On 5/31/2010 5:42 PM, William Robb wrote:
To a great extent we are discussing ethics. That is what the law is about. We take the ethics we would like to see in our society and compel people into following what we think is an ethical approach. It tends to break down when special interest groups get their wedge into the door and start to force people into doing not what is necessarily right for society, but what is right for them.
I believe that ethics does not taste very well if spiced with money arithmetic. And the next thing you arrive to is someone (e.g. Peter) preferring cigarettes and booze to whatever ethical issue you're discussing. No offense, Peter, just making a example to the point.
To bring this back to the discussion at hand, if a special interest group in my country put a big push on to have some sort of child alert device mandated into every new vehicle sold, they would make a lot of noise about it being "for the children", and anyone who disagreed would be branded as a child hater who wants to see kids getting killed in hot cars. By making this jump in logic, they would effectively shut up any discussion on the subject and would force their will onto the majority of the people. I've seen this sort of thing happen enough to be very wary of any special interest group.
Well, it has to take a degree of leveled and cool head to have productive conversation on the matter. So far, it seems it has been the case, though I haven't yet read all the messages from yesterday (my time).
Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
