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 / 5777
5776  |  5778
Subject: 
Re: personal responsibility (was:Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 26 May 2000 15:46:12 GMT
Viewed: 
948 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:

Victims are partially responsible for being victims.

  So if I stomp on an infant or kill a sleeping person, they're still somehow
responsible?  Your assertion, after a fashion, amounts to "victims make
themselves victims."

"Your honor, I'm not guilty because I was stabbing at the air, an no one
would've gotten hurt if those people hadn't been standing in the way."

I would call that a reasonable defense -- unless you were lying, and as your
judge I would remand you to the custody of the state permanently where you
could be allowed to serve your community, attempting to pay of the damge that
you caused, albeit accidentaly as a result of your subhuman stability.

The difference between humans and other animals is that we expect them to
understand this responsibility.  If you want to be classified as a wild
animal, we can treat you as such.

  A tempting offer, but I must decline.  However, by your previous assertions
there is no moral or logical difference between wild animals and humans--is
that view consistent with this new assertion of "understanding of
responsibility?"  How can you keep throwing around terms like "subhuman
stability" and "wild animal," while simultaneously asserting the "logical" and
"moral" equivalency of animals and humans?

In both the case of government bail-out or parental protections, I consider
them more like insurance providers.  And I admit that you can apply the same
thing to parents...but it seems different.  I didn't get to pick my parents,
but I just had to wait.

By your own assertion you are at least partially responsible for the parents
you wound up with, whether you chose them or not.

No, I am responsible for what I make of them.

  But that's not what you said.  You asserted that victims are partially
responsible for being victims.

     Dave!



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: personal responsibility (was:Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
 
(...) In the case of the infant, where were the parents? In the case of the sleeping person, where are they sleeping, why didn't they sleep in a safer place? Why didn't they get a buddy to watch them? Sure, the necessary action to completely protect (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: personal responsibility (was:Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
 
(...) OK, you caught me. You found a loophole for which I'm not willing to stick to my guns. Infants, having not attained a reasonable measure of maturity and ability, don't count. Infants do not make themselves victims. OTOH, to some extent, the (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  personal responsibility (was:Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
 
(...) accident. (...) To say that one is "asking for it" asserts they desire that outcome. Few people desire to be raped or collided with by another automobile. On the other hand, they didn't desire the opposite enough to secure that outcome. Such (...) (24 years ago, 26-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
    

Custom Search

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