Competitive for what?

Why not teach them to be amoral sociopaths? No obstacles to make money right? What an advantage that would be?

 

That seems a bit unfair, Tony. There are plenty of career paths which require a sound education, provide a good standard of living, but where your humanity can remain in tact. I guess it all depends on the parents' coaching style.

 

that's why I love reading the drivel you post - one less idiot to worry about

 

We can't all be Porsche driving Consultant surgeons out of Greys Anatomy who spending holidays working for Médecins Sans Frontières.

I'm sorry but in the real world lots of the very 'successful' people - especially in the corporate world - are ***** to be plain. It really helps to have no outside interests or higher principles believe me, just a mono-focus on 'success' which means essentially being a kind of apparatchik. Really, cultural learnings are a handicap.

 

Sure, but what's that got to do with Hodgy's desire to give his kids a fighting chance?

 

Seems an eminently reasonable definition of "collateral damage" to me

 

Why not?
Are you some kind of a looser or something?

 

What's a looser? Is it like a loser?

Looser is what a fat person says when their belt is too tight.

 

See, that's a Loughborough education for you.

 

Is that a yes, I'm not entirely sure what it means? It's just that the tin-hat brigade are trotting out all kinds conspiracies for the UN intervention, but when critical thinking's employed to shine a light on their flippant comments they clam-up, avoid the question, knock-out a word puzzle or, if you're f1_fan, ask for the thread to be locked . So, did the UN destroy Gadaffi's airforce so that "the good guys can buy new ones when they've got there hands on the money?"

 

Let's just say it is a fringe benefit.
One that would not discourage the allies from their present course of action.
IMO there is no morality to it - it is just business. F*cking good business at that.
Do you really need to be spoon fed yes/no, black/white answers?

 

Got there in the end.

 

'Who benefits' thinking is entirely fallacious.

Just because someone (or something) benefits from a course of action does not mean they caused it!

'Who benefits' logic would dictate that Iran controlled Bush and made him invade Iraq!

 

RTM.

 

I really have no idea at all what you are trying to express here.
A combination of tautology and bad syntax is my best guess.

 

This isn't about linguistics this is about, erm......?

 

Didn't actually RTM, by the way. Just in case.