To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.generalOpen lugnet.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 General / 22420
22419  |  22421
Subject: 
Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general
Date: 
Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:04:06 GMT
Viewed: 
85 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
The argument advanced by some that there is a clear and present danger
so strong that we have to ban SUVs a priori isn't supportable...

" a priori " ???

Sorry, that Canadian education must have been letting you down:
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=a%20priori
(meaning #3 sense 1: Made before or without examination)

Some basic rules/safety standards should be in place.  That,
after all is the purpose of government.

Really? I wasn't aware that government was responsible for making the world
safe. I don't see it in OUR constitution that government is responsible for
setting the pinout voltage levels of the RS-232 (which is a basic
rule/standard), or is responsible for setting the voltage levels we get from
our power poles (which have a lot to do with safety), either. Defacto
regulation of things doesn't make it dejure, or even a good idea.

We collectively agree that
we'll drive on the right side of the road, that red lights mean stop,
that you have to pass certain standards to operate the motor vehicle
on public property, that insurance is required, that all vehicles meet
certain safety standards, (like having the same bumper height...) etc.

Why, if these are good ideas, is it necessary for there to be regulation? And
if they're not actually good ideas, why is it a good thing that they are
mandated just the same? c.f. regulation of how much bone slivers can be
present in my hot dogs. Absent that regulation, meat companies would compete
on how little they had, or not having any at all, but now that we have a
minimum standard, they all don't bother to mention how much is in there any
more. Regulated standards ensure mediocrity because no one tries to exceed
them, there's no market advantage in doing so.

++Lar



Message has 5 Replies:
  Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
 
(...) If you'd add onto this a policy of full disclosure, I think I'd agree here. My concern is that there could easily be a practice of rug-sweeping, under which companies do whatever they feel like doing, all the while spinning and respinning (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
  Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
 
(...) I know this idea rankles your Libertarian side, Lar, but easily 80% of the US needs "good ideas" to be regulated for them, because they wouldn't understand consensual logic and working together if it bit them on the apricots. Whether or not (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
 
Boy, I may not subscribe to off.topic.debate anymore, but you have to love the Subject line! : ) Larry, in all of his wisdom, shines through again. I like my SUV at it's present height, BTW, I think most of these posts should be centered on poor (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
 
(...) (“Back to .general again”? – It was never there that I’m aware.) I sent a copy to .general since that was the best group I could find to share Frank’s great nuke joke. I figured that any follow up would be to the same .off-topic.debate group (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
  Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
 
(...) Nonsense, although that's clearly overstating the point being made by the previous poster. I give you In Congress, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that (...) (24 years ago, 24-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)

Message is in Reply To:
  Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
 
(...) " a priori " ??? (...) I agree in general with what Larry is saying, but I also agree with Richard. Some basic rules/safety standards should be in place. That, after all is the purpose of government. We collectively agree that we'll drive on (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)

26 Messages in This Thread:











Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR