GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (152829)	1/23/2009 10:59:13 AM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) of 173976

No my argument doesn't vaguely resemble an eye for an eye argument. It's not "if someone does something to you, you can do to them". Its if you create a situation where someone needs your support to live, they have a good moral claim on that support. Another example that I've used before is that normally I wouldn't have the right to take your bottled water, but if you kidnapped me and took me to the desert, then if I can grab your water I have a right to it. Its not a perfect analogy, because in the analogy you intentionally put me in that situation, but its a pretty good one. If you want an analogy where there is no intention on your part, well then if you hit me with a car, and I'm bleeding then I might have a right to use your first aid supplies, even if you didn't mean to hit me. Its not "if you kidnap me I have the right to kidnap you", or "if you hit me with your car I have the right to hit you with mine". There is no eye for and eye, tit for tat retaliation. Its that I have a right to take what I need to survive, if you create the situation that causes me to need it.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next