4 ms·

as far as i am aware nobody voted for Uber in last elections in Italy to be the one changing the laws if you wanna do business you must follow to law, if you d

by Markoff 10y ago

as far as i am aware nobody voted for Uber in last elections in Italy to be the one changing the laws if you wanna do business you must follow to law, if you don't like it then either change law or go back to US where are people apparently more relaxed about breaking law, but Stilton is not do business while breaking law

Markoff 10y ago
solution
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
yummyfajitas 10y ago
As far as I'm aware nobody voted for Martin Luther King in any election. If you wanna ride the bus in the US you must follow the law (negros to the back), if you don't like it then either change the law or go back to Africa. Especially you, Rosa Parks. Or perhaps in the historical Italian context, "if you wanna be Jewish go to Madagascar or otherwise emigrate." Your argument - "accept an unjust law or leave" - applies equally well to all sorts of laws. Since your argument implies an insane conclusion, it must be wrong. Or do you endorse the conclusions I draw above?
- throwaway2048 10y ago
  These are outragous, completely unwarrented comparisons.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Why? All were against the law at one time, and emigration to avoid the impact of the law was possible. (C.f. the Madagascar plan.) Thus, the preconditions of markoffs argument apply. If the conclusion is outrageous, it's a flaw in his argument.
    - foobarchu 10y ago
      It's an outrageous comparison because your comparing Uber to civil disobedience. There is actually difference. Companies are incapable of civil disobedience. As soon as somebody is making money off of it, it's just breaking the law, regardless of whether or not you like said law. If Uber wants to change the world, they can start lobbying, or start a grassroots movement or something. Just saying "screw you" to the existing regulations isn't ok.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        So if a restaurant served people of both races but gave them all a bill, you'd be similarly opposed? Or if blacks broke the law to draw attention to discrimination in employment or occupational licensing? After all, someone (a corporation in the restaurant case) is making money off it so it's just breaking the law. Or if Catholics in Northern Ireland were protesting to stop discrimination against them in employment, same thing? (Springs to mind since I just visited Derry a few days ago.) Due to the involvement of money it's just breaking the law? Similarly, Isis Brantley fought for 20 years for the right to braid hair. I suppose you oppose her actions too? http://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/news/a41742/isis-brantley-hair-braiding-texas/ http://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/news/a41742/isis-br... That's a new argument which I don't agree with, but I suppose the implications aren't quite as bad as those of Markoff's argument. You aren't condemning all civil rights activists, just the ones who fight for an equal right to make money. Or perhaps you are just making a post-hoc rationalization for a less justifiable position.
- Confusion 10y ago
  Your argument - "accept an unjust law or leave" - applies equally well to all sorts of laws. Of course it doesn't. I don't doubt you are well aware a law you consider unjust because it causes human beings to be grossly mistreated is entirely different from a law you consider unjust because it makes it hard for companies to enter a specific national market and are just making a disingenuous, trollish, argument. Morality is not black and white and two things you consider 'unjust' are not comparable merely because you can find a single word that you believe describes them both. And if you really are not aware of such differences, then you're an asshole and for the sake of society and those around I hope you learn about the difference.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    If you want to argue that taxi protectionist laws are just, make that argument. "It's the law and you can leave" is, unfortunately, not that argument. Morality is not black and white and two things you consider 'unjust' are not comparable merely because you can find a single word that you believe describes them both. They are directly comparable in the sense that they satisfy the preconditions of Markoff's argument. My point is that if Markoff's argument were valid, then this crazy conclusion would also be true. On the flip side, if that crazy conclusion is false then Markoff's argument must also be invalid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction
    - someguydave 10y ago
      Why can't it be the case that a law is immoral and breaking it is also immoral?
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        It could be. In that case, was Rosa Parks also immoral? If not, why not?
        someguydave 10y ago
kwhitefoot 10y ago
> Stilton The best autocorrection I've seen for ages!

by Markoff 10y ago

Markoff 10y ago

solution

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

yummyfajitas 10y ago

As far as I'm aware nobody voted for Martin Luther King in any election. If you wanna ride the bus in the US you must follow the law (negros to the back), if you don't like it then either change the law or go back to Africa. Especially you, Rosa Parks. Or perhaps in the historical Italian context, "if you wanna be Jewish go to Madagascar or otherwise emigrate." Your argument - "accept an unjust law or leave" - applies equally well to all sorts of laws. Since your argument implies an insane conclusion, it must be wrong. Or do you endorse the conclusions I draw above?

throwaway2048 10y ago
These are outragous, completely unwarrented comparisons.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Why? All were against the law at one time, and emigration to avoid the impact of the law was possible. (C.f. the Madagascar plan.) Thus, the preconditions of markoffs argument apply. If the conclusion is outrageous, it's a flaw in his argument.
  - foobarchu 10y ago
    It's an outrageous comparison because your comparing Uber to civil disobedience. There is actually difference. Companies are incapable of civil disobedience. As soon as somebody is making money off of it, it's just breaking the law, regardless of whether or not you like said law. If Uber wants to change the world, they can start lobbying, or start a grassroots movement or something. Just saying "screw you" to the existing regulations isn't ok.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      So if a restaurant served people of both races but gave them all a bill, you'd be similarly opposed? Or if blacks broke the law to draw attention to discrimination in employment or occupational licensing? After all, someone (a corporation in the restaurant case) is making money off it so it's just breaking the law. Or if Catholics in Northern Ireland were protesting to stop discrimination against them in employment, same thing? (Springs to mind since I just visited Derry a few days ago.) Due to the involvement of money it's just breaking the law? Similarly, Isis Brantley fought for 20 years for the right to braid hair. I suppose you oppose her actions too? http://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/news/a41742/isis-brantley-hair-braiding-texas/ http://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/news/a41742/isis-br... That's a new argument which I don't agree with, but I suppose the implications aren't quite as bad as those of Markoff's argument. You aren't condemning all civil rights activists, just the ones who fight for an equal right to make money. Or perhaps you are just making a post-hoc rationalization for a less justifiable position.
Confusion 10y ago
Your argument - "accept an unjust law or leave" - applies equally well to all sorts of laws. Of course it doesn't. I don't doubt you are well aware a law you consider unjust because it causes human beings to be grossly mistreated is entirely different from a law you consider unjust because it makes it hard for companies to enter a specific national market and are just making a disingenuous, trollish, argument. Morality is not black and white and two things you consider 'unjust' are not comparable merely because you can find a single word that you believe describes them both. And if you really are not aware of such differences, then you're an asshole and for the sake of society and those around I hope you learn about the difference.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  If you want to argue that taxi protectionist laws are just, make that argument. "It's the law and you can leave" is, unfortunately, not that argument. Morality is not black and white and two things you consider 'unjust' are not comparable merely because you can find a single word that you believe describes them both. They are directly comparable in the sense that they satisfy the preconditions of Markoff's argument. My point is that if Markoff's argument were valid, then this crazy conclusion would also be true. On the flip side, if that crazy conclusion is false then Markoff's argument must also be invalid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction
  - someguydave 10y ago
    Why can't it be the case that a law is immoral and breaking it is also immoral?
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      It could be. In that case, was Rosa Parks also immoral? If not, why not?
      - someguydave 10y ago

kwhitefoot 10y ago

> Stilton The best autocorrection I've seen for ages!