[ show plain text ]
> I have to say I'm confused as to the point Mike W is making here: in
> response to my pointing out Quetelet's view
> > that the regularities which he discovered implied that the agents were
> > compulsion to carry out the acts involved: "society prepares the
> > said. Thus he argued that responsibility and punishment were
> > categories in this connection.
> Mike says
> This is the standard rabid right wing argument against Hampstead Liberals.
> It is clearly a non sequitur: because we understand an act doesn't mean
> we, individually or socially, must condone it. It may of course have a
> bearing on what preventative regimes might be considered efficacious.
> Does his first sentence refer to Q., or to Mike's second sentence? If the
> first, I'd have said most right-wingers were pretty hot on individual
> If the second, I have to say that I've never felt persuaded by "tout
> comprendre, tout pardonner" either -- rather the opposite, one suspects in
> some cases...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:08 EST