| 3D Peruna 2005-09-26, 10:21 am |
|
"chris.holt" <chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dh8it3$aok$1@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
> 3D Peruna wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> I would hope it would depend on the people who are
> seriously affected by the allocations. Had Saddam
> Hussein been manufacturing nuclear weapons and funding
> terrorists, I would have an interest in affecting
> that allocation. Since he wasn't, I don't.
>
>
> It's not as either/or as that.
>
It isn't? How so? YOU think that Saddam's weapons/terrorist fetish is a
problem. Saddam clearly thinks it's a great idea. Who's correct? From
each of your perspectives, you're both absolutely morally correct. And,
since Saddam has the weapons/terrorists, it's likely he'd win out in a
discussion, isn't it? Oh, wait...somebody else dediced that Saddam's
weapons/terrorist fetish is a problem and acted up on their morality (and
the whole world is now up in arms about it...go figure...). Who gets to
decide? You've dodged the question at least twice now... Who's going to be
the allocator of resources?
Let me ask you...are you more free if you're shackled to a chain that's 10
miles long over one that's 10 feet long?
|