The Shotgun Blog
« Pieces of Paper | Main | In support of HST »
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Cultural acts of liberty: public breastfeeding
I'll cut to the chase: the mother of my child breastfeeds in public. I support her in this, and we do it in spite of all the "discomfort" it creates.
People have tried to politely suggest to us that the sight of a baby breastfeeding from an exposed breast is an act of gross public indecency. To which, I have always replied in the rudest possible terms that language will allow.
Of the people who've shown visible objections, I have to say--quite honestly--they have disproportionately been Muslims (there's quite a few in the area we live). In fact, I once observed a Muslim family with three children, a fully-cloaked mother, and the long-bearded father go into an absolute panic when they realized she was breastfeeding in the Starbucks at Brookfield Place on the lower concourse level in Toronto. It was quite amusing. The parents placed their hands over their children's eyes the best they could. Six children's eyes to cover, and only four hands to do it with. But they evacuated the scene with great haste, to say the least.
It's obviously not just Muslims. But they stick out in my mind, because they seem to be the ones who are most visibly panicked when they encounter it.
Other people have more privately told me, that the reason they have a problem with it, is the fact that men will sexualize her in their mind, in response to seeing her partially exposed breast. Which seems to me, to be the exact same argument fundamentalist Muslims make for requiring their women to fully cloak themselves in public.
Having a baby in this busy, modern, world is not the easiest of things to manage. Particularly for a modern woman.
I must say that the general expectation that women should plan their day around finding adequate hiding places to protect the sensibilities of a bunch of luddites should--in my opinion--be quite low on the priority list for said women. For Sarah and myself, it's completely off the priority list.
Talk amongst yourselves.
Posted by Mike Brock on August 26, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Totally agree with you. But my wife never breast fed exposed in public. We had lots of ackward-trying-cover-her moments though and it was really stressful.
I find it interesting that in a country with a declining birthrate we'd give moms a higher priority.
I'm also surprised by our obvious lack of respect for women and not taking responsibility for how we (men) sexualize women but instead we put that responsibility on them.
Posted by: Chris | 2009-08-26 1:20:10 PM
You make the same error that Muslim advocates of full veiling make - taking a sensible view to the extreme. It is sensible to think that there are some parts of our bodies that should be uncovered in public, and some that should be covered. Excessively covering the body is one form of extremism, but so too is being too uncovered. We have laws against public indecency for a reason. Most people believe that breasts, in a non-breastfeeding situation, should always be covered in public (even on French beaches, a majority believe women should wear tops). Without passing an opinion on breastfeeding, the premise that it is utterly unreasonable for people to believe that naked breasts will inappropriately titilate is just silly.
Posted by: Elizabeth | 2009-08-26 1:23:03 PM
Elizabeth,
You use words like "sensible", "unreasonable" and appeal to majority opinion in a matter-of-fact way, as if it's self-evident to everyone involved that public indecency laws are a good thing, and doesn't require any further justification beyond that.
I actually think it does require a logical justification, beyond the way people "feel" about the matter. Or the fact that you think it's just "common sense". Neither of those things are arguments. They're statements of opinion.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-26 1:32:01 PM
I support the proposition that there ought to be more breasts in public places.
That is all.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-08-26 1:32:30 PM
It's a property issue. On private property, the owners can set the rules they want. On public property, well you have the tragedy of the commons.
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-26 1:35:37 PM
"Most people believe that breasts, in a non-breastfeeding situation, should always be covered in public (even on French beaches, a majority believe women should wear tops)."
More tyranny of the majority. Just because the majority thinks something, doesn't make it right.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-26 1:40:38 PM
Ok, I have a related question:
Since female toplessness has been legal in Ontario for a while, has anyone ever seen a woman take advantage of that liberty?
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-08-26 1:43:28 PM
Get off your high horse. Breastfeeding in public is not an historically acceptable behavior in Canadian society. There is no decade in the last century and a half in which it would have been totally unobjectionable for a woman to bare her breast to feed her child in public in Canada. I'm surprised that you are surprised that your 1970s, "Free to Be You and Me," let-it-all-hang-out hippiedom might possibly be considered inappropriate by some people. Why pick on Muslims? How about my Scots grandmother (who somehow raised six children without having to breastfeed in public) or my English grandfather? Pillars of Canadian society, most definitely not Muslims, and both would have been horrified at your libertinism. You are, of course, free to breastfeed in public under current laws, but why would you take offense when others disapprove? Or, worse, take pleasure in causing them discomfort? Where does your militancy and sense of entitlement come from? The law is on your side. But, as the person breaking an old taboo, shouldn't you be the one trying to accommodate the views of those who hew to established practices and beliefs? Doesn’t established order deserve some respect? Your cultural Jacobinism may be legally sanctioned, and even approved by a majority, but those who disagree still retain the right to object to your behavior and to register their disapproval, either by their actions, reactions or by telling you so in person. Or is freedom only for those who wish to destroy tradition?
