"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
You need to learn how to read English. I said they didn't work for it AND
they didn't deserve it. I didn't say they didn't deserve it BECAUSE they
hadn't worked for it. And does not imply either connection or causality.
I can say you are ugly and stupid, but that doesn't mean you are ugly
because your are stupid or are stupid because you are ugly.

Sure, but people don't ordinarily recite strings of random facts that have
no intended connection to one another or to the overall point being made. In
the "stupid and ugly" example, both observations would be part of the
overall compliment you were trying to pay me.

"The descendants didn't work for it" has no evident connection to your
overall point *unless* you were implying that that's a reason they don't
deserve it. By comparison, notice how odd it would be if you'd said instead
"They're from the planet Earth AND they didn't deserve it". Even though the
first clause is obviously true, it would be a nonsensical thing to say in
this context, precisely because of its unconnectedness to the discussion. So
if the only way to construe your actual remark as non-nonsensical is to
assume that you were suggesting a connection, then that becomes the most
reasonable way to interpret your remark.

But as much as I enjoy trading English lessons, it really doesn't matter
because (regardless of what you may have been implying initially) we're now
in agreement that not working for it has no bearing on the deservedness of
inheritance here.

I don't think it is morally right to burden people TODAY for the sins of
their ancestors. If it is discovered that your grandfather murdered
someone, should be put you in jail for it?

So my point is not necessarily to advocate reparations, but rather just
to point out that the issue is more complex than is acknowledged by those
who pretend that it's about punishment or who say that "they didn't work
for their inheritance" is a decisive consideration.

Well, I didn't say either of the above.

Actually, you just did. You made an analogy with *punishment* (jail) for
your grandfather's crime, whereas no one in the reparations debate is saying
that punishment is a valid rationale for reparations. Crucially, punishment
is something that's imposed on someone *for the purpose of* disadvantaging
that person (which may in turn be a sub-goal of some other purpose, such as
deterrence or vengeance).

Analogously, if your parents were deceased and you were suing to recover
some money that someone stiffed them for or stole from them, the
(all-but-unanswerable) hypothetical question of whether they'd have spent
it (instead of having it to bequeath) would have *no bearing whatsoever*
on the case. If your parents had been entitled to recover the money, then
*you* are now entitled to recover it after their death (unless perhaps
they explicitly disinherited you or something; but whether they might
have spent it makes no difference at all).

Sorry, I don't believe in this either, even though I know it happens in
todays legal system.

Ok, but even if you disagree with the principle of inheritance as our legal
system actually applies it, do you acknowledge that if that actual legal
standard were applied in the same way to slave-descendants' inheritance,
then the question of how their ancestors might otherwise have spent the
stolen wealth would be considered irrelevant?

--Gary