Quote:
Originally Posted by RACooper
No I think responsibility carries the correct connotation here, in that you and you actions are responsible in some small part for the actions and policies of those you elect; whether it be a individual responsibility or collective one - a strictly neutral term. Where connotation comes into play is in the interpretation of the term, either implying fault or praise depending on the rest of the statement or argument...
|
Beyond the "fault or praise" portion (which, in most cases, veers violently more toward the 'fault' side I would posit), the denotation of "responsibility" carries some degree of burden of active involvement - see the common usage of "taking responsibility" for example.
Besides this, you are explicitly playing "Monday morning quarterback" - this is a problem, because it does not hold every side 'responsible' in the same fashion (it tends to punish those more actively involved to a much greater extent) and it's somewhat fallacious from a logical basis.
And even beyond THAT, the original statement was short-sighted and needlessly inflammatory, essentially breaking down to "people who voted for Bush have blood on their hands." If you carry your argument to its logical conclusion, anyone who agreed with the war (which includes a majority of congress and about half of its Democrats), along with anyone who did not actively and completely work against the war effort, also has blood on their hands (after all, they 'let' this happen just as explicitly as I did if I voted for Bush, no? Enablers, all of us). It's asinine, really.
Threaded Mode