Posted by: James L. | 2009-08-26 1:44:14 PM
Wasn't there a 2-part episode of Married with Children on this issue? Sorry guys, but if Al Bundy can't hold them back, no one can.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-26 1:49:25 PM
James,
The appeal to tradition argument structure is not really one that I accept. There's plenty of traditions that we once had that we don't have today. Why is this one so salient?
Your grandmother probably was a stay-at-home mother in her day. Did she find herself having to balance school, work, and children? Probably not. It's pretty easy to not find yourself in a position where you need to feed your children in public when you spend your whole day cooped up at home, cleaning, cooking meals and playing the good wife.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-26 1:53:49 PM
Mike, the argument that it's not easy having a baby in the modern world doesn't wash. Clearly, in today's fast-paced world, it would be extremely convenient if people could just whip it out (or squat) whenever and wherever nature called, particularly given the dearth of public washrooms in this country. It's a perfectly natural act, and you'll pee more times than you'll ever breastfeed.
Urine poses little if any hygienic hazard; it's basically salt water and urea. It is organic, natural in origin, largely non-toxic, and has been consumed ritually for thousands of years. Some people find that urophagia (the consumption of urine) heightens the sexual experience. Is any of this sounding familiar?
Frankly, I don't mind people doing either in public, provided they're discreet and hygienic about it and respect the wishes of others who find it discomforting. Those criteria are not met by those who, upon being not commanded but asked to be more discreet, go bawling to some authority or other that their most basic rights have been violated. Once again we have selfishness masquerading as liberty.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-26 2:04:53 PM
Shane,
You'll excuse me if I thinking comparing urinating in public with breastfeeding to be the craziest false analogy, ever.
Peeing on the sidewalk can be akin to littering or dumping a bottle of Coca-Cola all over the ground. A woman sitting on a bench and breastfeeding is not leaving anything physical behind. So actually, your analogy doesn't wash.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-26 2:09:47 PM
More tyranny of the majority. Just because the majority thinks something, doesn't make it right.
And the alternative, a tyranny of the minority, is an improvement how?
And lest you cry "false dichotomy," the practical truth is that, yes, those are the only two options. The only other possibility is anarchy, and that has never persisted in any culture for any length of time. Ever. So take your pick: The many rule, or the few rule.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-26 2:10:10 PM
Shane,
How is it tyranny of the minority? I am not physically stopping or coercing anyone else into doing or not doing anything.
Tyranny is when you are exerting authority over someone else illegitimately. In this case, a woman sitting on a park bench, breastfeeding her child can hardly be said to be exerting authority over anyone else.
But if society, criminalizes her for doing something completely natural and non-harmful to anyone else--like feeding a child from her breast--then I would argue that is an illegitimate display of authority ("Conduct yourself according to traditional values, or else!").
When people try to argue that minorities acting outside of the "common values" of the majority is a form of tyranny, it's hard to take you seriously. Instead, you just sound like the leftists who argue that "discriminatory speech" should be illegal because it harms people's sensibilities. It's the same argument structure. The only difference is you think a feeling attached to a traditional value is more important than a feeling attached to a non-traditional value. Both arguments are fallacious. To try and state otherwise is a special pleading.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-26 2:14:45 PM
"Get off your high horse. Breastfeeding in public is not an historically acceptable behavior in Canadian society."
So? Things change.
"Or is freedom only for those who wish to destroy tradition?"
Tradition is not worth anything if the traidition is wrong or bad.
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-26 2:19:55 PM
"It's a perfectly natural act, and you'll pee more times than you'll ever breastfeed. "
Equating dumping human waste with eating is fallicaious.
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-26 2:34:37 PM
Mike,
My point, which I clearly did not convey very well, was that I think the author is deliberately using Muslims in order to a. paint Muslims as unreasonable, and b. tie any opposition to public breastfeeding with a group he has already labelled unreasonable. I don't have strong feelings about public breastfeeding, but I do think his highlighting of Muslims is less than appropriate, and undermines his actual point.
