531–540 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, small children annoy people with bikes, because some people try to take small children where not appropriate, and this is dangerous when small children change direction unpredictably.
Parks should not be inappropriate places for children.
Nitpick: The summary at the end labels your choices as "You think it is not a vehicle" or "You think it is a vehicle" based on whether or not you said the situation violates the rule, but some of the scenarios were clearly about whether or not something was in the park , rather than whether or not it was a vehicle. I can think a plane or a space station is a vehicle without thinking it violates the rule about not bei…
It's exactly the point of the exercise. Whether something is a vehicle and whether said thing is "in" the park are both separate dimensions of logic that each individual applies differently towards their decision making. This is exactly why content moderation has trouble to stay consistent and rarely pleases everyone, because so many nuances from non-intersecting aspects of logic/context/culture/opinions are forced t…
For an exercise that is, by it's own admission, pedantic by design that's a pretty glaring fault
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say the tank is no longer a vehicle. More like a statue than a vehicle.
how is it getting into the park? If it's rolling, IMO it's still a vehicle. If a truck is dropping it off, still a no-no
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…
Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Obviously emergency vehicles are going to do what they need to do, but even if they are allowed to break the rule they are still breaking the rule. I also think a park sign that says no vehicles also applies to bicycles and skateboards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Now you're assuming the intent. The park could contain loose soil on the edge of a cliff, so any vehicle drivi…
> If you're the park ranger and the local police come into the park in their car chasing after some criminals... If the exact same thing happens but you're having a dispute with the local police It doesn't matter, the rules on police and emergency vehicles usually supersede some local rule about a park. The park is not some absolute ruler of the land, sure it can put rules for general/everyday use but a lot of things…
Nobody said it was a local rule. It could be a federal rule about a federal park. And it could be there for a more important reason than keeping ATVs off the hiking trails.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Well my view was that the answer is yes the ambulance violates the rule, but violating the rule is morally fine there. But still pedantically yes the ambulance does violate the no vehicles rule.
It's amazing how many people can't follow the instructions, without realising their proving the creators point. Even while arguing the creator is wrong!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, small children annoy people with bikes, because some people try to take small children where not appropriate, and this is dangerous when small children change direction unpredictably.
Parks should not be inappropriate places for children.
You're creating a hard and fast rule that X group should always be allowed, the parent was saying all groups should behave reasonably towards each other.
I think the parents view is more reasonable. You could still take the view that bikes will always be dangerous to children, at that point you can then decide whether to prioritise children or bikes.
To me, if I see a rule trying to ban "vehicles" without defining "vehicles", I take my concept of "vehicles" by deduction: I think about all the ways that things that I know of as being "vehicle-esque" could be problematic in various different ways such that you'd want to ban them — being loud; having a lot of inertial momentum when colliding with pedestrians; littering (the horse example); property damage (skateboar…
I think you might have arrived at the Mischief rule of statutory interpretation ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule ).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you're the park ranger and the local police come into the park in their car chasing after some criminals... If the exact same thing happens but you're having a dispute with the local police It doesn't matter, the rules on police and emergency vehicles usually supersede some local rule about a park. The park is not some absolute ruler of the land, sure it can put rules for general/everyday use but a lot of things…
You're assuming another rule here, which not only isn't written but is even explicitly excluded in the very beginning of this experiment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No vehicles in the park is a rule for the people that use the park. The emergency vehicles aren't 'using' the park so it doesn't apply to them.
> No vehicles in the park is a rule for the people that use the park Says who? So I can park my car in the park and take the train so long as I don’t “use” the park? Or drive through it on my way to work?