|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: A Policeman got a parking ticket and complained about it!
Date: 28 Jul 2008 17:34:32
Message: <488e3b67@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: andrel
Subject: Re: A Policeman got a parking ticket and complained about it!
Date: 28 Jul 2008 18:27:25
Message: <488E4809.9060601@hotmail.com>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Sabrina Kilian
Subject: Re: A Policeman got a parking ticket and complained about it!
Date: 28 Jul 2008 23:28:13
Message: <488e8e4d$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Chambers
Subject: Re: A Policeman got a parking ticket and complained about it!
Date: 29 Jul 2008 01:27:24
Message: <488eaa3c@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tom Austin
Subject: Re: A Policeman got a parking ticket and complained about it!
Date: 29 Jul 2008 08:27:29
Message: <488f0cb1$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: A Policeman got a parking ticket and complained about it!
Date: 29 Jul 2008 09:47:58
Message: <488f1f8e@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> >> So why don't the police do the same thing?
> >
> > Because they are in patrol?
> But they shouldn't be eating on patrol.
Excuse me? The police must go all day without eating? This is getting
just ridiculous.
> >> 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.
But not because the justification was bad, but because the judge had no
choice. His hands were tied.
> 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.
You have a rather narrow view of things if that's the *only* way you can
see the situation.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:47:58 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> >> So why don't the police do the same thing?
>> >
>> > Because they are in patrol?
>
>> But they shouldn't be eating on patrol.
>
> Excuse me? The police must go all day without eating? This is getting
> just ridiculous.
Quite right police should go all day without eating just like ambulance
drivers.
<snip>
>> The judgement was that he'd broken the law, he supplied his
>> justification and it was rejected in court.
>
> But not because the justification was bad, but because the judge had no
> choice. His hands were tied.
The judge could have decided that the officer was acting within his duties
and thus eligible to break such rules. Sort of the point of having a
judge, keeps the government in check.
>> 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.
>
> You have a rather narrow view of things if that's the *only* way you
> can see the situation.
No you posited a point that required a response -
I point out that Mueen suggests such things are fought in court.
I point out that in this case it was and the officer lost.
You declared that this proves that the officer was arrogant and above the
law with the challenge "Right".
I respond as above.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |