tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (01/17/86)
> We all sin now and then by using loaded terms as a substitute for > thought. Dave Hudson found that if he could apply the label > "compulsion" to seatbelt laws, people wouldn't like them as much as > if the laws were labeled "encouragement" [to wear belts]. But > evidently "compulsion" does not mean that people will be forced at > gunpoint to buckle up; it means that if you are unlucky enough to be > caught unbuckled by the police, you will be given a warning or > required to pay a fine of $10 to $50, and if you don't pay the fine > you may suffer some consequences the worst of which is going to jail > for a short while. But this thought process can be short-circuited > by describing the seatbelt law as "compulsion". That's your nadir, Carnes. From Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, second edition: compel, v.t. "to drive or urge with force, or irresistibly" People were unwilling to admit to doing that. That is an indication that their "liking" was irrational; what they "liked" was not the law, but a willful fantasy. Would you prefer less subtle compulsion? Perhaps having the cop strap them in himself? A spanking? Stealing the guy's wallet? Actually holding a gun to his temple? Pulling the trigger? (In petitioning you frequently run into people who say they like something the way it is. For instance, in 1984 I participated in a badly organized drive to repeal the income surtax in Massachusetts. Many people at the time said that they liked the surtax. When Citizens for Limited Taxation got enough signatures on a similar petition last fall, the state legislature and governor quickly passed the repeal, and gave themselves a pat on the back. Now where are all those people who said that they liked the surtax? Petitioning for its reinstatement? NO! They are probably going around saying "I like not having the surtax." if they are thinking about it at all.) Calling something by what it is is not using a loaded substitute for thought. It takes thought to identify it, and thought to use it. The word "compulsion" encapsulates that thought process; it doesn't short-circuit thought. It reflects having used a substitute for thought to fail to identify things correctly. Heed your own advice. You evidently need it. (That you were not thinking above is also reflected in your lack of consideration for the consequences of resisting the means of enforcing the law and thereby the law itself. But, what the hell, why not be consistent?) David Hudson