Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Point, Counterpoint?

At long last, the probligo has, in a sense, answered (without a reciprocal link, thereby preventing his readers from judging my posts—in context—for themselves…but whatever) this post. I’ll refrain from doing a line-by-line analysis; instead I want to comment on a few points that caught my eye.
What I want to tackle here is not Robert, but the propaganda that he uses is just too fascinating (as is an angry cobra) for words…

Was that a back-handed compliment or a thinly-veiled jab?
One of the biggest surprises for me was the vehemenance with which Robert pulled the race card.

IT HAPPENS that the Louisiana to Mississippi region has both a high proportion of poor and coloured people. That can only be accepted as an artefact of history well passed. It should not matter whether the area is poor, or rich as Croesus. Irrespective of any other consideration we are dealing with havoc and chaos on an unprecedented scale. One can justifiably argue that the rich are more able to respond in these circumstances especially when warning can be given. But if the San Andreas were to let rip, the rich would be in as much need of help as the poor.

I cannot imagine how that could be any more disingenuous, as the probligo is well aware that I’ve explicitly stated my low view of racism. In fact, he’s the only one that commented on it. Nice try though.
I know that Robert’s point is the futility of government involvement in any activity. He calls me “the collectivist” because I disagree.

Wrong again. Presumably, he’s referring to something I said in this post: ”…collectivists (like Probligo?) seem hell bent on eliminating all suffering and inequality of assets and income.” (see the comments for more back and forth). Now, read my quote—slowly if necessary—in order to ascertain that I was characterizing “collectivists”, with the additional parenthetical question being posed to the probligo. Therefore, if the shoe fits, kick someone in the arse with it. If it does not fit, however, then obviously it is inapplicable. One must decide for oneself.
As Robert pointed out in one of his earlier posts, if a person is poor it is the result of wrong decision making. I have asked the question whether “wrong decision” includes choice of parents or place of birth. I have had (to my knowledge) no response to the question.

He’s speaking again of this post. While he does fairly portray my position (without providing a link), he must have missed my response, in which I concluded: Now, even those that happen to be born of irresponsible parents eventually have to look to themselves for the motivation to self-exist. Those that remain in the sub-standard government-provided housing into adulthood and then, in turn bear children in that same environment have only themselves to blame. Your misplaced sympathy is not only ineffectual, but works to perpetuate that sad state of existence. Are you pleased with that?