Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 May 2000 23:01:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
683 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
[snip]
>
> Please precisely answer with yes or no: Do people need to take
> (moral/financial) responsibility for things that they choose to do, things • that
> entail risk, or don't they? Whenever I pose an analogy that more clearly
> delineates that question, you refuse to answer.
Ah, Hobson's choice number one. I'll choose the LAR method - coin flip says -
NO. However, your question (and your eternal preaching on this subject) makes
the asumption that everyone knows all the risks involved in everything they do.
If only that were true. But its far from true. Merely assuming that someone
should know the risks of something they do does not equate to them fully
knowing and understanding the risks. If that were true, there would be no
teenage pregnancy, no deaths from drug reactions, etc.
> Please precisely answer with yes or no: Is it appropriate in a mixed economy • to
> carry out an cost benefit analysis of various social programs and make the
> decision of which to fund based on which apparently have the most benefit?
> (leaving aside the question of whether we should have a mixed economy in the
> first place, because we already know your answer, yes, and mine, no)
YES. But your against funding any programs with your tax dollars, so why ask?
> Please precisely answer with yes or no: Is it appropriate in a mixed economy • to
> allocate social program dollars based on which lobbying group contributes the
> most or makes the most noise on TV?
Your wording requires some clarification. "lobbying group contributes the
most"? In what sense? If the lobbying group is funding the pool for social
programs, then yes they should have some say. Just as one can earmark
donations to the United Way to a specific charity, a lobbyist group that
contributes funds to a programs pool should have the capability of earmarking
those funds.
> My answers, yes, yes, no.
>
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Ummmm.... which lobbying groups are you talking about that do anything other than stuff money in politicians' and parties' campaign funds? I think its pretty clear that's what Larry was getting at, not talking about people (or groups) giving (...) (24 years ago, 23-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Was that really a coin flip? I doubt it. I really truly believe (see your weaseling below) that you don't think people ever need to take responsibility for ANYTHING, even if they do know all the risks. Stating that there are unknown risks (...) (24 years ago, 23-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| I'm not sure why you two continue to intermittantly duke it out. Larry thinks you're an evil commie, and you think he's an evil...umm...I can't think of a good word...robber baron? (...) How so? (...) That's not really true. Obviously I agree with (...) (24 years ago, 24-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) fate (...) Cite please. I never said precisely that. What I did say is that those who catch it NOW through their own poor choices should know better. I did not make the sweeping generalization you claim. I've never said that those who get it (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 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
|
|
|
|