Posted by: Elizabeth | 2009-08-26 3:05:50 PM
"The many rule, or the few rule."
Leave it to Shane to post something that makes absolutely no sense. You've just set up a false choice there btw ... we can opt for a system where no one rules.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-26 3:27:14 PM
I'm going to refer to Mike Brock as a "cultural Jacobin" from now on. :-)
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-08-26 3:43:54 PM
Mike: "You'll excuse me if I thinking comparing urinating in public with breastfeeding to be the craziest false analogy, ever."
FM: "Equating dumping human waste with eating is fallicaious."
You are both assuming that the urine or waste will be abandoned. If the guy who has to urinate pees into a bottle and takes it with him, there is no issue of leaving waste behind. Also, just as dog owners are expected to pick up their dog's feces, simply requiring people to do the same would eliminate the littering factor.
But having said that, I am happy with there being no laws preventing women from going topless whenever they like, breastfeeding or not while being happy with laws against (humans) shitting or pissing in public.
By the way, the one time I was in a country where women who were breastfeeding went topless all the time - even when not actually feeding their babies - was when I was in a Muslim country. West African Muslims don't have a problem with women's breasts.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-26 4:13:12 PM
FM,
"It's a property issue. On private property, the owners can set the rules they want. On public property, well you have the tragedy of the commons."
This is the same mistake you keep making. If it's really a property issue, then the answer is this: On private property, the owners can set the rules they want. On public property, the owners also can set the rules they want. There is no reason that just because the property is publically owned that the story changes. Owners, whether public or private, get to set rules for their property. Once the public owners decide the rules on public breastfeeding, those who disagree can try to persuade the group to change their minds, but as a strict property issue whatever decision is reached is legitimate.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-26 4:19:49 PM
Of the people who've shown visible objections, I have to say--quite honestly--they have disproportionately been Muslims
Posted by Mike Brock on August 26, 2009
And the very people that Brock would open the floodgates of immigration to. Keep letting them in Brock and see if the freedoms you give them are reciprocated.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-08-26 5:38:51 PM
Mike,
You're fabulous! How wonderful to see a Male Lactivist!
Just so everyone knows, it is only in the last few decades, primarily due to a push to use formula, that public breastfeeding became frowned upon. And it wasn't because it was indecent originally, it was because it wasn't considered "modern". Right until the forties, Women breastfed anywhere and everywhere and no-one thought a thing of it. It was simply a fact of life, babies have to eat!
Formula marketing actually created the idea that breastfeeding was indecent and old-fashioned and that formula should be used so that women could be modern and free!
Posted by: Cassaundra | 2009-08-26 7:54:06 PM
Why stop at breastfeeding? I say let the woman flaunt the goods! You say that this was in public in Toronto. She doesn't do this in the winter, does she? And if so has she ever gotten frostbite? All the things going on in the world and this is your big story. Could it be that you two just have to be the center of attention? Come on, admit it! You two just like to see if you can stick it to people.
Posted by: Jose | 2009-08-26 8:24:03 PM
Its a boob, who cares. Every one has 2. The only reason I can think of to cover up is winter. Where did this "you must cover your body" stuff come from. I personally wouldn't care a great deal if people walked around naked. They do it in tropical countries the world over.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-08-26 8:50:05 PM
Good grief if the Muslims want to protest then they should attend a Toronto homosexual pride day march, where there are men with only sneakers on and woman making out with other woman and men and men as well.
the Pride marches are repulsive and nothing to do with what God made to be natural i.e breast feeding and yet there is silence.
Pride day marches are public indecency and we let it go on and on.
Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2009-08-26 8:54:02 PM
If I may make a few observations, first I agree with those who question bringing Muslims into this. As it is a cultural issue rather than a religious one, which is why, as FC stated, Muslim women in some countries breast-feed in public. Where I lived in the ex-French West Africa it was the norm, but they did so very discretely without exposing themselves to the world. In parts of the country where the people were not Muslim the women never covered their breasts.
A woman is able to breast-feed discretely so that a member of the public would be hard pressed to see anything exposed. Frankly it is a matter of manners just as one looks for a rather private place to change a dirty diaper. That said I do support the owners of private property to decide what they will allow and even who they will allow on their premises. I may think them foolish and regressive but I respect their rights.
I fail to see why this should even be an issue, especially since breast-feeding is the most natural and normal of things.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-08-26 9:09:16 PM
The only reason I mentioned Muslims, was because of the described incidents, which were far more extreme than the average dirty look.
