If you have to put in a stipulation that the money you are giving a group wont be used to aid 1 child policy, then you should not be giving that organization any money. This is no different than giving PP money and saying “dont use any of this on abortions.” While that money may not directly go to abortions, it frees up that same amount of pre-assigned money to now go to abortions, so the end result is you funded them. It says something about the gullibility of anyone who was pushing this legislation.
It very well could be put around Newt, because of the good intentions bad result aspect.
You are using circular logic that just doesn’t cut it.
It would be the same if I gave a bum $10 and stipulated that he buy food and not booze with it.
So it’s best to let the bum starve in streets than to make the attempt to help because he may use it to get drunk?
If that’s true, then no drunk or drug addict would ever receive the help they need.
“It very well could be put around Newt, because of the good intentions bad result aspect.”
Nope. Intent is everything and underlying reason to give in the first place.
Otherwise, what would be the reason to try to help anyone at all.
You are using circular logic that just doesn’t cut it.
It would be the same if I gave a bum $10 and stipulated that he buy food and not booze with it.
So it’s best to let the bum starve in streets than to make the attempt to help because he may use it to get drunk?
If that’s true, then no drunk or drug addict would ever receive the help they need.
“It very well could be put around Newt, because of the good intentions bad result aspect.”
Nope. Intent is everything and the underlying reason to give in the first place.
Otherwise, what would be the reason to try to help anyone at all.