Jim Sharkey wrote:
>
>> Those are your words. Should I tell you to get back
>> and read the files? :-P
>
> I think we're misunderstanding each other here.
>
Isn't this the fun of e-mail? :-)
>>> You don't believe that a law that protects a dwarf's
>>> dignity by making him give up his job is a ridiculous
>>> example of protecting people from something they don't
>>> need protecting from?
>>
>> I don't know
>
> It is a tough question, isn't it?
>
<serious> Yep </serious>
> I mean, suppose that this fellow doesn't have any other
> skills that would allow him to support himself as well
> as his chosen "profession?" Is it then incumbent on
> the government that took his job away with this law
> to train him in something else?
>
What if *all* dwarfs in the world could only work as
projectiles in this dwarf-throwing game?
>> The dwarf case *is* something that should go to the UNO,
>> because there are dwarfs all over the world.
>
> I'll grant you that point. I just don't think that it
> is up to the UNO to decide what an individual should
> do for his employment, at least as it regards negative
> social stigma. Think about the jobs in your country
> that carry one. Should they stop being performed
> because they do?
>
Some jobs are necessary. Other jobs aren't. Those jobs
that are *not* necessary, and that induce a negative
social stigma should be limited, if not eliminated at
all.
BTW, in this particular case, I think there's nothing
horrible about being used as a projectile, but I am
not a dwarf [at least not in this mailing list :-)].
IMHO it should be the dwarfs' responsibility to decide
about this issue, and then the UNO could act, based
on their decision.
Alberto Monteiro
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