A Muslim family racing their children out of a Starbucks like their was a bomb threat is pretty hard to forget. And the absolute disgust and jaw-drops are almost always from Muslim men.
Certainly, there are significant cultural differences within Islam, and the mention was merely an observation.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-26 9:59:14 PM
"You are both assuming that the urine or waste will be abandoned."
No, we are saying that they are completely different acts. One is expelling waste product, the other is eating lunch.
"On public property, the owners also can set the rules they want."
Yes, and everyone are the owners! Tragedy of the commons.
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-26 10:10:44 PM
You'll excuse me if I thinking comparing urinating in public with breastfeeding to be the craziest false analogy, ever.
Nope. Both involve perfectly natural body functions, the only for reason for which not doing in public is morality. Alas for your case a perfect analogy.
Peeing on the sidewalk can be akin to littering or dumping a bottle of Coca-Cola all over the ground. A woman sitting on a bench and breastfeeding is not leaving anything physical behind.
Pee evaporates; it is mostly just water, after all. It is not litter. And we already let dogs do it. The "physical trace" requirement is something you just cooked up on the spur of the moment, arbitrarily, after the fact. That's cheating.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-26 11:10:05 PM
How is it tyranny of the minority? I am not physically stopping or coercing anyone else into doing or not doing anything.
I was talking to Charles, who himself was responding to the point that morality is decided by the majority.
Tyranny is when you are exerting authority over someone else illegitimately. In this case, a woman sitting on a park bench, breastfeeding her child can hardly be said to be exerting authority over anyone else.
When her husband screams obscenities at people who ask for some decorum, on the other hand...Furthermore, your definition of "tyranny" is wrong. Even a legitimate authority can behave in a tyrannical fashion.
But if society, criminalizes her for doing something completely natural and non-harmful to anyone else--like feeding a child from her breast--then I would argue that is an illegitimate display of authority.
And I would argue otherwise. Next.
When people try to argue that minorities acting outside of the "common values" of the majority is a form of tyranny, it's hard to take you seriously.
I argued no such thing. I only responded to Charles to show the faulty reasoning behind the common appeal to "tyranny of the majority." And your "minorities acting outside of the 'common values' of the majority" downwash is overly broad and vague. Criminals fit that description, among others.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-26 11:19:16 PM
Leave it to Shane to post something that makes absolutely no sense. You've just set up a false choice there btw ... we can opt for a system where no one rules.
As usual, Charles, you picked out the bits that riled you and ignored the rest. This is not a false dichotomy, because there is no such thing as a system where no one rules—as I was very careful to state. No society in history has ever remained leaderless, and survived. You're the one posting nonsense, presenting fantasy as fact.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-26 11:22:23 PM
No, we are saying that they are completely different acts. One is expelling waste product, the other is eating lunch.
Both are natural, nay, essential acts. One is input, the other output. The fact that they are different does not, in itself, make one more immoral than the other.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-26 11:26:31 PM
FM,
Any more replies like that and I might have to put you on the Shane "too dumb to bother with" do-not read list. But (for now) I'll still respond.
"No, we are saying that they are completely different acts. One is expelling waste product, the other is eating lunch."
No shit, Sherlock. Expelling waste and eating are not the same thing. Wow! What a revelation! Of course, just saying they are different in some respect is not saying they are different in a relevent respect that makes one ok in public and the other not.
At the end of the day the only reason to object to pissing and shitting in public (where the waste is collected and disposed of appropriately) is that enough people find it sufficiently disgusting to have to look at. The argument against public breastfeeding, for those who do object, is quite similar. They don't want to have to look at it. Responding that eating is different from expelling waste just stupidly misses the point.
"Yes, and everyone are the owners! Tragedy of the commons."
The fact that everyone are the owners does not mean that there can be no restrictions placed on anyone (a point you failed to grasp in a recent previous thread). Just as some of the owners of Starbucks might not approve of allowing breastfeeding does not mean that the company cannot make a rule that even prohibits those co-owners from breastfeeding in a Starbucks, the public can (through our elected representatives) make rules banning breastfeeding.
It seems you think that public ownership inevatably leads to the tragedy of the commons. But that is just not true. The tragedy of the commons only happens when the owners of the property place no restrictions on its use. (This can happen with privately owned land, too, if no rules are put in place to prevent many co-owners from overusing it.) But when there are rules, no tragedy results. The tragedy of the commons is not a special problem for public property. It can just as easily arise with private property, and can just as easlily be solved for public property as for private property.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-26 11:30:11 PM
Shane Matthews
"If your kid disrupts class, then they are ruining 30 other kids learning time." - Beating them isn't a good solution for that.
