On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:38:37 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>Cynic wrote:
>
>> Though I suspect that like most people, you will only claim that there
>> is a causal relationship if the direction fits the result you would
>> like.
>Of course. But, in this case I don't have a particular result in mind.
>Ban it or put it on the shelves in WH Smith? Lacking evidence one way
>or the other, I have no good reason to argue that HMG's approach is
>right or wrong, other than the underlying principle about obeying the law.
Do you usually kow-tow to the government, or only when it suits you?
>Part of it is what great harm is done by having such a law? The loss
>seems a very tiny one.
About as tiny as banning jazz, or Wagner, or any other minority
interest you could consider.
>For those that choose to break the law, the penalties can be very great.
> But everyone must know this, by now.
I suppose if the government jailed people for stepping on the cracks
in the pavement you would support that.
>There are others in society in an even more difficult situation, through
>absolutely no fault of their own. If there is to be any priority for
>getting change, it should be to help them.
It would be very easy to repeal the laws against child .. Much
easier than remedying things like poverty.
--
Dissenter |