Interesting.
You leap right past things like "arresting the caretaker, trying him or her, and putting them in jail so they can't harm any other kids" to "killing" them.
Pretty much the thought process of our President in name only.
Whoah! Somebody entered this discussion with a chip on their shoulder. I think Ogged's basic point was that Matthew Yglesias was using a misleading analogy to illuminate the question of whether to support Iraq. Ogged's analogy, assuming constraint requiring that the caretaker be killed, not arrested, is a much more effective one.
And anyway, what's your point? We should have arrested Saddam? What does that mean?
You're right Hesiod, and you've caught out my bias in this situation, but I also kept the killing in because I think the point at issue is "under what circumstances would you be prepared to kill." Regardless, I think your "no, I would try something more civilized first" is a good point, though the pro-war response would be that the "cops and courts" are ineffectual. And around we go...
"the 'cops and courts' are ineffectual."
I believe we'd say "nonexistant"...
"the 'cops and courts' are ineffectual."
I believe we'd say "nonexistant"...
Wow, did the UN, the ICC and Hans Blix really just disappear in a puff of smoke? Now that's one for the record books.
I'd also prefer to spell nonexistent this way.
We don't believe those institutions and people are properly analogous to courts and police.
We also don't believe it's worth our time to worry about typos ;-)