|
|
 Originally Posted by OngBonga
If two people drink five pints then gets into a car, with one running a kid over and the other getting home safely, they both comitted the same offence, they both acted with the same degree of immorality. It's just one had a terrible outcome.
That's right and it's bad luck. And I might have some empathy for the drunk driver who stupidly thought it couldn't happen to them, and eventually forgive them.
The thing to me is the drunk driver who didn't have the bad outcome is just as guilty and just as much of a cunt. The fact that the degree of negativity of the outcome is probabilistic (not every drunk driving episode gives rise to a death but the p(death) goes up with each episode), doesn't to me change the immorality of the act itself. It's kinda like saying 'eating asbestos sandwiches increases your risk of cancer, but if you don't end up with cancer, it wasn't foolish to do it'.
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Again, sure. But we're not talking about defamation, or at least I'm not. I'm talking about exploitation of victims.
I'm not sure I go along with this use of the word 'exploitation' though. My sense is exploitation is a zero sum game where the exploiter A benefits while the exploitee B loses out. If B (the victim of s.a.) gets justice and A (the politician) benefits by winning an election, how is there exploitation going on?
Maybe I would accept the word 'capitalising on' over 'exploiting'. In that case I don't think the politician is doing anything wrong.
|
Reply With Quote