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 / 3544
3543  |  3545
Subject: 
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 01:34:44 GMT
Reply-To: 
mattdm@mattdm/spamless/.org
Viewed: 
1370 times
  
John DiRienzo <ig88888888@stlnet.com> wrote:
  Wrong.  You are deluded.  Crack smokers are not "necessarily" bad

"Deluded" is still pretty strong name calling. If this were Usenet, I'd put
you in my killfile now. It being LUGnet, I'll see if the social experiment
is working.

parents.  Some people are effected by drugs differently than others.  You
have stereotyped people, incorrectly, as is usually the case.  Not all
people who smoke crack end up in the gutter or jail (1).  Get real.

Let me get this 100% clear. You are saying to me: Get real. Not 100% of all
people smoke crack end up badly, therefore crack isn't a problem? Perhaps
"necessary" was too strong of language. However, it is still extremely
possible for it to be a problem.

But it needn't even be that. There are a multitude of things that could
happen such that the parents screw themselves up so much that they can't
provide an education for their child. Maybe it's just really bad investing,
and they lose all their money and have to pay off huge debt. It comes down
to the same thing: it's not the child's fault.


problem.  I addressed that issue.  You did say the parent would be incapable
of educating his child, which is bs and you know it.  People today provide

No, it is not "bs".


for their kids, while on drugs (not very well, perhaps, but they do it).  As
for the kid, I would suppose that the courts would send him to one of the
less expensive schools, and expect the responsible party to work off the
debt of paying for that education, in addition to any other debts he might
have.

What if the responsible party is incapacitated or dead?



--
Matthew Miller                      --->                  mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us                       --->             http://quotes-r-us.org/



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) What experiment? (...) Thats pretty much what I said. there are much better ways to deal with "the problem" (when it is one) than the current ways. If you don't accept that, we don't need to talk to each (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) Wrong. You are deluded. Crack smokers are not "necessarily" bad parents. Just like social drinkers or pot smokers are not necessarily bad parents. Some people are effected by drugs differently than others. (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

209 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