Ben, Tennessee did not defer responsibility. His point is that both positions
are valid. In the absence of a *clear* *net* benefit, he will not change the
settings. This is not about majority but about the case not being as clear cut
as you make it out to be.
—
Sent from Mailbox
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Ben Finney <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Tennessee Leeuwenburg <[email protected]> writes:
>> Thanks for the responses. I appreciate the argument about harm
>> minimisation, and the position that 'best interests' rather than
>> majority rule is appropriate in some circumstances. Those are both
>> valid points.
> What of the point that this is a decision to be made by an administrator
> informed about the issues, and not by popular appeal?
>> Regardless of that, there is not a clear majority supporting changing
>> the current settings.
> It seems you dismiss the idea that the administrator should do what is
> best based on the facts and trade-offs, whether or not it is most
> popular. You defer that responsibility instead to whichever group
> marshals the most voices.
> That's a disappointment.
> --
> \ “People always ask me, ‘Where were you when Kennedy was shot?’ |
> `\ Well, I don't have an alibi.” —Emo Philips |
> _o__) |
> Ben Finney
> _______________________________________________
> melbourne-pug mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug
_______________________________________________
melbourne-pug mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug
