When It Pays To Be In A Redneck Bar

 

1. Yea, we had the same sort of event at the VA Hospital.  Drunk driver hit a veteran, the brain scan revealed a potentially fatal aneurism—saved his life.

   There is a rule in personal-injury type law that is analagous. Just because I have insurance doesn’t let you off the hook for injuring me. 
   I think of two moral laws from The Church (Protestants please avert eyes ) 1.  We are judged by our intentions, not outcomes.  2. You are not allowed to do evil so that good may come of it.
   Just joking about the church thing—these rules sound good to me for everyone.

   Posted by Oink       02/10/2005  at  09:08 AM  



2. Damn, son, you would have to bring in the hornet’s nest, huh?

   Most would say war is evil.

   Therefore, according to your rules going to war against the Iraqis, North Vietnamese, Kpreans, Germany, Japan, etc. in order that good (peace, freedom, prosperity) might come of it is taboo?

   Posted by Vilmar       02/10/2005  at  10:23 AM  



3. Sorry, I was extremely condensed in my statement.  To expand a bit, our intention was to overthrow Saddam, restore democracy, and stop terrorists from getting support & weapons.  If we could have done that without killing a single person, then a war would have been immoral.  However, not having Phasers Set On Stun… Our intention was not to kill people.  War is not an evil per se—but you must first examine whether it is avoidable, proportionate, etc.

   A better example of what we are not permitted to do would be to abort an unborn baby with Downs Syndrome to prevent a “lifetime of suffering” for the parents.

   Posted by Oink       02/10/2005  at  10:46 AM  



4. Just messin’ with you!

   Posted by Vilmar       02/10/2005  at  11:00 AM  



5. No, it was a good question/comment.  However, I’m not the best authority, and I refer all who are interested in this sparkling subject to The Catechism of the Catholic Church All people should learn Right Behavior, not from a book, but from Mom & Dad.

   Also, pacificism is not a virtue according to the above-mentioned book (and common sense from Mom&Dad).  You are morally obliged to fight/kill-if-necessary to defend those under your care. No ? says Mom&Dad!

   Posted by Oink       02/10/2005  at  11:13 AM  



6. Sorry oink

   Down Syndrome children are thrown on the backs of the tax payers at a majority age and the expense is lifted off the parents.  I know a rich guy that the tax payers are paying for his son who is now 35 years old.

   It would be smarter if the parents took a little responcibility and have health insurance with a dependent conversion priveledge so the tax payer could pay the premium (or the parents) instead of the medical expenses.  Call me crazy that parents should be responcible, and here again not dump every cost on the backs of poor tax payer who suffer under all these burdens.

   Smart coverage here

   Posted by Nanook       02/10/2005  at  12:33 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.