jj@alice.UUCP (10/10/85)
Dewayne Perry points out quite politely the utter falsehood of the "majority rules" article. My own reaction to that same article was disgust, in fact I was disgusted enough to not reply for fear of flaming, at least initially. The writer of the "majority rules" article made several completely unjustified statements, among them the completely false statement that the writer of the noise polution article was trying to impose his (or her) own preferences upon the general population. In addition, the style of writing, and the use of language, was deliberately emotional, clearly seeking to belittle the original writer without mercy or consideration, and seemed to me to show a total lack of understanding of the initial complaint, as well as a total (and quite selfish) disregard for the original poster. One of the most significant problems of the modern day United States is the compulsion (some call it, perhaps justifiably, "tyranny") of the majority. This compulsion is evident in music, popular entertainment, and most of all, in television programming. This sort of compulsion has been spreading in influence for quite a while, and it is clear that at some point the rights of the individual must be defended, if the individual is to have any right to opinions/actions/preferences that differ from the majority's. The second writer's attitudes show no understanding of that problem, and in fact actively worsen the problem by belittling the writer who goes against the popular trend of the day. In the original article, there were three complaints: The first was involving work, where the use of personal stereos, etc, was creating a work environment that was counterproductive from the writer's viewpoint. This interference with his work environment is detrimental to him, his (or her) family, and to the company that he works for, hence the problem is clearly of significant extent, over the long run. The second poster's total disregard for the first poster's complaint is simply uncalled for, even if the second poster feels that the other individuals are being infringed upon by the first individual's complaints and actions. A more constructive path would be to for the second writer to point out his or her beliefs and argue for/using those beliefs. The second complaint involved a public place, where the first poster complains about the use of Muzak (tm, by the way) at a swimming pool. (s)He details the results of a complaint to the management. While the management's position is supportable, if they indeed have information to support their position, the writer is completely justified in asking for a change. If, of course, the management is PRESUMING that the "noise" is justified, then the writer may have more complaint than is clear from the posting. The second writer, perhaps predictably, makes an emotional point that seems mostly devoid of meaning. FINALLY: THE THIRD COMPLAINT: The third complaint involves the INVASION of the writer's property. It's clear to me that this involves the abridgement of the writer's constitutional right to self-determination and happiness. I simply cannot understand why the second poster can even pretend that the writer of the first posting is unreasonable, since the rock concerts are affecting the individual's actions and well-being inside of his (her) own home. While it is well withing my imagination to conceive of a person who is overly sensitive to the sounds that penetrate his (her) dwelling, I can, and will not, assume that such is the case. The second writer writes from the presumtion that anyone complaining about noise from outside the home must be unjustified. As any city dweller knows, that presumtion is simply false. I contend that this exchange is a clear, and relatively noise-free demonstration of the abuse of a public forum, i.e. nutnoise, or netnews, as it is commonly known by. I am compelled by honesty to point out that this exhange is by NO MEANS THE WORST SUCH example. I am using it because, and ONLY because, the path of discussion and rhetoric is clear. Many individuals have asked why questions of substance are rarely argued, and this exchange shows that whenever questions of substance are raised, the destructive, ad hominem attacks from other "participants" so pollute the ?pages? that serious discussion is essentially prohibited by the resulting emotional upheavals. NUTNEWS: Clean up or give up. -- SUPPORT SECULAR TEDDY-BEAR-ISM. "From the cradle to the grave, from the cradle to the grave..." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
daw1@rduxb.UUCP (WILLIAMS) (10/12/85)
> The first was involving work, where the use of personal > stereos, etc, was creating a work environment that was > counterproductive from the writer's viewpoint. This interference From *the writer's* viewpoint! How about this: The ten other people enjoying the music are doing their work at a somewhat higher efficiency since they are fighting boredom via the music. One guy is affected negatively. So it seems to me that "The Co." is better off WITH music. > with his work environment is detrimental to him, his (or her) > family, and to the company that he works for, hence the problem is > clearly of significant extent, over the long run. Detrimental to his family too? So he doesn't like music and goes home and beats the wife and kids? :-) > posting. The second writer, perhaps predictably, makes an emotional > point that seems mostly devoid of meaning. See final paragraph in this posting! > first posting is unreasonable, since the rock concerts are > affecting the individual's actions and well-being inside of > his (her) own home. ... I think that once again society as a whole is better off by having a night with a neighborhood rock concert with something for several hundred kids to do vs. having a quiet night for one guy who doesn't like it. Shouldn't the rule be to do whatever is better for society AS A WHOLE? I think it's kind of a neat idea. Now about the people who complain about poor logic: Sure, it's very easy to point out fallacious reasoning and invalid logic (emotional statements, personal attacks, hasty generalizations, etc.) in most any argument except those very carefully planned and executed. But here in net.flame it's standard operational procedure to get a little hot and do some name-calling. It'd be so dry reading perfectly logical arguments, and not much fun either. I like it just the way it is! 1 1 1 1 2 1 Doug Williams 1 3 3 1 AT&T Bell Labs 1 4 6 4 1 Reading, PA 1 5 10 10 5 1 mhuxt!rduxb!daw1 1 6 15 20 15 6 1 PS: The first person to point out all ten logic errors in my posting wins a free 1986 Corvette (wiper blade refill). Hah!
jj@alice.UUCP (10/14/85)
You site the rules for net.flame, so KEEP YOUR DAMN ARTICLE IN NUT.FLAME. This has been hashed over and over again, if you want to flame, RE-ADDRESS the <intercoursing> note! And keep it out of net.music.classical, goddamnit. P.S. I DO have the right to not be invaded by other's music, and you'd better accept it, or somebody will call you, someday. JJ -- SUPPORT SECULAR TEDDY-BEAR-ISM. "... who stole the keeshka, someone call the cops!" (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj