[bumby]

You seem to imply that the legal and safety are independent. I am saying they are linked.

Ie there wouldn’t be a legal reason if it weren’t for the safety reason. So pointing to the safety is why it’s a circular argument.

It’s like disagreeing that smoke detectors are because they are legally required in homes because people want them anyway for safety reasons. Both can be true at the same time because they both are related to the same risk mitigation.

In any event, the OP was that some people don’t want those sensors, my point is they aren’t optional.

[Dylan16807]

> So pointing to the safety is why it’s a circular argument.

You're confusing me. How about I explain my understanding of what makes things circular.

Generic hypothetical: Regulation requires a part. Cars put the part in because of regulation. Later, people amending the regulations consider something else that requires that part, and they justify it as having negligible cost because that part is already in cars. Because that part is there from regulation, it's to a strong extent regulation justifying itself, and it's circular.

Does your understanding of circularity differ from that?

Now, consider a variant: Regulation requires a part. But it doesn't matter because cars have that part anyway. Later, people amending the regulations consider something else that requires that part, and they justify it as having negligible cost because that part is already in cars. Because that part is not there from regulation, it's not regulation justifying itself, and it's not circular.

Does that make sense? You could imagine the part is "wheels" for the variant. Regulations that imply wheels are not using circular arguments when they say 'cars have wheels anyway, that's not a cost of this regulation'.

[bumby]

I’ll try to put it more succinctly:

“I don’t need regulated sensors installed because I have a regulated sensor installed” is a circular argument.

Now much of what you bring up is tangential. But one thing I think we think differently about is that each of the premises you laid out starts with regulation. I differ because i see regulation as a response to a prior underlying risk. In other words, the risk exists before the regulation. So I don’t view regulation as a “self-licking ice cream cone”, or excusing for its own sake, but rather a risk mitigation. That’s why an ABS sensor can be used for monitoring pressure: it’s not the sensor that matters but whether the risk os appropriately mitigated.

[Dylan16807]

> But one thing I think we think differently about is that each of the premises you laid out starts with regulation. I differ because i see regulation as a response to a prior underlying risk.

In this case there's a risk. By my argument applies to regulations that involve risk and it also applies to regulations that don't involve risk.

> “I don’t need regulated sensors installed because I have a regulated sensor installed” is a circular argument.

I almost agree, but I think the motivation matters.

"I don’t need regulated sensors installed because I have those sensors already to follow regulations" is a circular argument.

"I don’t need regulated sensors installed because I have those sensors already for reasons unrelated to regulations" is not a circular argument. If no regulations existed already, it's not circular. If they did exist but they didn't change your behavior then it's not circular.

[bumby]

>it also applies to regulations that don't involve risk.

Which are those? Because so far, this conversation has been about TPMS and ABS regulation. I’m beginning to think the discussion is more about dogmatic feelings about regulation than the topic at hand.

Again, your argument is based on following regulations for the sake of regulation and I don’t agree that’s why regulations exist. I believe they exist to mitigate risk. Sometimes they can be poorly executed, and sometimes they can be for a risk you aren’t acutely aware of or one you don’t care about, but that doesn’t mean the risk is non-existent.

[Dylan16807]

> Which are those?

Well like I mentioned earlier, there's a regulation that cars have wheels, right? That's not a risk thing.

> I’m beginning to think the discussion is more about dogmatic feelings about regulation than the topic at hand.

No, it's just explaining my logic. Using a more abstract example makes it easier to focus on the logic.

> Again, your argument is based on following regulations for the sake of regulation

No it's not.

> and I don’t agree that’s why regulations exist.

I never said that's why regulations exist.

I never said anything about why regulations exist.

I'm so confused.

I'm just talking about whether a certain kind of rule is circular or not...

It's not a very important point, to be fair. But you seem to think I'm making some wildly different points from what I intend, and I'm not sure why there's such a communication breakdown.