. . . for government reminds me not to drink from the urinal.
Chandler's new City Hall comes with some features that have municipal workers and visitors scratching their heads. Like the restroom signs that tell people not to drink out of the urinals and toilets.
The underlying article implies that the signs are there because the building uses reclaimed wastewater to flush the toilets and urinals (sensible) and that pertinent regulations require all wastewater uses to be accompanied by warning signs (not sensible).
1. If there are people who want to drink from the toilet, shouldn't we just let them do whatever makes them happy and keep all the good water for ourselves?
2. If a person is inclined to drink from the toilet, is there a rational basis to believe that a sign telling them not to is likely to influence their behavior? (This is a variation on a question that got me disapprovingly hissed during torts class at a certain East Coast diploma mill 20 years ago: if someone sees nothing wrong with pouring perfume onto an open flame to make a nice scent, what are the chances that they will heed a warning not to pour alcohol-based perfumes onto open flames? Aren't we just ruining the aesthetics of our perfume bottles for the benefit of .1% of the population that would probably be better off confined to burn wards anyway?)
With any luck, charismatic thinker John Cole will be here any moment to explain that by asking these questions I am identifying myself as a glibertarian teahaddist Palinite freak.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- Free Speech Triumphant Or Free Speech In Retreat? - June 21st, 2017
- The Power To Generate Crimes Rather Than Merely Investigate Them - June 19th, 2017
- Free Speech, The Goose, And The Gander - June 17th, 2017
- Free Speech Tropes In The LA Times - June 8th, 2017
- I write letters - June 1st, 2017