Oops...that was an unintentional delay - sorry. Caused by not being able to tear ourselves away from den building, treasure trails to magnificent caves, ghost stories round the camp fire, murder in the dark, notably good pub lunches and truth or dare.
Sun-burnt, exhausted, and as usual, very much the minority of one (and briefly two when Dh popped in and came to the rescue), in the arguments about capitalism and Iraq. Ho hum...whatever happened to Peachy? He saved me last year.
Mind you, we all agreed about the two day delay being a bad idea for home education and parental responsibility for education, and have achieved what looked like complete consensus from our local groups with regard to sending letters of objection.
Look, I told that Bunker woman to represent my views. She obviously did a poor job.
ReplyDeleteSorry to abandon you to the wolves Roxy, I know how self righteous these social democrats get when left to their own devices.
I am sure you held your own though.
Lol..well not exactly. I ran off, to be precise.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, I still love those guys. They were SOOOO cross with me for about ten minutes and then we went back to having a fantastic time.
(I firmly believe that most of them are far more libertarian in most regards than they realise.)
In a nutshell, what were the arguments in the two camps?
ReplyDeleteD
Moral equivalences mainly. I said, for example, that killing children by mistake (collateral), is not the same as killing children intentionally. This was not appreciated.
ReplyDeleteRunning was probably a good idea....(Knowing the people involved)
ReplyDeleteHmm.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the difference, then?
Sorry David...still effectively on the run, so this may not be very considered..but I would say that the difference is not far removed from the difference, say, between taking your child out in a car on an autobahn, and deliberately dropping them off a bridge.
ReplyDeleteIn matters ethical, intention is SIGNFICANT.
However, when people beat their children with the intention of 'making them good' and then, accidentally, kill them, intention seems to me to be less relevant.
ReplyDeleteIt is stupidity to think that one can beat some one tiny and vulnerable and remain in control enough on every occasion to be able to guarantee not accidentally killing them.
D
I suppose morally, (as well as legally), stupidity could be classed in the category of intention and therefore would still come into the moral evaluation.
ReplyDeleteLegally, of course, ignorance is no defence. Morally, it is not necessarily so clear cut. But pig-headed stupidity, (beating children), looks difficult to excuse whichever way you cut it.