Controversial areas are the ones that most need solutions and if you only discuss issues that have already been resolved, you'll never come up with anything new...
Paul /)/+) 2009/5/27 Etienne Pollard <[email protected]>: > Paul > > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:15 PM, paul perrin <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't know if claiming benefits is 'immoral' if you have been taught >> (and you genuinely believe) that you are entitled. Hence the >> 'difficulty' of MPs repaying money - to do so suggest that they feel >> guilty and so condemn themselves - isn't it better to be condemned for >> arrogance than dishonesty? So best to tough it out? >> >> My proposal is not condemning people as immoral, but suggesting that >> the bounds of morality be moved further back to where they appear to >> have moved from (no concrete evidence to hand that they have moved - >> opportunity to claim may be a factor... I'll think about it!). > > There doesn't seem to be very much mileage in continuing this > particular debate in the absence of any specific data on whether > attitudes have indeed changed. Plus, this probably isn't the best > place to debate questions such as whether recipients of tax-funded > services should be grateful to the taxpayer. So maybe we could all > agree to disagree? > > -- etienne > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
