Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
Do you mean, "the Kama Sutra doesn't advocate any sexual activities that are currently illegal in the US?" Because some of what's in there has been illegal in the past.
|
...and shifting public morals is one reason why even a highly specific set of standards doesn't really work.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
If you get popped for "speeding" in a zone where the rule is "drive safely," it's very reasonable to complain if there are no standards listed for "safe driving...."
|
You're mixing up the metaphor here, and in doing so miss the point.
CSS is saying "a less-than-universal application of a rule is unfair." I'm simply pointing out that this is merely a reality and a common occurrence -- and still doesn't let you off the hook.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
Pointing out that someone else was swerving all over the road is definitely relevant....
|
Sure, if their behavior forced you to violate the law.
That doesn't even remotely describe the situation here. And why in this particular instance, extending the metaphor isn't helpful or relevant.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
Claiming or implying that "all decent people will agree on what content should be acceptable" is beyond ridiculous.
|
Tell that to the Supreme Court.
Better yet, please feel free to propose a standard that would actually work. Then demonstrate that
The Lover will
universally land on one side or the other of said test.
My position is, you won't and you can't. Any standard with enough flexibility to cover all the books that are commercially available, and are waiting in the wings, will wind up looking "arbitrary" and/or "unfair" and/or "unacceptably subjective" to someone, somewhere. (Or, the offended party will proclaim that their book doesn't cross the line, even if others believe it does.) Any book that gets even close to the line is going to require a human judgment call, and that human's judgement may well be different than yours.