Beating them is the perfect solution for that. The only alternative is expulsion, and then what does the kid learn? Nothing. Least of all how to behave.
"If your kid commits vandalism, then they are damaging other peoples property." - That's a crime to be dealt with.
It is easier (and better) to prevent crime than to deal with the consequences afterwards.
I don't know if it's a clear causation. Many people would blame the downfall of schools on prayer being taken out of it.
And they would be wrong, at least mostly wrong. People, especially certain people, are hard-wired to try to get away with as much as they are allowed to. If you make it clear from the first that they won't get away with anything, ultimately most will stop trying.
I do not agree with the government disciplining my kids, that is my job.
And what if you don't do your job? Are the rest of us just supposed to clam up and bear the result? Most of the kids committing these acts of vandalism don't have stellar parents.
Now someone will say “what about the bad parents”, you can’t do much about that, the government replacing bad parents with a horrible foster care/child services system is no better.
Oh, they're better off with their present families in almost all cases. However, that doesn't mean the government can't administer a little discipline when the parents won't. If you knew you would receive twelve strokes of the can for every window you broke, how many would you break?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-26 11:38:51 PM
"the public can (through our elected representatives)"
Really? And how does that work? Does my "elected representative" do what I want? What if my neighbor disagrees with me and wants this so-called representative to do what he wants? So how is that person "representing" me?
The fact is, Fact Check, that representation is an impossible fantasy. Not only that, these elected people act in their own interests and the interests of lobbyists and their friends in industry, they could give a damn about what you or I think.
Evidence.
When the bank bail outs in the U.S. were being proposed U.S. representatives got phone calls 100 to 1 against the bail outs, there was huge public sentiment against doing, but it went through anyways.
Yeah, representation, nice system.
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-26 11:43:26 PM
Really? And how does that work? Does my "elected representative" do what I want? What if my neighbor disagrees with me and wants this so-called representative to do what he wants? So how is that person "representing" me?
Your representative is representing his constituents as a body; that is, the majority opinion in his riding. As they say, you can't please everybody. It's a waste of time trying. And the fact that you carp more than your neighbour does not make you right and him wrong.
Evidence: When the bank bail outs in the U.S. were being proposed U.S. representatives got phone calls 100 to 1 against the bail outs, there was huge public sentiment against doing, but it went through anyways.
That means nothing. People who support something are less likely to call or write in the first place than those who object to it. Are we supposed to believe that a few dozen urchins banging bongos in the street represent the majority will of that particular riding, just because they make themselves more conspicuous?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-27 7:06:36 AM
FM,
"And how does that work? Does my 'elected representative' do what I want? What if my neighbor disagrees with me and wants this so-called representative to do what he wants? So how is that person 'representing' me?"
You really are sounding as stupid as Shane. Maybe it is from conversing with him too much. I dunno. But I'll explain it to you just once more in the hope that you do still have som live brain cells left.
When a large number of people own a private enterprise together (like, say, the Coca-Cola company) it is not surprising when the owners are not unanimous in what they want to do. So sometimes the company does things that some owners don't want. That does not mean that they had no say or that their views were not heard, just that they did not prevail.
With public property and the formation of rules governing it, the co-owners have many ways of making their views on how it should be governed known. It is unlikely that they will all agree on any policy, but just because a decision goes against what some particular co-owner wants does not mean he had no say or that his view was not heard.
You seem to assume that there must be some difference in how public and private property is governed, but never give any reason to justify this difference. Somehow, you seem to think that any co-owner of public property should be able to do what they want with it despite any wishes of any other co-owners, but the same is not true with private property. That is beyond stupid. That is Shane-level stupid.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-27 7:29:57 AM
"Your representative is representing his constituents as a body; that is, the majority opinion in his riding."
But when I pointed out that the majority opposed the bail outs, yet they went through anyways, you said "That means nothing."
So what it is Shane? Do they represent the majority or don't they? And if they do, how does that make it alright? What if the majority of people think it's okay to kill Aboriginals, does that make it right?
This appeal to the majority that you adhere to is faulty, because that doesn't make it right, or true, or just.
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-27 7:49:58 AM
"You really are sounding as stupid as Shane."
