ElCheapoSprinto
Member
Is this bizzaro world?!
And following a law is a choice. Occasionally I don't agree with a law, and I choose not to follow it.Its NOT a choice, its a law.
Great post!And following a law is a choice. Occasionally I don't agree with a law, and I choose not to follow it.
We have an exponential growth of human population. Everything else aside - lowering the human population is the most important thing that humankind can do for the earth, and for it's own continued existence. To say that this isn't THE issue is asinine.
Until a government steps up and rightly proclaims the glaring obvious, then it makes almost no difference if we keep these emission systems on our vehicles. So why hassle this guy?
These systems, recycling, not watering your lawn quite as much, are just a spectacle. They cause a lot of furor, chest pounding, back patting, hand shaking, and raised noses, but that's all they do. They don't resolve anything, they actually detract from a genuine solution.
If I had the issues that so many of the people in these GDE threads have, I'd make the obvious choice.
I'm fairly sure that most of the GDE shamers have a substantially larger carbon footprint than the overwhelming majority of the world's citizens, and probably more than the average American. If someone wants to remove their crap emission system because they don't have unlimited time and funds to dump into it, it's their decision. But let's not pretend like a few people removing their emissions equipment makes any difference at all.
Want to make a difference? Start by reducing your own carbon footprint.
God help us. I guess we really are screwed.And following a law is a choice. Occasionally I don't agree with a law, and I choose not to follow it.
If we continue in our current direction, the human race is certainly screwed but people choosing to disregard a law occasionally is not a major factor in our destruction.God help us. I guess we really are screwed.
It's important to put things in perspective.
I repeat, it is not a choice. You don't get to decide.if we are honest, we would all have to admit to violating the law at least a few times in our lives
I understand what you are saying and it is an accurate description of legal theory, but I think others are trying to point out the difference between the theoretical and the practical. In theory, yes, the two ethical choices are either following the law or civil disobedience (and yes, 'civil disobedience' does not mean 'I break the law when I want to' But for example, do you never knowingly exceed the speed limit? Or if you do, do you only do it when passing a LEO and as flagrantly as possible in an attempt to get cited? Or are you unethical? It is not only possible to both believe in the rule of law and yet still allow for minor transgressions, it is a practical necessity in the real world.If you don't agree with a law, you have two ethical choices:
1) Obey it anyway while working to get it changed.
2) Engage in civil disobedience, which means to publicly and flagrantly disobey it with the intent of being arrested as an act of speech.
Anything else is either anarchy or narcissism, depending on whether you believe you are the only one so-entitled. "Everybody does it" is a pathetic argument.
Well said.I repeat, it is not a choice. You don't get to decide.
If you don't agree with a law, you have two ethical choices:
1) Obey it anyway while working to get it changed.
2) Engage in civil disobedience, which means to publicly and flagrantly disobey it with the intent of being arrested as an act of speech.
Anything else is either anarchy or narcissism, depending on whether you believe you are the only one so-entitled. "Everybody does it" is a pathetic argument.
I don't even know how to communicate with someone who does not accept the rule of law as a fundamental principle.
Over and out.
Or I could have written what smiller did...I understand what you are saying and it is an accurate description of legal theory, but I think others are trying to point out the difference between the theoretical and the practical. In theory, yes, the two ethical choices are either following the law or civil disobedience (and yes, 'civil disobedience' does not mean 'I break the law when I want to' But for example, do you never knowingly exceed the speed limit? Or if you do, do you only do it when passing a LEO and as flagrantly as possible in an attempt to get cited? Or are you unethical? It is not only possible to both believe in the rule of law and yet still allow for minor transgressions, it is a practical necessity in the real world.
.
It is a choice; I do get to decide. "Everyone does it" is indeed a pathetic argument. I sense some cognitive dissonance, and I'm also inclined to believe that you've never read Civil Disobedience ...I repeat, it is not a choice. You don't get to decide.
If you don't agree with a law, you have two ethical choices:
1) Obey it anyway while working to get it changed.
2) Engage in civil disobedience, which means to publicly and flagrantly disobey it with the intent of being arrested as an act of speech.
Anything else is either anarchy or narcissism, depending on whether you believe you are the only one so-entitled. "Everybody does it" is a pathetic argument.
I don't even know how to communicate with someone who does not accept the rule of law as a fundamental principle.
Over and out.
As for 'everyone is doing it' said:I will go one step further and say that if you tell me you have never violated any law or regulation, you are a liar. Further yet, calling others wrong in doing so makes you a hypocrite.
There needs to be a RANTS AND RAVES section here. Like Craigslist has for those needing to chastise others wanting to do things to their vehicles others disagree with. Keeping to the topic with discussion and advice and sharing knowledge and experiences is what the forums should be for.I will go one step further and say that if you tell me you have never violated any law or regulation, you are a liar. Further yet, calling others wrong in doing so makes you a hypocrite.