[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ...what the Disappointing Article was perhaps saying.
In a message dated 97-10-20 13:01:39 EDT, Richard writes:
<< "Moralists today forbid what is desired without finding out the
basic reasons for desire; they prohibit what is enjoyed without finding out
the basic reasons for enjoyment. This is like trying to dam a river with
your hands. >>
I don't think we right-to-quiet advocates can be compared
to the kind of "moralists" being addressed by this statement.
I have no desire to control other people's private consensual
behavior which does no harm to others. A guy living out in
the remote wilderness can turn up his stereo as loud as he
wants so long as he doesn't trouble his neighbors, and I
In regard to the interests of others, I need to add some
1. I think it is the duty of public health educators to
warn such individuals about the health hazards of
2. People who frequently blast their infants and small
children with excessively loud noise are guilty of
child abuse and should be restrained; and
3. I as a taxpayer do not wish to subsidize the hearing
aids of those who abuse themselves.
-- Michael Wright
QUIET-LIST: Internet Mail List and Forum for discussion of Noise Pollution,
Soundscape Awareness, and the Right to Quiet. Email: "email@example.com"
To subscribe, email "firstname.lastname@example.org" with message "subscribe quiet-list".
For info, send message "info quiet-list" to same.
Date Index |