4 ms·
I agree Uber should try to find a way to satisfy the intent of the law, but you're basically saying that everyone should blindly obey every law or not operate.
by SilasX 7y ago
I agree Uber should try to find a way to satisfy the intent of the law, but you're basically saying that everyone should blindly obey every law or not operate. That's way too strong a principle to lean on. I could do a word swap on your very comment and turn it into a defense of e.g. Jim Crow laws.
- wonnage 7y agoHN, where Uber not being able to run their scooters is equal to Jim Crow because “word swap”
- indue 7y agoIt is more like a reductio ad absurdum. It is showing that you would not support the position you are arguing for by taking it to the extreme.
- SilasX 7y agoI wasn't comparing a) LA demanding scooter data to b) LA demanding businesses segregate customers. I was comparing: c) Uber should share scooter data with LA (or shut down) because The Law to d) Uber should segregate customers (or shut down) because The Law. Do you agree that c) and d) are poorly justified, and that if you believe one you should believe the other? I agree that there are reasons why the data-sharing requirement is a much more defensible law than Jim Crow [1]. But sailfast wasn't making those arguments, s/he was just saying Uber should share that data simply because it's the law. That's not a good reason, and as well justified as saying they should comply with Jim Crow because it's the law. [1] Hence why I said Uber should look for a middle ground that satisfies the nobler intents of the law.