Quote:
|
Originally Posted by billege
The debate is not a new one, or at least the arguments I'm seeing are not the least bit creative.
It's the old: "Address the item, not the behavior" plan of action.
You got a problem with people shooting people? >>Ban firearms.
You got a problem with people driving and using cells >>Ban cells in cars.
You got a problem with people being assholes with fireworks >> Ban fireworks.
You got a problem with teenage drinking >>Raise drinking age. (Ban teenage drinking)
You got a problem with teenage pregnancy >>Ban sex education. (Oh wait, we're trying that plan in schools right now...."abstinence only"....right....)
You got a problem with "insert item here" >> Ban item.
|
Those aren't even remotely parallel. First, not gonna address guns, for reasons stated above.
People driving and using cells: Nobody is trying to ban cell phones as a result, or even cell phones in cars. It is the irresponsible and dangerous activity of using a cell phone while driving that has been banned in many places. This is exactly what people, including you, have been arguing here--address the dangerous behavior, not the item.
Teenage drinking: This one again, doesn't really support your basic argument. Raising the drinking age isn't banning the item, alcohol, it's restricting behavior to those who are old enough to do it responsibly. Note that I am not debating drinking age laws here, merely pointing out that this example does not support your basic argument.
Teenage pregnancy: What item is being banned in your argument that when misused leads to pregnancy? I don't get this one at all.
Quote:
|
There's no way I'm dumb enough to get involved in a debate on firearms laws (in this thread anyway), drinking laws, or the effectiveness of fireworks laws. I will debate the principle of banning an artifact rather than the behavior.
|
Fair enough. Most of your examples don't involve banning an artifact anyway.
Quote:
|
The article linked earlier about a guy driving a truck getting shot in the head by a firework is a fine example of bad behavior. I do not see it as an example of how fireworks are inherently evil. But, I see how someone else could see it that way. I don’t agree, of course, but I can see where false logic would lead someone else.
|
Has anyone argued that fireworks are inherently evil? I don't see that anywhere.
Quote:
|
We could say, “Use fireworks like an ASSHOLE, and we’ll treat you like one." But, that’s too reactive for some people, so we ban fireworks. I shot off a ton of fireworks on the 3rd. It had rained 4 days in the previous week, so everything was nice and moist. Had it been really dry (like it was before all that good rain) I’d like to think I’m smart enough to have sucked it up and not shot them. Anyway, I aimed the stuff into an empty field, and didn’t hold any thing while it went off; except some sparklers. My wife and I enjoyed them. When we were done, I wet down the big tubes (the display tubes that shoot sparks and stuff up in the air) and we swept up all the crap in the street from our little show. Then we threw the stuff away. That was socially responsible behavior.
|
Unfortunately there are a lot of inconsiderate and stupid people out there. Let me counter with an anecdote of my own. The townhome complex where I live has communal mailboxes all located in a central kiosk. Grace and I happen to own and rent several of the units, so we like to take a little pride in the appearance of the grounds. The mailboxes get stuffed with news print flyers and other direct mail advertising every day, and some jerks had the habit of throwing it on the ground rather than taking it home or walking to the dumpster, both easy solutions. So we put a large trash can right next to the mail boxes for people to throw their junk mail flyers in, with a notice regarding what can be thrown in it (flyers only, no envelopes and no garbage) and it worked like a charm. No more litter. July second, I go to get the mail, and there are spent fireworks in there, thrown on top of the flyers, with more thrown on top, a big fire hazard.
Does this indicate a need to ban fireworks? Of course not, the irresponsible behavior of one person or one incident doesn't necessarily reflect that of the whole group. Nor does responsible behavior on the part of one person neccesarily reflect that of the whole group. We have to look at the behavior of the group as a whole before deciding what to do regarding a certain problem.
In my community, fire calls tripled during the four days fireworks were legal, and emergency calls at Grace's ambulance service at least doubled. This is evidence of how this particular community handles fireworks as a whole, ie, poorly.
Quote:
|
If only more people understood that everyday actions shape how other people react.
|
Exactly.
Quote:
|
Unfortunately, we can't ban people with anti-social, or irresponsible, behavior patterns. Instead we try and regulate the materials they have available to be irresponsible with.
|
In the case of fireworks, it seems a reasonable solution to me.
Let me refer back to this argument:
Quote:
|
I aimed the stuff into an empty field, and didn’t hold any thing while it went off; except some sparklers. My wife and I enjoyed them. When we were done, I wet down the big tubes (the display tubes that shoot sparks and stuff up in the air) and we swept up all the crap in the street from our little show. Then we threw the stuff away. That was socially responsible behavior.
|
I see the same anecdotal argument over and over again as regards to a great many things that are restricted/banned in our society, or rules that apply to the general populace. The basic argument goes like this:
If I can do activity/use item A safely and responsibly, then activity/item A shouldn't be banned/regulated/restricted/illegal. This is arguing by anecdote. One good example is no more compelling than one bad example.
Laws have to apply the same to everyone, so it's neccesary to determine what the global effect of all people who engage in activity A is on society as a whole, and balance the benefit of that activity to society and to the individual against the harm that activity causes the community as a whole.
When there are no basic human rights involved--and there aren't any here--It becomes a matter of what the effect would be and where to draw the line. If it were a few idiots causing a small number of problems, then the answer is exactly as you propose. When there are so many people behaving irresponsibly that fire calls triple, it becomes a problem for the community. I think banning is a reasonable solution.