Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm actually in IT/Finance. Completely unrelated to law.
I definitely understand the problem, I just don't think a philosophical debate is the course of action you should be looking at. Even if there was a logical fallacy, it's not going to help you at all.
That 's what you keep saying. How do you know what kind of help I need? Maybe I don't care about the noise. After all, I've been here for 17 years. I was born a half a mile away a long time before that. I'd had 2 houses in this immediate area.
Maybe all I want to do is finally have a decent comeback to the argument I had been hearing for 40 years. I came here with the question because I knew there was a wide variety of forums and knowledge pool. I did hear the perfect argument once a few years ago and failed to bookmark the source. Now I can't put it together.
So far, you're the only one to take any interest in this. Time to move on I guess, but thanks anyway.
Jeo basically got this one right. Law is based on sophistry, not logic.
ehcsrop, remove yourself from this one issue, and ask yourself about all the other laws that exist, and why they exist, and how they have changed, and how they might change in the future. If you undertake such an endeavor I doubt you'll come across as naïve as you did in this thread.
I have to agree with PPs that it isn't an issue of logic at all, and it certainly isn't an issue of "I've been doing it this way since the beginning so that is the correct way". It is an issue of "what did expect when you moved into a place next to an airport". If a condition exists at the time of a person moving into a place, then the burden of handling that condition falls to the resident. The flip side of that coin is that if the conditions change/worsen, then there is an obligation to ameliorate the situation or buy out the resident.
This isn't a theoretical situation for me either. We have a house that is 20' from the L train, and we have noise issues that are as bad as any airport noises anywhere. We knew that, and we paid significantly less for our house than we would have if our house have been a couple blocks away from the train. That was a decision we made when buying a house, and the responsibility lies with us (and we do feel like we made a great decision in this case).
Did somebody already lay claim to the handle "porsche"?
Sounds like you want some logic you can throw around at a dinner party as to why things are not to your liking. I can see that. It is good to research things. But this is not a logic problem (as others have said).
A logic approach would be built upon propositions that everyone agrees are true. I am not sure those would even exist for what you described. More like zoning laws and policies which are not axiomatic at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
