Well said David.

I think your analogy with ordinary language is the best example showing how
the concept of 'choice' is unworkable when it comes to measurement.

Phil Hall

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of David King
> Sent: 10 March 2005 10:49
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:32429] Re: USMA announcement
>
>
> I too am all for an anti-fascist society. Sometimes enthusiasm for
> something can be mistaken for something less acceptable, and if you feel
> that my comments are not in line with what you want society to be then I
> feel that you have misunderstood my comments, or I am
> misunderstanding you.
>
> I would like society to be open and free, I don't want to lose freedoms,
> etc., but all my life I have not had the choice of using metric
> exclusively in life, which is my preference.  I have been forced to use
> imperial so many times that I am sick of imperial and want to choose
> metric, but society won't let me use metric all the way.
>
> We need to have metric available in all areas to all, and those who
> choose not to use metric have had their day of non-metric being dominant
> in the UK and USA, now it is the turn of metric being dominant. You
> cannot have it both ways, a free society is good but when it has to
> regulate things one way or the other, for example, in the UK all road
> signs like speed limits on public roads, by law, have to be in miles per
> hour, even though I would prefer them to be in km/h like in most
> countries of the world, but the law forbids such a thing at present.
> That is regulation and control and a lack of freedom of choice. To have
> everything using just one system is what I would like to see, not
> because I oppose freedom or choice, because I believe in freedoms for
> all and where appropriate people should have choice, but choice must be
> limited within certain parameters otherwise we have chaos. For example,
> a hypothetical situation: if I choose to kill you, would you allow that,
> as you are pro-choice? Or would you want to say that is not acceptable,
> as some choices are not valid? Surely you would choose the latter, that
> there must be restrictions on society for the good of all.
>
> As I see it, metrication is for the good of all and although it means
> non-metric users have less choice, it does not mean we have to have a
> fascist or totalitarian society. Most countries in the world went metric
> without altering freedoms of choice for people.
>
> Another example, suppose I choose to speak in a language other than
> English? I might demand that right, and that all forms and documents
> that I have to use officially be in my chosen language, other than
> English, but they cannot be because it is impractical. My only choice
> then would be to do everything in English.
>
> Basically, you have to remember that choice is limited by restrictions,
> and that metrication is not against choice, it is about harmony. Harmony
> means we all use the same measurement system so that we all understand
> each other, to promote the betterment of society.
>
> I hope you reconsider your position on metrication and realise that it
> does not mean trying to control people nor telling them what to think,
> but is rather a means to harmony within the world as a whole. There are
> many political issues in the world as it is which divide people,
> metrication should not be one of them.
>
> David King
>
>
>
> ewc wrote:
>
> >Hi Jim (Elwell)
> >
> >Thanks for the voice of sanity - but I fear you are in a minority.
> >
> >When I joined this group I was (mildly) pro-metric.  But recent
> >comments by many - including Pat, David and Phil - have been the last
> >straw for me.
> >
> >I will hence forward actively oppose metrification in a wide variety
> >of contexts because I feel it is my duty in connection with the
> >preservation of basic liberal values, and an open, anti-fascist,
> >society.
> >
> >That fool Orwell is dead so this fool will carry his protest on.
> >
> >most sincerely
> >
> >Robert Tye
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Reply via email to