|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GKKrsr.651@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> <snip first two parts of rebuttal>
>
> > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> >
> > Don't really agree with this, however I think it's pointless debating who's at
> > fault in such a case.
>
> No, it is in fact quite important, else you leave things hanging and you
> leave things open to the chattering classes claiming that 911 was our fault,
> for example.
>
> Let's try an analogy. Suppose Fred Bloggs Sr. is a justly convicted murderer
> and is put in prison. Naturally, that means he isn't working any more.
> Suppose further that Fred Bloggs Jr. now has to go without a new Xbox,
> because there is no money to pay for one in his family. Is it the *fault* of
> the state because they put Fred Sr. in jail?
>
> That's, in this case, the proximate cause (something not shown to my
> satisfaction in the sanctions/children case) of the family's poverty.
>
> Yet even though prison clearly is the proximate cause in this case, the
> fault lies with Fred Sr. HIS actions initiated the restraint of his further
> actions that are causing no Xbox for Fred Jr.
>
> The sanctions were imposed with the intent of restraining Hussein from
> committing more crimes. (that they are an ineffective remedy is a different
> issue). Therefore they are not the fault, even IF they are the cause, which
> no amount of folderol from the UN is going to convince me of.
>
> Making this point clear is *important*.
Except no one is talking about x-box'es
and no one expects the state to provide x-boxes on welfare.
But had Fred Bloggs Jr been hungry because of the lack of income to buy food, he most certainly would have been cared
for by the state.
Whilst the state might have locked away their source of income, it would have not have denied them state welfare.
lawrence
|
|
Message has 1 Reply: | | Re: War
|
| (...) Not necessarily "would have" in all cases, and most assuredly not "should have". It is *not* the duty of the state to ensure that everyone is cared for. That your state has chosen to do that (the will of the majority imposed on all funds it) (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| (...) <snip first two parts of rebuttal> (...) No, it is in fact quite important, else you leave things hanging and you leave things open to the chattering classes claiming that 911 was our fault, for example. Let's try an analogy. Suppose Fred (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
177 Messages in This Thread: (Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|