[*BCM*] dbl parked

[Hiroyuki Yamada]

I think, for the purpose of the discussion at hand, (correct me if I am 
mistaken) the definition of "wrong," in Thom3's original comment, is 
simply an infraction of the law. Regardless of the somewhat questionable 
nature of "wrong" vs "right," which inherently bring into view a 
significantly more clouded discussion, the legality of a certain action 
is much simpler to determine. And in this case, the running of the red 
light is, in essence, wrong. The fact that another guy over there is 
double parked, that another car is driving in a non-existent lane, that 
someone just drove through the (now) green light going 5 miles over the 
speed limit, all of these have no bearing on the fact that running the 
red light was wrong to begin with, and the other crimes are not excuse 
for the cyclist to get off easy. If anything, all 4 should be punished 
to the severity that the crime warrants, with no externalities 
introduced from neighboring crimes.

When you're dealing with the police, more often than not, "zee rules are 
zee rules" is about as far as you can get; they're probably not too 
interested in debating moral philosophy, or even legislative intent, and 
would probably just like to get on with their day. (Granted, some police 
officers may be over-zealous in their interpretation of certain laws 
against others (leading to racism and other forms of bias), but that 
again is a separate issue.)

--Yuki

John Hays wrote:
> I tend to agree that people trot out "two wrongs don't make a right" in 
> situations where it basically amounts to a non-sequitur, largely on the 
> basis that it's relevance assumes something being contested (that some 
> action in question is in fact a wrong). I will say that it's not 
> particularly clear to me that riding through an intersection under those 
> circumstances is, in any meaningful sense, a wrong. It may very well be 
> that it's _against the law_ to do that, but that's just another 
> non-sequitur, since the fact that something is against the law is not 
> evidence of it being wrong. I shudder to think how many people (even on 
> this list) actually believe that "zee rules are zee rules" is a 
> sufficient justification for the deliberate infliction of suffering upon 
> or deprivation of material assets from a person.
>
> - John
>
>
>
> Jym Dyer wrote:
>   
>>>>> 2 wrongs don't make a right.
>>>>>         
>>>>>           
>>>> =v= Ain't it wonderful how this particular topic always
>>>> brings out fresh, invigorating new insights?
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> And just what are your fresh insights?
>>>     
>>>       
>> =v= Here's a tip:  When you find yourself regurgitating the
>> world's most obvious clichés for the umpteenth time, as if
>> the person you're responding to is a blithering idiot, you
>> are wasting your time (and the time of everyone else who
>> might be wearing of a cliché-filled inbox).  Perhaps the
>> person really is a blithering idiot, in which case your
>> words are useless; but what's more likely is that you're
>> not attempting to understand what the person is getting
>> at, in which case your communication is pointless.
>>     <_Jym_>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
>> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
>> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
>> To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org