03-08-2002, 07:43 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 918
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jeff
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fyresyght
What I meant was that where an action (in this case, scalping) is against the law, there is what I take issue with, not the act itself. So with scalping, if you want to do it in Boise, and it's legal, knock yourself out. But if you are doing it in Bismark, and it is against the law, I have a problem with it because you are breaking the law, not solely on the fact that you are scalping.
|
Not really. Why do you agree with the law in one place and not in another? It's the same law in both places. |
Those places were examples. In the example, I was implying that in Boise, if scalping was legal (This is only any example. I am not familiar with the law there.), I wouldn't stop anyone from doing it. However, in Bismark if scalping was illegal (Again, this is hypothetical.) then I would take issue with the scalper. What I was trying to get across, was not necessairily agreeing with the law. There are certainly some laws which I disagree with. It is agreeing to abide by the law which was what I was trying to say.
I'm no saint, and I probably never will be, but I try to abide by the law as best I can, even if I don't agree with it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Threaded Mode