451–460 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in the real world there are always multiple conflicting rules that apply I think it might be worse than that, there are sometimes rules which aren't actually rules which can still (sometimes!) override rules which are.
Dunno about other jurisdictions but the written Polish law actually has some quite prominent references to unwritten, socially defined rules, both in the civil and the criminal law.
I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…
>but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. I answered that the police and ambulances were obviously breaking the rules, because they are. The difference is that ambulances/police are allowed to break the rules in an emergency - famously, ambulances have a legal ri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What??? Please explain. I can't fathom how a no vehicles sign would apply to bicycles or skateboards
Allow me to introduce you to the dictionary[0] Vehicle (noun) 1. a means of carrying or transporting something ...such as ... a: motor vehicle ... b: a piece of mechanized equipment 2 : an agent of transmission : carrier 3: a medium through which something is expressed, achieved, or displayed ---------------- You're thinking of specifically a __motorized__ vehicle. Which is a different thing than "vehicle". I think y…
I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If people don't agree on it, then the clarity you feel is an illusion. The point of rules is common understanding of what is acceptable. Notably, you pulled a bunch of special cases and refinements from thin air. The way I read the setup, it was "crystal clear" that the rule was violated by emergency services, even if we could agree afterwards not to enforce it there. And, yes, of course, moderation questions are muc…
I fully agreed with the GP for the same reasons: in my book everything except the Civic was OK, because that matches the intent of the sign. In both law and real life, there is a common understanding (to use your term) that rules may be violated for the greater good. Does driving an ambulance into the park violate the letter of the rule? Yes, but it's still OK because we give emergency vehicles wide leeway to break r…
The instructions specifically say not to apply this kind of logic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The game was pretty clear that the question was not if it "should be allowed to violate the rule", but if it violates the rule in the first place.
Does something violate the rule if it’s allowed based on common sense? I don’t think so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I stab someone in the eye with a pencil, then the pencil was clearly a weapon. However, I'm not violating a "no weapons" policy simply by carrying a pencil.
True, but a pencil's primary use is non-weapon. A skateboard is only used for skating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel the same way as the above comment. If you were an actual administrator in charge of fining people for violating the rule, almost none of these examples should give you pause. You wouldn't be trying to give a ticket to planes flying overhead, for example. With these examples, there really isn't much disagreement on whether action should be taken, so any discussion of whether a rule is technically violated is mo…
> You wouldn't be trying to give a ticket to planes flying overhead except you have just applied an assumption (which is often true) that may not be true depending on circumstances - that the planes were excluded because it couldn't have caused any negative effect. For example, if the park had been https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese#Isolation_and_unco... , and the intention was to keep the indigenous peoples i…
That phrasing sure makes it sound like they're not in the park until they fall. Does it occur the moment they hit the ground, or sooner? If ground, then that tells us that the quadcopter isn't in the park while off the ground either; it's above the park.