It boggles my fucking mind how people's definitions of stuff seems to stop at whether or not they like it or approve of it. That seems like a bit of a weird sentence, so let me clarify with an example.
So, I attend Edith Cowan University. Stop laughing. Anyway, the powers that be have decided that it is in the best interest of students to make the entire campus non-smoking. Now, my bullshit detector started going off when I heard that, there's no way that could be a thing, right? But no, it turns out it's true. The Vice-Chancellor is implementing such a plan. Well, needless to say, I flipped my shit and let everybody in a five kilometre radius know. Sidenote, I don't smoke, but I don't mind the smell and I'm not such a big pansy that someone smoking out in the open air makes me cry.
Imagine my surprise when the fascists that seem to surround me in my daily life were on board with this plan. "Yes!" they cried out in unison. "Let the powers that be stop smoking on campus! Huzzahs all round!" "But wait," I said, now a tad concerned. "Aren't you a bit concerned about the gradual removal of our freedoms?" I do hate using a slippery slope argument, what with it being a logical fallacy and all, but it does raise the question of what freedoms we're entitled to and which we aren't. Well, the ubiquitous reply seemed to be "but I don't like smoking."
Well excuse me! I didn't realise your personal tastes dictated the freedoms of everyone else! What about the people who like cigarettes? Are they somehow less entitled to voice their opinion? You know what? I think we had a pretty good system with the "smoking outside" rule. You know, out in the open air, smoke dissipating out so no-one(unless you're about a foot away from said cigarette) has to deal with it. If you walk past someone smoking a cigarette, then bitch that you can smell cigarettes and that you don't like it, there's something wrong with you. I can't stand the smell of red bull, we should totally ban the sale of it.
This is exactly the same as the "ban obscene art" or "death metal isn't music" arguments. Someone has a personal distaste, so rather than be mature and live and let live, it becomes a case of "BAN THE THING I DON'T LIKE, FOR I AM THE AUTHORITY ON ALL THINGS GOOD AND MORAL!" You know what, it's an old chestnut, but I'm more offended by censorship than I am of the things they censor. Yeah, there exists some art that is pretty fuckin' crazy, there exists some music I don't like at all, there exists some habits people have that I quite despise. But you know what I do? I just ignore the things I dislike. It's remarkably easy. Oh, there's a painting I dislike? Guess I won't look. There's some music I don't care for? Best I don't listen. Someone drinking red bull? Guess I'll just move away. I'm not going to be a fucking fascist and demand that they change their behaviour because I disagree.
Freedom isn't limited to just stuff you like. Get the fuck over yourself. If you can't accept that people do things you don't necessarily agree with, maybe you're just intolerant. Which is your failing, not ours.
What about the rights of the non-smoker? You're so full of shit! You go on about the rights of those who do stupid shit then have a go at people with some common sence. You say not to take away smokers rights at the cost of others. Have you ever actually thought about what you're saying or do you just think that if it's for the "under dog" it's all right?
ReplyDeleteSorry, shouldn't have gotten so angry. Ingnor angry tear down comment.
ReplyDeletewhoever posted that comment. is a retard.
ReplyDelete