From: hjkhjkhd@hhhh.com   
      
   "ROBBIE"  wrote in message   
   news:go-dnf9Dsf37RvbbnZ2dnUVZ8qydnZ2d@bt.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?   
   >>   
      
   Painted on a placard it looks good. The reality is another story.   
      
   ROBBIE   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)