Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:27:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1372 times
|
| |
|
|
Matthew Miller wrote in message ...
> 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.
What experiment?
> > 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.
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 other any more, because you are
apparently too deluded for reasonable debate.
> 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.
What it really comes down to... its not my fault! Nothing you or anyone
else does is my fault. Or society's. Individuals are responsible only for
themselves. Thats what you seem to be missing. And tell me... if there was
a four year old kid on your street with no one, no where to go, that if
there weren't some government agency for you to call and make the problem
disappear, you wouldn't do something about it yourself? You would, 99.9% of
people would. So even if it wasn't the child's fault, the child would
survive. As said earlier, get real.... if you are going to talk to me.
> > 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".
Wrong again.
> > 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?
See above.
--
Have fun!
John
The Legos you've been dreaming of...
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
