Originally Posted by
sweeper20
Let me see if I can make it a bit less flawed for you. This really is for my own edification.
Here is how I see the situation based on the following scenerios:
1. You determine that a rule is "silly" so its ok to ignore it. (I think we have derterminded this earlier)
2. I determine a rule is silly, and you agree, therefore its also ok for us both to ignore it. (again, ok from what I have seen in earlier posts)
3. This one is tricky, so follow closely:
I determine a rule is silly, but you determine that said rule is actually quite important and should be followed without at doubt - its still ok for me to ignore it, right? Since we can all make our own determinations as to what is silly what we are willing to follow and what we are not, correct? You would just ignore my actions, since I have in my own mind, determinded that its ok for me to do - and thats really what its all about, us deciding on our own whats 'silly' and what isn't.
What you write above is a legitimate arguement.
Your example was flawed-- it showed a "victim" of a policy complaining about its violation. Of course someone who loses an upgrade to someone else based on a violation of policy is going to be pissed off and not think it is acceptable. In the example of the cell phone during taxi-out, no one is hurt (assuming you are able to extrapolate that the "harm" done is the same as during taxi in, something some here are unable to do so they attempt to justify it with other arguments and refuse to address it directly
).
The best example would be speeding 56mph in a 55mph zone. The 3am stoplight example is good, but it still has potential to cause injury if someone doesn't look carefully-- the 56 in a 55 is more akin to the harm done by using a cell phone after the door is closed but before takeoff-- ie.
very speculative harm potential and unlikely to make any difference, like going 1mph over the limit).