Exactly, hurting people was a subgoal on the way to the larger goal of achieving … whatever. If no one was hurt than they would have failed in their goals, and the more people hurt the better for them.
If my corroborator is broken and I need to get to work, it would be correct to say that I bought a corroborator with the goal of fixing my car, even though my real goal was to get to work, and fixing my car was just a means to an end.
Who do I blame for the bridge?
Look up the difference between “the purpose” and “the method”. Chronos’s claim is that (and I quote) “the purpose was to hurt people”.
Except, of course, for the millions of people in Vietnam and Cambodia who died in the bombings he ordered.
Also, can’t forget the people of Chile who were roadkill when he helped Pinochet & Co. give Allende the boot.
Yes, “people”. Like, you know, maybe the Mayor of Ft Lee (who is a “people”), or the Legislator/Congressperson (similarly a “people”) or…need I go on?
Except Chronos didn’t mean that. He says so.
I’m with you. Christie surrounded himself with petty, vindictive assholes (the Cossacks work for the Czar, as the saying goes), and they behaved in a petty, vindictive, assholish manner in response to this refusal to endorse Christie, and apparently some others.
I’ll admit that I can’t prove that spite was the ultimate purpose-- It seems very probable, but nobody can prove that without a mind-reading device. I can, however, prove that hurting people was done deliberately, and was viewed as a desirable state of affairs, and given that, does the ultimate purpose even matter?
No one (at least not I) disputes that people were hurt. No one (at least not I) disputes that the actions that hurt those people were deliberate. What is stupid is the claim that “the purpose [of the incident] was to hurt people”. Again, look up the difference between “method” and “purpose”. Those are two different things.
It may seem like quibbling, but too often I see this Chronos-style stupidity of claiming that your political opponents are pure evil. Because, of course, only a pure evil person can hurt people just for the purpose of hurting them.
So, ignoring Terr, does anyone else really think that the purpose was to not hurt people? This plays because of the media narrative working against Christie, who many have already decided or have been convinced that he is a bully. Things like this support that belief so it will make big news, notwithstanding the fact that he’s a potential presidential candidate.
Define ‘hurt’. Do you mean ‘inconvenience’? Or do you mean ‘physically harm’ as in preventing people from getting to the hospital or preventing police from responding to crimes?
And define ‘people’. Do you mean the mayor, or everybody in Ft. Lee and everyone trying to get over the bridge?
Sure, it’s just like the guys who set off the bombs at the Boston Marathon. They didn’t do it to hurt people. Well, they did do it to hurt people, but they didn’t do it to hurt the people they blew up, they did it to hurt different people, who weren’t even there, but were somehow harmed by the people that the bombers didn’t want to hurt being hurt. It’s all very convoluted and a little bit recursive.
Should be carburetor, stupid auto correct. :smack:
The fact remains whether the goal of hurting/inconveniencing people was a sub-goal or the final goal, it was an incredibly dickish and selfish thing to do. Even if the reason Snidely Whiplash tied Nell to the train tracks because her death will allow him to get the deed on her gold mine, he’s still the villain.
And whether its an Evil laugh and mustache twirl or an e-mail gloating over the delayed children of Buono voters, is six of one half dozen of the other.
They clearly meant to hurt people. If it didn’t hurt anybody, it would not serve as any retribution.
Their texts during the event show that they explicitly were enjoying the suffering they were causing.
This whole discussion of meaning it or not is one of the most patently obvious and stupid attempts to defuse and distract I’ve ever seen.
A bomb of explody death is always meant to hurt people. It may have other goals as well, but hurting people is intrinsic to their plans. Trying to divorce that and claim some separate ideology is not convincing, just like Christie pretending he wasn’t trying to hurt people is not convincing.
It’s well-established that Nixon sabotaged the Vietnam peace talks before his election, possibly extending the war and costing tens of thousands of American lives and conceivably millions of Vietnamese. He was quantum leaps ahead of Christie.
Reagan funded an illegal resistance movement in Nicaragua that killed tens of thousands there. Christie doesn’t approach him either.
That’s not to say he couldn’t move right in with them if he ever gets elected and gets the chance.
Naming a “style” of stupidity for a poster in direct response to that poster’s words breaks the rule against personal insults.
This is a Warning to dial it back, significantly.
[ /Moderating ]
If they did it because they’re bullies and just plain like hurting people, then they’re evil. If, on the other hand, they did it because hurting people somehow benefited them, then they’re still evil. Either way, they’re evil.
NM
Cheney had nothing to do with the outing of Plame. It was done by Richard Armitage, Powell’s number two and hardly one of Cheney’s administration backers.