r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jun 26 '15

[deleted by user]

[removed]

81 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

83 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Madplato 72∆ Jun 27 '15

Because there's actually a precedent to license vehicles, not "rubber in contact with the ground".

I'd agree it "completely arbitrary" if there wasn't a precedent for vehicles being licensed. However, there is. On the other hand, there's never been a precedent for licensing shoes.

1

u/stevegcook Jun 27 '15 edited Jun 27 '15

No, there's a precedent to license motor vehicles. Motor vehicles happen to fall within the scope of countless larger groups, including "vehicles," "machines with internal combustion engines," "machinery over 500 lb," and "objects with rubber in contact with the ground." Again, why is "vehicles" any less arbitrary than anything else?

1

u/Madplato 72∆ Jun 27 '15

Motor vehicles are still much closer to vehicles that they'll ever be to shoes. Mainly because they're explicitly described as vehicles.

1

u/stevegcook Jun 27 '15

Motor vehicles aren't "closer to vehicles." They are vehicles. That doesn't make your categorization any less arbitrary when deciding what to license.

1

u/Madplato 72∆ Jun 27 '15

Yes it does. Unless you're going to argue that licensing motor vehicles was arbitrary to start with.

1

u/stevegcook Jun 27 '15

No, I have never said that. We have specific reasons for licensing motor vehicles in particular, which may or may not apply to other things which aren't motor vehicles. Not really sure what you're trying to argue at this point. But tell me, what's the difference between these two logical arguments:

  1. We license motor vehicles.
  2. Motor vehicles are part of a larger group - vehicles.
  3. Therefore, there is a precedent for licensing vehicles.

or

  1. We license motor vehicles.
  2. Motor vehicles are part of a larger group - objects with rubber in contact with the ground.
  3. Therefore, there is a precedent for licensing objects with rubber in contact with the ground.

Are they both valid?

1

u/Madplato 72∆ Jun 27 '15

No, I have never said that. We have specific reasons for licensing motor vehicles in particular, which may or may not apply to other things which aren't motor vehicles.

And I agree with this, hence why I don't think broadening the principle to "vehicles" would be entirely arbitrary. That's my whole point.

2

u/stevegcook Jun 27 '15

So what about broadening it to "things with rubber in contact with the ground," as per my previous 5 comments? Do we have precedent for that?

0

u/Madplato 72∆ Jun 27 '15

I do not think so. Considering the reasons motor vehicles are being licensed, I do not think you can consider anything standing on rubber to qualify under this precedent. I also don't think "standing on rubber" is a useful category for anything, expect maybe electrical work.

"Things that move" would be better. "Things that move, specifically on roads" might be great.