Re: Hug Ban
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"administrators said the ban was enacted because while most touching may be welcome, some touching isn’t."
Why, then, don't they just ban involuntary hugging?
[/ QUOTE ]
A very sensible question. Our society has got to the point where banning an *actual* harm is considered "not enough". We must outlaw the behaviours that *could* lead to the harm.
We are plagued with myriad laws designed to prevent some higher level problem by banning a correlated innocuous behaviour.
Open container laws, cartoon kiddie porn, drug prohibition, etc are all examples. there are plenty more.
A ban on hugs because someone might get hugged against their will is just natural in light of our society's current approach to law and its role in a citizen's life.
note: this "hug ban" is all just part of the new "no fun century" we are living in, which i posted about a while ago.
last note for Andy: I'm sure that involuntary hugs were *already* against the rules. But that's not enough. It's like adding more gun control laws because someone broke an existing one.
natedogg
[/ QUOTE ]
Orthodox Jewish laws have been explained to me this way. You don't want to get anywhere near breaking a rule so do what they call 'building fences' and outlaw behavior that is similar or could lead to breaking a rule.
Could have something to do with Judiasm having a long history. It's a lot easier to make laws than to repeal them and power likes to accumulate more power.
|