4 ms·
As long as you’re appealing to “common sense” at any level then people will disagree. 1 in 10 people think piloting a commercial airliner over the park violates
by whakim 3y ago
As long as you’re appealing to “common sense” at any level then people will disagree. 1 in 10 people think piloting a commercial airliner over the park violates a “no vehicles in the park” rule, which seems crazy to me but obviously logical to others.
- lukan 3y ago"but for those cases where people disagree - then you can refer to the rules."
- whakim 3y agoI'm pretty sure we're just going round in circles now. The point is that people disagree about everything, so anything you leave up to "common sense" will cause disagreement. Any you can't possibly define rules for everything either.
- lukan 3y agoNo, "common sense" is the default. And where that is not enough - you can have rules for most common cases, to settle any dispute. And if there are edge cases that frequently cause disturbance where no clear rules cover them - then those cases can be put into the rules. It is not that complicated.
- joshuamorton 3y agoNow assume the park contains a billion people, some of whom are explicitly interested in doing things you wish to disallow, and some are explicitly interested in annoying you. Both of these groups continually do antisocial things not defined by the rules, even as you add more. Then then start a political party to defend the parks service for discriminating against them when you create rules seemingly targeted at their legitimate misbehavior. Is it still simple?
- lukan 3y agoA park does not contain a billion people. A very big nation does. That is the slight difference in between the 2 things. The difference in simple and complicated. Because the more people you have, yes, the more complicated it gets.