To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 13412
13411  |  13413
Subject: 
Re: War
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 4 Oct 2001 15:58:54 GMT
Viewed: 
654 times
  
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GKou8D.K9v@lugnet.com...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:

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.

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) doesn't mean that it is correct. Merely defacto.

Therefore my argument stands whether the example is using x-boxes or food.
I don't think your argument stands one bit.
You were trying to use this as justification as to why Iraqi children should suffer, because of the crimes of their
leader.
But your analogy was incorrect.
We are supposed to live in a civilised society aren't we?
Isn't it the 'civilised world' that is under attack.
And the civilised society does differentiate between x-boxes and food.
And any family in the UK who's bread winner goes to jail most certainly would get aid if they needed it, irrespective of
their partners crime.

lawrence



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: War
 
(...) Incorrect. Suffering of children is never "justified". My argument merely demonstrates that their suffering is not the *fault* of the US, just as the suffering of FB Jr (while not "justified") in not having his wants satisfied is not the (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  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)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR