Nuxx:Ea3c2cec-07aa-42c8-acb9-5c8a9666d558@z20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!z20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:21:44 -0700 (PDT) References:  <28a47af8-30fb-45fc-9341-9d2f057b6fd5@n1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <3f326b6a-0e02-4447-bdfe-5c582d2b259f@u8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <989ec086-0287-402c-8b3f-e93184ee53d7@e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <9a151089-10fc-4d16-8930-f433582c72d8@d2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> <20110323180524.71b5faa3@bluemoon> <1c2544d7-5173-4619-85af-97fddd78e321@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <20110323230913.5ee9904e@bluemoon> <1itlo65b9l9qjcujcsmp0hh6ut48gl1krs@news.markshouse.net> Lines: 42 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1300976504 19723 127.0.0.1 (24 Mar 2011 14:21:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:21:44 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=WrLs9woAAAD151hWKA9yknAtxFHW4kE4 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3620 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:39412

On Mar 24, 7:50=A0am, Mark Goodge  wrote: > On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:09:13 +0000, Rob Morley put finger to keyboard and > typed: > > >On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:43:48 -0700 (PDT) > >Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > >> I just hope that if and when they introduce a cycle helmet law and > >> start fining cyclists for profit for not wearing one, you'll be > >> content with people saying "I honestly think that if you don't want to > >> give them your money then you just have to wear a helmet", and > >> pretending that there's no need to discuss whether the helmets are > >> actually needed, whether it's appropriate to set up conveyer-belt, > >> discretionless enforcement of that particular "offence", etc. > > >> Well? =A0Will you be content with that? =A0No wriggling or refusing to > >> answer please. > > >Whether I wear a helmet or not does not affect other road users. > >If you choose to drive at a higher speed than is generally permissible > >then it does affect other road users. =A0So there's really no comparison= , > >is there? =A0 > > But you have just made Nuxx's point here. As soon as you introduce any > factor into the equation other than simply "that's the law, and you have = to > obey it" then "I honestly think that if you don't want to give them your > money you just have to not break the law" isn't an appropriate response t= o > someone who argues that the law is wrong. If you disagree with their > reasons as to why it's wrong, then you have to explain why you think the > law is justified, not merely assert that they shouldn't break it.

Absolutely. Put better than I could have managed.

There's also the fact that I bet Rob fully supports the seatbelt law, despite the fact that "whether or not I choose to wear a seatbelt does not affect other road users". (I'm not saying I don't support the seatbelt law, but it's another inconsistency in Rob's above argument....)