Posted: May 04, 2016 6:59 am
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I recall another dumb remark about how, if social assistance hadn't been available, the guy who killed Theo Van Gogh would have had a job and been at work and Van Gogh would be alive.
How is that a dumb remark? If that piece of shit was busy finding or holding down a job, then at the very least he'd have had less time to pursue his ambition to become the Netherlands's most violent film critic.
Really? How many premeditated murders have been postponed or inconvenienced to the point of impracticality, due to the murder having or seeking a job?
Well give me a means of peering into alternate universes and I might be able to tell you!
Or you could just read what I actually wrote: he would have had less time to fantasize and think about murdering someone over a film. What part of that statement seems unreasonable to you??