From: Randall Randall (randall@randallsquared.com)
Date: Fri Aug 01 2003 - 05:26:41 MDT
On Friday, August 1, 2003, at 05:08 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
>
> If I had to spend time in a really dangerous place, and if no other
> kind of protection is in place, of course I would wish to carry a gun,
> perhaps even if this is not allowed by the law. But the meaning I
> attribute to this sentence is not different from the meaning I
> attribute to "If I had to spend time in a place where it is raining,
> and if no other kind of protection is in place, of course I would wish
> to carry a umbrella, perhaps even if this is not allowed by the law".
> I do not consider umbrellas and guns as defining aspects of my
> worldview.
Umbrellas, like some other objects, are tools that provide imperfect
protection in certain relatively uncommon situations. Wouldn't it
seem awfully peculiar to live in a place where umbrellas were not
allowed unless one had a permit to carry one? In the case that
virtually all umbrella uses were to keep the rain off oneself, would
it not appear that any umbrella-ban is going to have the primary
effect of causing people to be wet who would otherwise have been dry?
I'm not sure umbrellas are defining parts of Mike's worldview either,
except insofar as the act of banning them suggests that someone wants
him to get wet.
I don't actually speak for Mike, of course, but that's my view. :)
-- Randall Randall <randall@randallsquared.com> "Not only can money buy happiness, it isn't even particularly expensive any more." -- Spike Jones
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 05:35:19 MDT