"That is beyond stupid. That is Shane-level stupid."
I'm done talking to you Fact Check, I'm not going to waste my time on people that use such tactics.
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-27 7:51:31 AM
But when I pointed out that the majority opposed the bail outs, yet they went through anyways, you said "That means nothing."
What I said was the fact that the phone calls opposed the bailouts 500 to 1 means nothing. People who support a measure generally don't call. And how many calls total did they receive, in comparison with the total number of American voters?
So what it is Shane? Do they represent the majority or don't they?
Generally, yes. Because if a majority don't care for the job they're doing they have the power to replace them. They most likely would have backed down had popular opposition to the measure been stiff enough, as opposed to a few phone calls, but on the other hand they are professional lawmakers and there was a strong consensus among policymakers that the measures were desperately needed. During the Great Depression, over half of American banks folded, and they were not eager for a repeat.
And if they do, how does that make it alright?
It doesn't. But it doesn't make it wrong either, which is what you seem to be arguing.
What if the majority of people think it's okay to kill Aboriginals, does that make it right?
I couldn't support that. But I could support tarring and feathering the odd gadfly.
This appeal to the majority that you adhere to is faulty, because that doesn't make it right, or true, or just.
I never said it did. I only said that rule by the minority is even worse. Also, the fact that a viewpoint is popular does not make it wrong, either. It is very possible for the minority to be wrong, instead, yes?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-27 7:58:18 AM
That is beyond stupid. That is Shane-level stupid.
Your obsessive ad hominems tell the readers more about you than they do about me, FC. Since you and I are in general agreement in this matter, it's not very smart of you to trumpet "Shane is stupid" at every opportunity, because it makes you look dumb as well, and unobservant to boot.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-27 8:03:00 AM
FM,
"I'm done talking to you Fact Check, I'm not going to waste my time on people that use such tactics."
You wern't making any sense anyway, so that's probably for the best. See ya next time!
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-27 8:13:12 AM
"What I said was the fact that the phone calls opposed the bailouts 500 to 1 means nothing. People who support a measure generally don't call."
When you dismiss public polls and direct contact, then how do you know what the majority wants Shane?
" I only said that rule by the minority is even worse."
It doesn't have to be either!
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-27 8:14:09 AM
I must confess that I am uncomfortable whenever I see a woman breastfeeding in public. I'm not sure why however and I personally don't think it should be banned (I don't see how it hurts anyone really).
On another note, I disagree with the position that anyone should be able to do anything they wish on public property while maintaining my belief that we'd all be better off if most (if not all) land where privately held.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-27 10:09:44 AM
It all comes down to community standards. No matter how logical an argument you present, community standards are such that breastfeeding in public is unacceptable. To try to go against community standards just to make a point is life's energy wasted and just comes across as silliness to most of us. Find a cause where you can actually make an impact, relieve pain or make someone truly happier.
Posted by: Beachgirl | 2009-08-27 12:03:34 PM
"community standards are such that breastfeeding in public is unacceptable."
Not in my community.
"To try to go against community standards just to make a point is life's energy wasted and just comes across as silliness to most of us. "
Community standards is a meanlingless phrase, what you mean is the "majority opinion". It used to be a "community standard" to have seperate water fountains for black people. I guess they shouldn't have spoken out against that huh and just continued to be good little slaves.
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-27 12:15:05 PM
When you dismiss public polls and direct contact, then how do you know what the majority wants Shane?
Direct contact is easily dismissed for the reasons given. Polls are harder to dismiss but have to be taken in context; support can be broad but weak, and politicians are generally astute at reading that. There has not been any great discontent since the measures were passed, no? And, of course, a responsible lawmaker has to consider what the country needs, in addition to what it wants.
" I only said that rule by the minority is even worse." - It doesn't have to be either!
History disputes you.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-27 12:19:53 PM
On another note, I disagree with the position that anyone should be able to do anything they wish on public property while maintaining my belief that we'd all be better off if most (if not all) land where privately held.
Well, Charles, it isn't going to be, certainly not in your lifetime. Better you spend your time thinking of ways to improve the system rather than dreaming of what might be under your personal little Shangri-La.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-27 12:28:06 PM
"And, of course, a responsible lawmaker has to consider what the country needs, in addition to what it wants."
But you said that the elected representatives do what the majority wants. So what it is, is it what they need or what they want? How do they know what that want or need is if they ignore the input they have from the people they supposedly "represent"?
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-27 12:29:32 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.