Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
Ah but you have been legislating smoking, cell phone use in cars, now you are starting trans fats and the worst part...... people keep voting for these laws to be passed.
|
I agree with your sentiments on all of those issues, but it's possible for people to agree with certain restrictions on freedom while eschewing others. It's possible to move closer to an extreme without succumbing to it.
It's best, as I see it, to argue for/against these restrictions on a case-by-case basis. Slippery slopes are only really useful when someone makes an oversimplistic generalization (like, for instance, "the government should/shouldn't legislate morality") to show the consequences of taking that generalization seriously (like, for instance, tyranny/anarchy). Or maybe I'm missing some other valid uses... but that's what comes to mind right now.
Back to the OP.
For this case: it's dumb. Primarily because it's possible to walk across a street with an iPod without being a danger to yourself or others.
If actual damage is caused by a careless pedestrian, iPod or not, they should be held responsible. Of course.
The law's superfluous at best and needlessly intrusive at worst.