On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:06:43 -0800, Dan Minettte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Do you stand by the assertion that the technicality is the only >> reality? >> >> In this case, yes, of course. What other reality is there? > > The one illustrated by my examples: the highly probable empirically > observable effects. For example, Jim Crow laws didn't, technically, > address the civil rights of blacks...just those people whose ancestors > were black. The fact that there is a 100% correlation between the two > is irrelevant, in a technical sense. > > It's an interesting way of looking at things. I just don't think it is a > helpful way of understanding empirical phenomenon. It doesn't help us > model present observations and predict future observations. If that > isn't your > goal, then using the most technical sense is reasonable, but I think it > was Ronn's goal. Maybe I'm missing something here, I apologize in advance if that's the case. It seems to me that Dan is belaboring the technicality here - the fact that there was no mention of how the handicapped would be provided for. Isn't it rather silly to assume that if a city adopted a car free policy that they wouldn't make provisions for the handicapped? I don't know what the laws are regarding the handicapped in the U.K. but I'm relatively certain that you _couldn't_ do it in the U.S. Another perspective; If a city or a country, with the approval of the general public, decided that it was in their best interests to dismantle a segment of their infrastructure, is it reasonable to expect that that infrastructure should be preserved for a tiny minority of that public? Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
