🚀 go-pugleaf

pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:

    But this wasn't the point I was addressing, and I think you know it.
    On that point, you seem to support making certain acts illegal if done
    to person A, but not if done to person B.  I support making the given
    acts UNIFORMLY illegal, or not illegal.  Not writing laws to benefit
    certain people exclusively.  I hope you see the difference, without
    conjuring up some sort of red herring.

But isn't that the basis of all laws -- certain acts are illegal with
person A, and not with person B? It's illegal to sell alcohol to
someone who is 17, but not someone who is 27. Similarly it might be
illegal (varies by state!) to have sex with a 17 year old, but not with
a 27 year old.  Would you advocate a "uniform" alcohol law, or age of
consent? Either you can or can't sell alcohol, or you can or can't have
sex.

And for a ridiculous strawman, it's illegal to take somebody's car on a
joy ride .. unless of course they said you could. All these
exceptions!!  Can't we agree on a uniform application of the law? :)

I don't think uniform is what you really want. All laws divide people
into two classes, the haves and the havenots. All you want is to draw
the line in a different place than the people arguing with you. In
other words, your definition of uniform differs with theirs.

Rick