From: young@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176))
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Vegetarians and Missionaries
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:05:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: ssd.1992Apr6.220536.12690
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

grx0751@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>young@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176)) writes:
>
>>   [...]  What I meant by my
>>   statement (which you quoted) is that, regardless of the principles being
>					 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>   advocated, refusal to recognize the right of each individual to choose NOT
>   ~~~~~~~~~~~
>>   to be converted is stepping beyond the bounds of education into the domain 
>>   of pressure and imposition of your (generic "you") beliefs on an unwilling
>>   recipient.
>
>	I have very serious reservations with the above statement; certain
>	situations, do warrant imposition of beliefs, again, IMO. If one were
>	to take your statement in an absolute sense, then the high school
>	teachers should never pressure the likely drop outs to stay in the
>	school, no chronic alcoholics or drug abusers should be 'nagged' to 
>	seek help, no diabetic sweet-tooth person should be prevented from 
>	munching on sugar candies. I can give a few more examples if you 
>	please. In such cases, even though the recipient is unwilling, IT IS 
>	JUSTIFIED to impose one's beliefs on others. Think about it. 

Note carefully that I made no value judgement regarding this imposition of
will, simply that refusal to allow another's personal choice is, by
definition, imposition of will.

I must return to something else I said in a previous post: it's not so much
the axioms which are at issue as it is the attitude.  If one wishes the
actions of another, or of a group, to change, does one present data to
support the point, or does one say, "Jeez, you people are really stupid for
doing/not doing this.  An IDIOT could see that this is the 'right' path.
I've changed, so I'm not an idiot, but I see you haven't changed, and the
conclusion is obvious."  Does one explain to the diabetic that his/her sweet
tooth may well cause death, or does one rip the candy out of his/her mouth and
make thinly-veiled references to thinking capacity?  Does one stop explaining
the negatives associated with the diabetic's behavior upon request, or does
one force a lifestyle which the diabetic apparently doesn't want?  If one
persists in the face of such resistance, one must be prepared to accept the
consequences, the LEAST serious of which is criticism.

>>   [...] You have 
>>   (presumably) presented all the reasons, both personal and medical, for
>>   your concern, your father is presumably an intelligent man, why is there
>>   need to bother him further with the subject?  
>
>	Because we can't just sit there and see him suffer from the effects
>	of smoking in his later life. I thought that was obvious. Even tho'
>	he realises his folly, he is just not willing to give it up; a classic
>	state of mind of an addict. 

I understand the emotional dynamics here, but an addict quits only when the
addict WANTS to quit, not when others wish the addiction to cease.  If you've
presented the appropriate data for many years, there is clearly no "need" to
bother the subject with further presentations, although there may well be a
"desire" on your part to do so.  Suppose you were a stuntman (arguably a
risky behavior).  Would you feel sufficiently informed after the first few
parental admonitions to stop?  Or would you be grateful for continued
"nagging" designed to get you to cease the behavior?

>>   Would you feel him justified
>>   if, one day after your application of "gentle pressure", he became angry
>>   and told you to drop the subject?  
>
>	Happens every now and then, not that we do mind it. Yes I admit that
>	he is justified in getting angry, but we can't give up on him on that
>	reason alone, nor we intend to.	

Suppose he got REALLY angry and threatened to leave unless you drop the
subject permanently?  The choice, you see, is ultimately his to make, not
yours.

>>   Whenever one raises one's beliefs to
>>   the status of a religion (feeling it necessary to convert everyone to the
>>   One Perfect Truth), one begins to impinge on the rights of others to
>>   think as they please.  It is difficult enough living one's own life with
>>   integrity; trying to live everyone else's is impossible.
>
>	I agree with you in the abstract above, but there are clearly some
>	exceptional circumstances which the above principle does not apply.
>	(See above.) When that someone is very close one, a dearly loved one,
>	one can't stay on the sidelines and watch destruct themselves, trust
>	me, I am speaking from experience. I do not go around preaching every
>	other human being in earth to stop smoking, or give up meat; I do 
>	not particularly care what they do to themselves, for me they are 
>	nobody. But I cannot just stand by when that someone is my own father 
>	or my own mother or one for whom I care a lot.

Again, I understand the emotional dynamics, but these do not alter the facts:
if one continues to press, one is attempting to impose one's will on another
and must be prepared to accept the consequences of that choice, which may
well include outright rebellion.  In all of the cited examples, someone
clearly thinks that the ideas being imposed are "good", and indeed, some
may actually be beneficial, but "good" and "bad" are hardly congruent from
person to person.  The rule, "do not impose your morality upon others," is
the safest path and applies universally, if one is to promote harmony with
one's fellow humans.

>>   [....]  I do not mean to be personal here, but since you used it as an
>>   example, I'll continue with it; in your continued "nagging" of your father,
>>   have you not gone beyond simple education (surely he must know the noxious
>>   effects of smoking by now), and are you not trying to make him stop by
>>   making him feel guilty about doing it?
>
>	Twenty six years, Rich, that is how long my father has consistently
>	refused to give up smoking. If making him feel guilty about smoking
>	does the trick, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, I am
>	ready to do it. I will be glad to be a "missionary".

This is, of course, a risk about which only you can decide, but do not blame
your father if one day he asks you to leave because he's tired of hearing it.
I do sympathise with your predicament in this instance, but would you rather
have your father resent you for making him feel guilty whenever he has a
cigarette in your presence (perhaps to the point that he'd rather you not BE
present again), or would you rather he know that you accept him as he is,
faults and all?

>	The discussion here reminds me of an episode from LA LAW. In that a
>	parent ties up his teenage drug addict son (or daughter, I forget) 
>	using chains to a bed post to prevent his drug abuse. The police 
>	promptly arrest the father for 'physical child abuse'. The case goes
>	to the court, and the prosecution argues in a strikingly similar 
>	manner as you are doing. Guess who won it? The judge, in his statement
>	clearly says that the right of choice and freedom is not an absolute
>	and has to be balanced against the harm the individual creates upon 
>	himself and the society (or some such). 

Hardly legal precedent, of course, but the point is well taken.  Note,
however, that the drug abuser was not legally an adult, which might well
affect the judgement.  Beyond that, it is certainly true that one can't
yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater with impunity, unless, of course, there IS
a fire; and it's clear that you can't murder me with impunity simply because
you find nothing "wrong" with murder (hypothetical example, of course), for
by so doing you would have impinged upon MY right to live.

>	The discussion is going on all sorts of tangents; shall we take it to
>	Email? Are any netters interested in this?

I agree.  E-mail is fine with me, just make sure you USE THE ADDRESS BELOW!!!
If you "R", make sure you change the "To:" line appropriately.

-Rich (young@serum.kodak.com)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are MY opinions, don't blame them on my employer.

Don't get angry, get accurate information.