Erik Reuter wrote:
>
>> Do those shows enhance a social stygma against a minority
>> group, and does the targeted minority group feel offended
>> by them? The answers are No and (meaningless). So, they
>> can't be banned.
>
> So you think people who act like dummies are a majority?
>
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 09:15:01AM -0300, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> Do those shows enhance a social stygma against a minority
> group, and does the targeted minority group feel offended
> by them? The answers are No and (meaningless). So, they
> can't be banned.
So you think people who act li
Jim Sharkey wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Hrm. In Japan in particular, but also in the US,
> there are entire game shows
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> Jim Sharkey wrote:
> >
> > I am so sick of laws protecting people from themselves.
> >
> Would you support people selling themselves as slaves?
> Or people selling essencial body parts, like a cornea?
Isn't this happening? I mean selling one kidney, selling blood, or
se
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> 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.
Hrm. In Japan in particular, but also in the US, there are entire game shows
dedicated to
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 h
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>Jim Sharkey wrote:
>>
>>>Ok, so you aren't really sick of laws protecting people from
>>>themselves, right?
>>
>>I don't believe I was making that point at all by saying
>>there are limits.
>>
>Those are your words. Should I tell you to get back
>and read the fi
Jim Sharkey wrote:
>
>> Ok, so you aren't really sick of laws protecting people from
>> themselves, right?
>
> I don't believe I was making that point at all by saying
> there are limits.
>
Those are your words. Should I tell you to get back
and read the files? :-P
> You don't believe
Julia Thompson wrote:
>Jim Sharkey wrote:
>>If someone felt that blinding himself had a price tag, and his
>>blindness would not be a burden on society, I don't see why not.
>
>If the individual lived in the US and were not legally blind before
>selling the cornea, and became legally blind as a
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> Ok, so you aren't really sick of laws protecting people from
> themselves, right?
I don't believe I was making that point at all by saying there are limits. You don't
believe that a law that protects a dwarf's dignity by making him give up his job is a
ridiculous exa
Jim Sharkey wrote:
>
>>> I am so sick of laws protecting people from themselves.
>>
>> Would you support people selling themselves as slaves?
>> Or people selling essencial body parts, like a cornea?
>
> Interesting question, but really those are straw man arguments.
>
You made a general statem
Jim Sharkey wrote:
>
> Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> >
> > Jim Sharkey wrote:
> > >
> > > I am so sick of laws protecting people from themselves.
> > >
> > Would you support people selling themselves as slaves?
> > Or people selling essencial body parts, like a cornea?
> >
>
> Interesting question,
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>
> Jim Sharkey wrote:
> >
> > I am so sick of laws protecting people from themselves.
> >
> Would you support people selling themselves as slaves?
> Or people selling essencial body parts, like a cornea?
>
Interesting question, but really those are straw man arguments.
Jim Sharkey wrote:
>
> I am so sick of laws protecting people from themselves.
>
Would you support people selling themselves as slaves?
Or people selling essencial body parts, like a cornea?
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listin
Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
> A tiny stuntman who protested against a French ban on the bizarre
> practice of "dwarf throwing" lost his case before a U.N. human
> rights body, which said the need to protect human dignity was
> paramount.
It's good that the UN wants to protect people from volunt
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=573&ncid=573&e=6&u=/nm/2002
0927/od_nm/rights_dc
A tiny stuntman who protested against a French ban on the bizarre practice
of "dwarf throwing" lost his case before a U.N. human rights body, which
said the need to protect human dignity was paramoun
16 matches
Mail list logo
