<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Stroking The Empathy Gland</title>
	<atom:link href="http://old.furiousnads.com/2007/01/stroking-the-empathy-gland/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://old.furiousnads.com/2007/01/stroking-the-empathy-gland/</link>
	<description>You're furious. I never taught you to sing. You carry rocks in your head and pitch them. Without warning. Happy drunk. You're furious. I beg you for sin. I beg your skin. You buy a whore. Don't give her water. You're furious.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:20:25 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: b!X</title>
		<link>http://old.furiousnads.com/2007/01/stroking-the-empathy-gland/#comment-325</link>
		<dc:creator>b!X</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:16:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://furiousnads.com/2007/01/stroking-the-empathy-gland/#comment-325</guid>
		<description>That someone finds the smell of smoke "noxious" isn't a public policy issue.

Neither is the fact that "health establishments ban people from wearing strong perfumes" relevant at all to a debate over smoking cigarettes in public.

That a child might &lt;em&gt;see&lt;/em&gt; a smoker isn't a public policy issue either (if it is, we might as well ban all the other potential dangerous or offensive things children might see).

The problem here is that the very same people who get their knickers in a bunch when, say, Republicans use the tactic of pushing loaded emotional buttons in order to advance their agenda are the same ones who are fine with that tactic if it's coming from politicians with whom they agree, in advance of a cause which they support.

But, speaking of noxious, what's noxious there isn't just whatever agenda is being advanced, it's the manner in which it's being advanced. Scare tactics and emotional smokescreens aren't the way to conduct public policy debates.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That someone finds the smell of smoke &#8220;noxious&#8221; isn&#8217;t a public policy issue.</p>
<p>Neither is the fact that &#8220;health establishments ban people from wearing strong perfumes&#8221; relevant at all to a debate over smoking cigarettes in public.</p>
<p>That a child might <em>see</em> a smoker isn&#8217;t a public policy issue either (if it is, we might as well ban all the other potential dangerous or offensive things children might see).</p>
<p>The problem here is that the very same people who get their knickers in a bunch when, say, Republicans use the tactic of pushing loaded emotional buttons in order to advance their agenda are the same ones who are fine with that tactic if it&#8217;s coming from politicians with whom they agree, in advance of a cause which they support.</p>
<p>But, speaking of noxious, what&#8217;s noxious there isn&#8217;t just whatever agenda is being advanced, it&#8217;s the manner in which it&#8217;s being advanced. Scare tactics and emotional smokescreens aren&#8217;t the way to conduct public policy debates.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kalilily</title>
		<link>http://old.furiousnads.com/2007/01/stroking-the-empathy-gland/#comment-324</link>
		<dc:creator>kalilily</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:36:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://furiousnads.com/2007/01/stroking-the-empathy-gland/#comment-324</guid>
		<description>It seems to me that the public policy debate is very much related to how that public policy affects the health of individuals of that public.  Granted, gas fumes are also unhealthy.  But that's another public policy debate issue.

Cigarette smoke is both noxiously harmful and noxiously distasteful to smell.  Smokers do get used it it. You can get used to living next to the smell of a garbage dump.

Many health establishments ban people from wearing strong perfumes.  The sense of smell is very sensitive in most people, especially non-smokers.  Personally, cigarette smoke makes me nauseous and makes my sinuses swell.  So does strong perfume.  But at least strong perfume is not toxic to lungs.  And it doesn't do damage to brain cells, as nicotine does.  And it's not addictive, either.  And it's easy to embarrass someone wearing such perfume by muttering something about it loud enough for them to hear.  Not so, however, with smokers.

There is currently a public "cultural" outcry against smoking by non-smokers for good reasons.  Not the least of which are health related.  If it takes pushing the empathy button or striking fear into the hearts of those too stubborn and/or addicted to nicotine to break the habit, then I say go for it.  .

Yes, it should be that anyone who wants to damage themselves by smoking should do it in the privacy of their own homes.  That way they don't wind up being role models for kids and they don't befoul my air space any more than I already have to deal with.

And if the public pressure gets so bad that they quit, all the better for them.  And their families.  And the public.

We ban spitting on the sidewalk.  And littering.  Why not ban public smoking.


</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that the public policy debate is very much related to how that public policy affects the health of individuals of that public.  Granted, gas fumes are also unhealthy.  But that&#8217;s another public policy debate issue.</p>
<p>Cigarette smoke is both noxiously harmful and noxiously distasteful to smell.  Smokers do get used it it. You can get used to living next to the smell of a garbage dump.</p>
<p>Many health establishments ban people from wearing strong perfumes.  The sense of smell is very sensitive in most people, especially non-smokers.  Personally, cigarette smoke makes me nauseous and makes my sinuses swell.  So does strong perfume.  But at least strong perfume is not toxic to lungs.  And it doesn&#8217;t do damage to brain cells, as nicotine does.  And it&#8217;s not addictive, either.  And it&#8217;s easy to embarrass someone wearing such perfume by muttering something about it loud enough for them to hear.  Not so, however, with smokers.</p>
<p>There is currently a public &#8220;cultural&#8221; outcry against smoking by non-smokers for good reasons.  Not the least of which are health related.  If it takes pushing the empathy button or striking fear into the hearts of those too stubborn and/or addicted to nicotine to break the habit, then I say go for it.  .</p>
<p>Yes, it should be that anyone who wants to damage themselves by smoking should do it in the privacy of their own homes.  That way they don&#8217;t wind up being role models for kids and they don&#8217;t befoul my air space any more than I already have to deal with.</p>
<p>And if the public pressure gets so bad that they quit, all the better for them.  And their families.  And the public.</p>
<p>We ban spitting on the sidewalk.  And littering.  Why not ban public smoking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
