Guilty Laughs
Are you the kind of person who laughs when they see a cat getting run over? Tell us about the times your sense of humour has gone beyond taste and decency.
Suggested by SnowyTheRabbit
( , Thu 22 Jul 2010, 15:19)
Are you the kind of person who laughs when they see a cat getting run over? Tell us about the times your sense of humour has gone beyond taste and decency.
Suggested by SnowyTheRabbit
( , Thu 22 Jul 2010, 15:19)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
Nope, that's not my viewpoint
Everyone should be able to break a law that endangers them, as long as it doesn't endanger others.
/edit ... and if it does endanger others, that it endangers them LESS than it would you by not breaking that law. E.g. a quick whizz over the lights with nothing coming (proceeding with caution), versus a chance (however small) of getting killed.
( , Mon 26 Jul 2010, 17:46, 1 reply)
Everyone should be able to break a law that endangers them, as long as it doesn't endanger others.
/edit ... and if it does endanger others, that it endangers them LESS than it would you by not breaking that law. E.g. a quick whizz over the lights with nothing coming (proceeding with caution), versus a chance (however small) of getting killed.
( , Mon 26 Jul 2010, 17:46, 1 reply)
Right, OK.
So if I own a car it's OK for me to endanger cyclists if I feel endangered by trucks.
( , Mon 26 Jul 2010, 17:48, closed)
So if I own a car it's OK for me to endanger cyclists if I feel endangered by trucks.
( , Mon 26 Jul 2010, 17:48, closed)
Nope
Read what I typed:
"Everyone should be able to break a law that endangers them, as long as it doesn't endanger others."
If there's no cyclist there, then by all means take evasive (or even pre-emptive) action.
"And if it does endanger others, that it endangers them LESS than it would you by not breaking that law."
If there's a cyclist there, killing the cyclist to preserve yourself is never acceptable.
/edit: and now I do have to go home. Carefully. On my brompton.
( , Mon 26 Jul 2010, 17:50, closed)
Read what I typed:
"Everyone should be able to break a law that endangers them, as long as it doesn't endanger others."
If there's no cyclist there, then by all means take evasive (or even pre-emptive) action.
"And if it does endanger others, that it endangers them LESS than it would you by not breaking that law."
If there's a cyclist there, killing the cyclist to preserve yourself is never acceptable.
/edit: and now I do have to go home. Carefully. On my brompton.
( , Mon 26 Jul 2010, 17:50, closed)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread