Thursday, September 09, 2010
you take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have...
So Petraeus sez burning books is bad because it hurts the troops. Which raises a couple questions:
1) Is anything ever bad anymore without having a bad consequence?
2) Is anything ever bad anymore without having a bad consequence for the troops?
And I suppose the converse question should also be raised:
3) If you do something bad, but can show that no troops were hurt, was it really bad?
A game:
Team 1 thinks of an action commonly thought of as bad. Team 2 then must think of a way in which this action hurts the troops.
If Team 2 has an answer, they win. If Team 2 has no answer, then the action isn't bad thus Team 1 broke the rules of the game and therefore Team 2 wins.
posted by Scats : 9/09/2010 04:07:00 AM
1) Is anything ever bad anymore without having a bad consequence?
2) Is anything ever bad anymore without having a bad consequence for the troops?
And I suppose the converse question should also be raised:
3) If you do something bad, but can show that no troops were hurt, was it really bad?
A game:
Team 1 thinks of an action commonly thought of as bad. Team 2 then must think of a way in which this action hurts the troops.
If Team 2 has an answer, they win. If Team 2 has no answer, then the action isn't bad thus Team 1 broke the rules of the game and therefore Team 2 wins.
posted by Scats : 9/09/2010 04:07:00 AM
