andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Yes, I know, and many here, including myself, have made the case that 
> they should have *less*. In essence this is an ethical discussion and we 
> have thus established that you have different ethics than e.g. me. 
> Interesting, but not exactly earth shocking. ;)

  I often like to oppose the majority in many things. That doesn't mean
it's just a principle for the sake of principle. I honestly think that
often the majority truely is wrong, or at least has a misconception or
a view which is too radical.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 28-Jul-08 22:58, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Yes, I know, and many here, including myself, have made the case that 
>> they should have *less*. In essence this is an ethical discussion and we 
>> have thus established that you have different ethics than e.g. me. 
>> Interesting, but not exactly earth shocking. ;)
> 
>   I often like to oppose the majority in many things. That doesn't mean
> it's just a principle for the sake of principle. I honestly think that
> often the majority truely is wrong, or at least has a misconception or
> a view which is too radical.

In this case you may be part of a majority, actually. In most countries 
there are groups that are effectively above the law and think they 
should be. Which is indeed basically why I think you are wrong on this 
account, but that is just my opinion. ;)

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> In this case you may be part of a majority, actually.

  Sometimes I feel that agreeing with the majority actually *is* rebelling
against common (and loudest) opinion.

  An example: if you believed the internet, the vast majority of people
hate Star Wars Episode 1. However, in reality the majority of people
liked it (at least if you look at its profits).
  Now, rebelling against the people who diss SW Episode 1 is, technically
speaking, agreeing with the majority. Somehow I still feel like a minority
when I say that I liked the movie.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 28-Jul-08 23:34, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> In this case you may be part of a majority, actually.
> 
>   Sometimes I feel that agreeing with the majority actually *is* rebelling
> against common (and loudest) opinion.
> 
>   An example: if you believed the internet, the vast majority of people
> hate Star Wars Episode 1. However, in reality the majority of people
> liked it (at least if you look at its profits).
>   Now, rebelling against the people who diss SW Episode 1 is, technically
> speaking, agreeing with the majority. Somehow I still feel like a minority
> when I say that I liked the movie.

OMG, first that and now an appeal to be part of the silent majority.





































just kidding of course ;)

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:26:46 +0100, Tom Austin <taustin> did 
> spake, saying:
> 
>> I once say a police car pull up at a McDonalds and block (2) 
>> handicapped stalls because he parked badly.  He was not in uniform.  
>> He got out and proceeded to return a video the video machine there.  
>> He then went inside and got something and came back out.  All in all 
>> he was there for about 5 minutes.
>>
>> What frustrated me was that he looked off duty (but that may not have 
>> been the case), blocked 2 handicapped stalls - all with about 5 empty 
>> parking spaces about 25 feet away that were easy to get into and out 
>> of - ie pull through.
> 
> Ah now see he had to get to the video store to return the video 
> otherwise they'd have blacklisted him. He then wouldn't be able to get 
> videos for his 'downtime' relaxation thus increasing his tension and 
> impacting on his ability as a police officer. Parking across two stalls 
> was the only way of being able to keep an eye on his vehicle and thus 
> necessary in the pursuit of his duties.
> 

Let's also repeal all drug laws, but only with respect to law 
enforcement officers. They seize the drugs, let them use them as well. 
After all, their 'down time' is important, so let's not tie them up with 
the legalities of whether they should or shouldn't. Pot and alcohol will 
let them chill out better, and any of the uppers they can get will help 
them perform their duty better.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> In this case you may be part of a majority, actually.
> 
>   Sometimes I feel that agreeing with the majority actually *is* rebelling
> against common (and loudest) opinion.
> 
>   An example: if you believed the internet, the vast majority of people
> hate Star Wars Episode 1. However, in reality the majority of people
> liked it (at least if you look at its profits).
>   Now, rebelling against the people who diss SW Episode 1 is, technically
> speaking, agreeing with the majority. Somehow I still feel like a minority
> when I say that I liked the movie.
> 

SW Ep 1 was the turning point for me.  It's the point when I realized 
I'm too old to enjoy SW :(

It also made me realize that a movie doesn't have to be a "good" movie 
to have a strangely addictive property.  I've seen EP1 countless times, 
despite not liking it.

Curiouser and curiouser...

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:50:48 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Slipperysloping is a
>> reality - "Hey you're permitting X why aren't you permitting Y which is
>> just like X sort of"
>
>   It doesn't have to be. Here there are special lanes for buses, taxis
> and emergency vehicles in the biggest cities, which nobody else is  
> allowed
> to use. In other words, these vehicles get special treatment.
>
>   This has *not* caused any slippery slope to happen.

But a bus driver can't use a bus lane when they're not in a bus. As for  
slippery slope I'm not saying it's a universal simply a tendency. Take  
supermarket parking - they need to provide a certain percentage of  
handicapped spaces, now they're also providing family spaces. Now we get  
the elderly saying 'well why don't we get special closer parking, we need  
it too you know'

>> >   Ambulance drivers eat at the hospital (or whichever place they are  
>> when
>> > not on a call). They are not even supposed to eat while on a call.
>
>> So why don't the police do the same thing?
>
>   Because they are in patrol?

But they shouldn't be eating on patrol.

>> Mueen's got the right idea let a judge determine whether any such  
>> illegal
>> acts have been commited in the pursuit of a police officer's duty... oh
>> wait they did in this case and fined him.
>
>   Which of course proves that the police officer was just being arrogant
> and thought he was above the law. Right.

The judgement was that he'd broken the law, he supplied his justification  
and it was rejected in court. The only way I can see that as equating to  
arrogant or above the law was if his reasoning was that he could do what  
he liked because he was a police officer, which it wasn't.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:58:59 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Yes, I know, and many here, including myself, have made the case that
>> they should have *less*. In essence this is an ethical discussion and we
>> have thus established that you have different ethics than e.g. me.
>> Interesting, but not exactly earth shocking. ;)
>
>   I often like to oppose the majority in many things. That doesn't mean
> it's just a principle for the sake of principle. I honestly think that
> often the majority truely is wrong, or at least has a misconception or
> a view which is too radical.

Except by definition in terms of ethics and social morality the majority  
is always 'right'. It's only when a minority change the perception of the  
majority does 'right' become 'wrong'.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:28:13 +0100, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at  
vtSPAM.edu"> did spake, saying:

> Let's also repeal all drug laws, but only with respect to law  
> enforcement officers. They seize the drugs, let them use them as well.  
> After all, their 'down time' is important, so let's not tie them up with  
> the legalities of whether they should or shouldn't. Pot and alcohol will  
> let them chill out better, and any of the uppers they can get will help  
> them perform their duty better.

Heck they could throw parties and sell them. Anyone who buys them and  
leaves the party could be stopped, arrested, and have the drugs  
confiscated to be thrown back into the party for resale. Now that'd help  
with funding.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Maybe we shouldn't complain too much about the police parking

http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/rfisman/parking_20july06_RF.pdf

It seems that in some places diplomats (and their representatives) are 
worse at it.

They ignore the tickets they receive.




Tom

Post a reply to this message