Looks at first and in terms of what is reported here, that Tony Blair may have committed an elementary logical fallacy:
"Mr Blair ... did not accept poverty was a reason for antisocial behaviour, saying: 'In fact, I don't really think that is the case at all. The vast majority of people, including families on low incomes, behave perfectly properly.'"
He seems to be saying that because some A is B, all A is B. Obviously in this case, the fact that deprivation does not drive some [the majority] to antisocial behaviour does not mean that it is not a factor at all. All we could say, prima facie, is that it is not a sole determining factor. However, if it makes such behaviour more likely, surely it does need to be factored in, not ignored. Here is another case of a new Labour sounding Thatcherite, now the surprise is that this story seems to indicate yet another case of New Tory sounding more like old Labour...
Oliver Letwin, said "The causes of what we are dealing with here are much deeper and we are not going to tackle them with on-the-spot fines,"
We do indeed live in interesting times.
Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Blair launches 'respect' action plan:
Nous like scouse or French -oui? We wee whee all the way ... to mind us a bunch of thunks. Too much information? How could that be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Christian England? Maybe not...
I've just read an interesting blog article from Paul Kingsnorth . I've responded to it elsewhere with regard to its consideration of...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg
-
I've just had an article published on emergingchurch.info. It's an adaptation of some of my book, but I thought I'd share it and...
No comments:
Post a Comment