someone
based on their view of that issue.  There may be any number of valid
reasons to support a law against shitting in public, but the fact of
the matter is, that most people will agree that health is the PRIMARY
reason. Smell is probably the 2nd or 3rd reason. :)  

Okay, let's stretch this one   R e a l l y    f a r . . . . .   You're
accustomed to stretches aren't you.

If you were to stand up in public and demand that shitting in public
be illegal, because you are afraid that someone would see your hairy
ass and rape you, people would think that you had some deep seated
fears against homosexuals.  does this then validate or invalidate the
decision that it be illegal?  NOT really, but there would definately
be some strange looks from people.

I don't know if you've been dragged too deep into the convoluted logic
of legal-speak or not to be able to differentiate between the "ANY
MEANS NECESSARY" logical leaps of lawyering to the "let's try to stay
within reason" arguments of the real world.  It appears you want to
"win the case, sway the jury"  in this argument, rather than come up
with an argument that NORMAL people will actually buy.