From: hjkhjkhd@hhhh.com   
      
   "Martha Bridegam"  wrote in message   
   news:q%D7i.24735$JZ3.10178@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...   
   >   
   >   
   > You're still arguing with a straw man. What I've said repeatedly is that   
   > personal character and injustice are independent variables.   
      
   Sorry for the delay - busy.   
      
   Quite so. But is it an injustice to ask someone for some compliance if they   
   want their lives to improve? This view you have is abstraction over reality,   
   with a good stirring of that crowning achievement of contemporary   
   intellectuals: 'non-judgementalism' aka we're so clever we're amoral.. I   
   would have called the ice cube stuff sophistry, but it's too barking for   
   that.   
      
      
    Robbie, you   
   > only see injustice as wrong when it happens to good people.   
      
   Nice try but wrong. However you won't believe what I say. If a man or woman   
   drinks and drugs themselves destitute I believe they deserve help. But I've   
   lived long enough and learned some bitter lessons to know that your way ends   
   up financing antisocial and irresponsible behaviour, and therefore making a   
   mockery of people who sort their own lives out. It's all to do with your   
   being privileged enough to see the whole thing as a sort of maths equation   
   that ignores all the nuances of personal behaviour. Marx made the same   
   mistake. I work with a bunch of privileged people who are the same. That's   
   why people like you see criticism of, say, the whole mass immigration/multi   
   culti thing as on a scale of opprobrium between infra dig and outright   
   N*zism, because the nuances of unprivileged lives are all rounded off to fit   
   the abstraction. Our argument is a straight one between empricism and   
   abstraction.   
      
    You   
   > therefore leap to the conclusion that anyone who decries any injustice   
   > must think its victims are uniformly good people. Actually an injustice is   
   > an injustice no matter what kind of people it hurts.   
      
   No shit, Sherlock.   
      
   As we've discussed, you'd think executing Tookie was an injustice, I   
   wouldn't. You'd think that someone who's drunk and drugged and punched their   
   way out of all familial and friendly concern onto skid row was experiencing   
   an injustice, and I wouldn't. Where we agree is that they should have a   
   chance; because as an old boss of mine used to say: 'every cunt wants a   
   chance, don't they?' But how that chance is managed is what we argue about.   
   Your idea of a chance all too often would be the chance to carry on enabling   
   the very problems that wrecked these people's lives in the first place. I   
   know that you think everyone living in a glorified shanty town would be more   
   noble than capitalist society as it is, but I don't. My idea of the chance   
   is the chance to get back into the swim of civilised society, such as it is   
   these days.   
      
   ROBBIE   
      
    Fairness is   
   > fairness, no matter what kind of people benefit. Or are you gonna go   
   > around making "bad people" exceptions to the human rights treaties and   
   > minimum wage laws?   
   >   
   > /M   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)