> "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> > Getting back to what I think was behind the
> >discussion in another thread, while I don't know
> >what Michael Moore himself intended with his 'pay
> > in blood' comment, what I heard was the
> >inevitability of a sort of karmic balance, or
> >another version of 'the sins of
> > the fathers are visited upon the children.' ...
> In my ideolect, you are debating the statement in
> moral terms. I do
> not know what Moore intended either, but the
> statement also makes
> sense as a non-moral prediction of the future:
> whether or not you
> supported the intent, these are consequences, which
> include moral
> consequences. (Presumably you considered them
> before deciding one way or the other.)
<nods> Actual but non-moral consequences also occur
in the 'sins of the fathers (and mothers)' realm:
congenital syphilis and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome come to
my mind. In terms of non-medical real-life effects
from a belief in karma, I think holding children
responsible for the debt of their parents fits.
Debbi
Four Hundred And Twenty *Billion* Maru
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
