> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Martin Lewis > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:16 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Car free London? > > That isn't what you said though, is it? What you said was: "Well, > technically, the proposal doesn't force people to walk." And you are > right. And that was my point.
Ah, a lawyerly approach. That's an interesting way of looking at things, but I'd like to look at some examples that I know of to see if you think it's absurd to state something is done when in a technical sense it hasn't. The first example is Jim Crow laws. Under the 14th amendment, it was illegal to discriminate on the basis of a person's race. But, technically, it was not illegal to discriminate on the basis of their grandparents' race. So Jim Crow laws didn't technically discriminate against blacks...and that technicality held for decades. So, would you consider it wrong for me to say that, in reality, Jim Crow laws discriminated against blacks? The second example is the firing of 95% of the people over 55 at a company I worked for. Except, technically, it wasn't a firing because the jobs were eliminated...so it was legal (you cannot fire someone on the basis of age in the US). Shortly thereafter, a number of jobs were created with job descriptions very close to but not literally identical to the jobs that were eliminated. Technically, this wasn't firing people because they were >55. I'd say it really was. Would you consider that mistaken? The third example is a classic of literature: Catch-22. Technically it didn't prohibit discharge of bomber crew due to mental health reasons. However, you had to apply to get the discharge. And, the very act of applying proved that you were of sound mind: what sane person would want to keep going up when the odds were pretty good that they would be shot down. I'd say these regulations removed the mental health discharge, although technically it didn't. Would you differ with this? If need be, I can provide additional examples, but I think you get the idea. Do you stand by the assertion that the technicality is the only reality? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
