|
|
|
|
|
by Mithaldu
3370 days ago
|
|
I said he caused an outbreak. Yes, he did not personally infect anybody, however he removed the testing, and he acted directly in delaying aid that would've kept it under control, thus allowing it to become an outbreak. Being responsible for one's inaction is a thing, especially so when one is in a position whose job description it is to be responsible for such things. If you're a chicken farmer and you fail to feed your chickens, then you did cause your chickens to starve. E: Thanks for the reply though. It was fascinatingly insightful for me. |
|
And I still disagree. He refused to prevent one.
>Being responsible for one's inaction is a thing,
Yes, he is responsible for his inactions. Nevertheless, he did not cause an outbreak.
>If you're a chicken farmer and you fail to feed your chickens, then you did cause your chickens to starve.
I'm afraid not. I can be held responsible for not feeding them, but I did not starve them (unless I prevented them from getting food by confining them).
Sorry, but my goal is not to be obtuse or difficult. When this usage of the world causes problems with people sympathetic to your view, you can understand its ineffectiveness in convincing anyone of your perspective.
If I were organizing a campaign to convince Indiana voters not to reelect him (assuming he were not the VP), I would exclude people with your rhetoric. It will cause people to side with him more.