"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:488### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 27-Jul-08 22:06, somebody wrote:
> > "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> > news:488### [at] hotmailcom...
> >> On 27-Jul-08 19:27, Warp wrote:
> >
> >>>   I see absolutely no problem in such exemption.
> >
> >> I did understand what you were saying but I simply disagree and yes, I
> >> do see the problem. It is the problem of the slippery slope. (yes, I
did
> >> consult wikipedia)
> >
> > Slippery slope can be abused.
>
> Hence the remark about wikipedia
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)
>
> > Just because the law applies differently to
> > police doesn't mean it becomes meaningless. Many laws have built in
> > exceptions, but they still work.
>  >
> >> It's their job to enforce the law for everybody. No exceptions for
> >> policeman, lawyers, judges, politicians or the mayor's wife or friends.
> >> Law is law and it applies to everybody.
> >
> > Laws can be different for different people. Handicapped persons, already
> > have priviledges with regards to parking, for instance. Why not the
police?
> > While resentment at others' priviledges is a natural human emotion, I
cannot
> > find a good logical argument.

> As slime said: it is not a problem if you make it into a law. As long as
> it is not a law however, the police should abide by the existing law.

Would you also agree that as long as it's the law, blacks should sit at the
back end of the bus?

Granted, not in the same league, but laws evolve via challenges

Post a reply to this message