From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:16:53 GMT

In <1993Jan4.165739.1698@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.095030.6902@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>In<1993Jan1.204230.14425@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan1.194924.6013@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>>>>Yamanari writes:

>>>>#	1.  No matter how you stack the deck, it's deviant.
>>>>#	2.  Our culture seeks to cure those who are deviant from
>>>>#		their behavior.

>>>>Playing baseball is deviant. Should we seek to cure baseball players?

>>>	If someone compulsively, constantly plays baseball?  And then
>>>	whines that people wont be nice to them because they don't
>>>	have anything in common (not everyone likes talking about
>>>	baseball, playing baseball, etc, watching baseball)?

>>>	You can bet that such a person would be into a hospital faster
>>>	than you or I could say, "Home run"...

>>I'm glad I don't live in a place run by *your* odd view of liberty.  No,
>>such a person would *not* be in a hospital.  Not in this country.

>>The only time you can confine people against their will in a mental
>>hospital is when they pose a danger to others.

>>Furthermore, it goes a little beyond "won't be nice."  All the way to
>>"discriminates," in fact.

>>Personally, I think that anyone who *doesn't* like baseball is mentally
>>ill, but hey, I wouldn't prevent them from getting married, adopting
>>children, serving in the army, or visiting sick spouses.

>>As to your argument in another post about deviance, you're deliberately
>>mixing definitions.  Deviant has a connotation of *bad* as well as being
>>different from a norm.  Otherwise, deviant trivially means anything done
>>by 49% of the population or less, and doesn't give much useful information.

>>As to baseball, I think being left-handed is a more appropriate analogy.
>>It is obviously deviant by *your* definition.  Do we lock up lefties and
>>deny them basic rights?

>	Unlike homosexuality, left-handedness does not affect interpersonal;
>	interaction.

Huh?  It doesn't?  How does homosexuality affect interpersonal
interaction in a way left-handedness doesn't?  (Besides among two
homosexuals, I mean.  Obviously, it does with them, but since *they're*
not complaining about the existence homosexuality, why should you?)  I
suppose if a gay person was flirting with you, that would affect you,
but when a man flirts with a woman, we don't ban heterosexuality.

How about being Jewish?  That affects interpersonal interaction, too.
Does that mean it's okay to discriminate against Jews?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc