Quote:
Originally Posted by Run Silent
Well, let's see here:
1) No one is mandating this, it is a choice made by a single car maker. So slippery slope argument doesn't apply.
2) You say it doesn't benefit them in any way, but it does. It gets people talking and it does align with their marketing strategy of safety.
3) The slippery slope argument always seemed a bit invalid to me, and I am a pretty anti-government guy. The slippery slope seems somewhat nonsensical, because it can be applied to everything and most comparisons fail to prove its validity.
Why make a speed limit 70mph? Sooner or later, we will all be driving 10mph on the highways.
Why make murder illegal? Sooner or later, it will be illegal to rudely speak to someone.
Why make F1 cars on public streets illegal? Sooner or later, it will be illegal to drive a Mercedes on the street.
None of these arguments make any sense and are ridiculous.  |
now, perhaps it would behoove you to read the second paragraph of my post?
i wrote an acknowledgement that this is a voluntary action by one company, and we don't really have anything to fear right now. was just humoring the discussion point and thinking theoretically. the slippery slope (again, theoretically) is whether we as a society are ok with imposing monitoring and controls in an area where there currently is none (i.e. complete freedom).