4 ms·
>Whenever someone is pushing a mandate on someone else, I wish they would be called out if they are already following that mandate. Why though? If you found ou
by frgtpsswrdlame 5y ago
>Whenever someone is pushing a mandate on someone else, I wish they would be called out if they are already following that mandate.
Why though? If you found out that many members of MADD had installed these devices would it change your opinion on requiring it for everyone else? If you found that someone campaigning for higher tax rates actually did make generous contributions, would it change your opinion on raising the rates? Somehow I suspect not, in fact I would hope you wouldn't be so easily swayed! So then we've not pushed the argument forward at all, just taken a detour down an irrelevant cul-de-sac in the hopes of finding a gotcha.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jaywalk 5y agoThose facts would not change my opinion, and as you said they alone should not change anyone's opinion. But if someone is already living by the rules they'd like imposed on me, I'm definitely more likely to listen to what they have to say.
- LanceH 5y ago> If you found out that many members of MADD had installed these devices would it change your opinion on requiring it for everyone else? At least I would respect the argument. Right now I see too many people proposing the use of force to achieve something they don't believe in enough to do themselves.
- frgtpsswrdlame 5y ago>At least I would respect the argument. Which really just means 'no.' So like I said, just a big waste of time, the argument for or against these drunk-driving systems is about whether the good for society is worth the cost not about who's making the argument or whether you respect them.