Suit targets California hunting rules that allow GPS on dogs

[Igel]

3. Is it really a way of banning something they don't like

because it's sometimes used in inappropriate ways?

Or is it primarily used in inappropriate ways?

Are we saying, "This is mostly used badly, so we want to ban the few appropriate uses in order to stop a widespread evil?" That I could get behind: There's a serious problem that justifies imposing on others and stopping them from doing something that's fine in order to stop a widespread bad thing.

Do we let the imperfect dispose of something perfectly good in the name of being perfect? Because, well, we must simply make sure that others come up to our august standard. Even if the practice as used for the most part is good, we must strive to ensure that nobody anywhere ever does anything wrong. This I can't get behind because it's basically saying, "I'm in charge of making sure others are as perfect as me." This presupposes common values.

Or is it letting the occasional imperfect use dispose of something perfectly good because we morally disapprove of what others are doing and using our "morality" as a cudgel to beat others into imposing our views as to what's right and wrong. This is a kind of (sub)cultural imperialism and forced assimilation. Not only can I not get behind it, I find it little different from groups that insist that others not engage in abortion or LGBTQ+ practices or anything else that there's some cultural variance on. It's preachy and manipulative.