Apparently we are antisocial bastards...
Discussion
Suckmychrsitmas said:
Were measures introduced that meant it was more expensive to own vehicles that delivered poor fuel economy and the percentage of people that plumped for, say, an Ultima declined, then so be it.
There already are measures in place, the high level of fuel taxation in this country.
You seem to be grasping at straws on this thread to justify your irrational prejudices.
turbobloke said:
If a person can afford the energy costs there's no (valid) control freak reason to deny the use of any vehicle.
There are plenty of reasons, e.g. noise pollution.
Indeed, Smc, are you saying that if enough people object to what someone else is doing, that action ought to be banned?
flemke said:
Indeed, Smc, are you saying that if enough people object to what someone else is doing, that action ought to be banned?
Playing devil's advocate for a second, there is some merit in that approach - certainly if these people are inconvenienced, harmed, or significantly offended by the action.
But the number of people needs to be very substantial, and the action should be clearly and separably different from a more moderate, similar action* (so driving a supercar wouldn't qualify unless all cars were complained about...and by inference buses and trucks would be caught also).
* - possibly use stricter criteria here.
flemke said:
Indeed, Smc, are you saying that if enough people object to what someone else is doing, that action ought to be banned?
That's one way of reading it, yes. If that action incoveniences, offends or poses a risk to someone else, then, yes, there's a good argument for it being banned. I'm curious as to why you see this as a negative thing?
>> Edited by Suckmychrsitmas on Wednesday 4th January 16:44
Suckmychrsitmas said:
Indeed, Smc, are you saying that if enough people object to what someone else is doing, that action ought to be banned?
That's one way of reading it, yes. If that action incoveniences, offends or poses a risk to someone else, then, yes, there's a good argument for it being banned. I'm curious as to why you see this as a negative thing?
I think we've had enough of this already.
The ignorant and uninformed can easily be whipped up into an irrational frenzy by prejudiced zealots over insignificant issues.....
Then government panics....
Given further influence, the PC brigade will have us locked in sheds.
Suckmychrsitmas said:
Indeed, Smc, are you saying that if enough people object to what someone else is doing, that action ought to be banned?
That's one way of reading it, yes. If that action incoveniences, offends or poses a risk to someone else, then, yes, there's a good argument for it being banned. I'm curious as to why you see this as a negative thing?
It's a negative thing because it justifies mob rule. You get enough of one crowd ganged up against another group (of one or more), and might makes right. In a form so extreme that it's almost beyond contemplation, it happened in Germany and Austria seventy years ago, and it wasn't pretty.
Even on the mundane level, who decides what "inconveniences, offends, or poses a risk to someone else"? It's all about definitions, and power resides with those who are in a position to do the defining.
flemke said:
It's a negative thing because it justifies mob rule. You get enough of one crowd ganged up against another group (of one or more), and might makes right. In a form so extreme that it's almost beyond contemplation, it happened in Germany and Austria seventy years ago, and it wasn't pretty.
It doesn't justify mob rule. It's how laws come to be passed, rightly or wrongly, I'm afraid.
Suckmychrsitmas said:
That's one way of reading it, yes. If that action incoveniences, offends or poses a risk to someone else, then, yes, there's a good argument for it being banned. I'm curious as to why you see this as a negative thing?
>> Edited by Suckmychrsitmas on Wednesday 4th January 16:44
The actions of government should not be based on mob rule but on reason.
Often the actions they need to take will not be popular with the great unwashed but are in the best interests of the country.
Something should be banned only if it is damaging society not because it will play well in the Tabloids.
mybrainhurts said:
If I get enough people to shout that buses incovenience, offend and pose a risk to them, are we going to ban them, then....?
Yes, why not? Build up enough public support for buses to have some sort of device to filter out harmful exhaust particles fitted or for new buses to be powered by cleaner fuels or to even have them banned altogether (although I shouldn't imagine that you'd get sufficient public support on that one) and there's a good chance the government will see which way the wind is blowing and pass the necessary legislation.
Suckmychrsitmas said:
It's a negative thing because it justifies mob rule. You get enough of one crowd ganged up against another group (of one or more), and might makes right. In a form so extreme that it's almost beyond contemplation, it happened in Germany and Austria seventy years ago, and it wasn't pretty.
It doesn't justify mob rule. It's how laws come to be passed, rightly or wrongly, I'm afraid.
but people telling me what i can and can't do offend me, pretty much is the basis for half the complaints from people on these threads. So would a ban on new rules be a good idea?
please see my thread from a while ago re: common sense, seems to be some missing here.
Code Monkey said:
but people telling me what i can and can't do offend me, pretty much is the basis for half the complaints from people on these threads. So would a ban on new rules be a good idea?
please see my thread from a while ago re: common sense, seems to be some missing here.
This is getting tiresome. One of the pesky downsides to living in a civilised society is having to put up with laws, i.e. people telling you what you can and can't do.
Suckmychrsitmas said:
If I get enough people to shout that buses incovenience, offend and pose a risk to them, are we going to ban them, then....?
Yes, why not? Build up enough public support for buses to have some sort of device to filter out harmful exhaust particles fitted or for new buses to be powered by cleaner fuels or to even have them banned altogether (although I shouldn't imagine that you'd get sufficient public support on that one) and there's a good chance the government will see which way the wind is blowing and pass the necessary legislation.
Ah...so, how much public support is enough public support?
Suckmychrsitmas said:
If I get enough people to shout that buses incovenience, offend and pose a risk to them, are we going to ban them, then....?
Yes, why not? Build up enough public support for buses to have some sort of device to filter out harmful exhaust particles fitted or for new buses to be powered by cleaner fuels or to even have them banned altogether (although I shouldn't imagine that you'd get sufficient public support on that one) and there's a good chance the government will see which way the wind is blowing and pass the necessary legislation.
The government's first instinct in that case would be to divert everyone's attention back to private cars again though, for another indiscriminate clobbering.
Put it this way - if a plan involves a government shelling out on a public service forget it - it won't make enough revenue.
That is the quandary all private car owners are in with this government.
Suckmychrsitmas said:
but people telling me what i can and can't do offend me, pretty much is the basis for half the complaints from people on these threads. So would a ban on new rules be a good idea?
please see my thread from a while ago re: common sense, seems to be some missing here.
This is getting tiresome. One of the pesky downsides to living in a civilised society is having to put up with laws, i.e. people telling you what you can and can't do.
That and living with other people in a civilised manner and not expecting everyone to be exactly the same as you are or having exactly the same beliefs or desires in life
Code Monkey said:
That and living with other people in a civilised manner and not expecting everyone to be exactly the same as you are or having exactly the same beliefs or desires in life
Yes, but some compromise must be reached. You may feel it's acceptable to drive a V12 with a massive exhaust creating significantly more than the legal limit through a residential neighbourhood or take in some target practice with your handgun in at the local park, but unfortunately there's going to be a lot of people that don't agree with you.
Suckmychrsitmas said:
That and living with other people in a civilised manner and not expecting everyone to be exactly the same as you are or having exactly the same beliefs or desires in life
Yes, but some compromise must be reached.
I think you'll find everybody here achieves compromise by self discipline.
You need to be preaching elsewhere.....
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff