| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
>
> > Such sweeping assumptions on causality. Tsk tsk.
>
> Tsk tsk yourself. I'm comfortable I've got the causes pegged correctly.
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/15oct01/jos101501.shtml
?
That doesn't touch the basic premise of my point. Perhaps I should point out
that fault != bad. Saying that the US isn't at fault is erroneous. Saying
that you stand behind our actions insofar as you think things would have
been *WORSE* had we acted differently or not at all is what I expect you to
mean. Per your example, I expect that you think that the one who could have
acted *BETTER* was FB Sr.-- NOT the state that imprisons him. But I would
not expect one to say "the state is not at fault".
Perhaps I would be so persnickity as to point out at such an admission that
it might be possible for the state to act *slightly* better, but not so much
better as to allow a situation in which little FB gets his Xbox. I.E. the
"bad" part of the fault lies even MORESO on FB Sr. percentagewise than the
whole part of the fault.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) Nope. That cite in fact does get to the root of the assertion you make. Saying that FB Sr. has an out because he had a bad childhood is egregious bogosity. (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
