[OPE-L:2243] Re: FW: Re: Statistical regularities

["Michael J Williams" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Pardon my lax syntax. What I intended to say about Q's argument as reported
by you leaves you and I in agreement.
Michael
____________________
Dr Michael Williams
Economics and Social Sciences
De Montfort University
Milton Keynes
UK
fax: 0870 133 1147
http://www.mk.dmu.ac.uk/~mwilliam
[This message may be in html, and any attachments may be in MSWord 97. If
you have difficulty reading either, please let me know.]
----- Original Message -----
From: <P.J.Wells@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ope-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 7:26 PM
Subject: [OPE-L:2237] FW: Re: Statistical regularities


> > I have to say I'm confused as to the point Mike W is making here: in
> > response to my pointing out Quetelet's view
> >
> > > that the regularities which he discovered implied that the agents were
> > under
> > > compulsion to carry out the acts involved: "society prepares the
> > crimes",
> > he
> > > said. Thus he argued that responsibility and punishment were
> > inappropriate
> > > categories in this connection.
> >
> > Mike says
> >
> > This is the standard rabid right wing argument against Hampstead
Liberals.
> > It is clearly a non sequitur: because we understand an act doesn't mean
> > that
> > we, individually or socially, must condone it. It may of course have a
> > bearing on what preventative regimes might be considered efficacious.
> >
> > Does his first sentence refer to Q., or to Mike's second sentence? If
the
> > first, I'd have said most right-wingers were pretty hot on individual
> > responsibility.
> >
> > If the second, I have to say that I've never felt persuaded by "tout
> > comprendre, tout pardonner" either -- rather the opposite, one suspects
in
> > some cases...
> >
> > Julian
>