Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (59126)	9/20/2002 4:35:14 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (3) of 82486

I don't think your side is communicating very effectively. Of course I have understood your arguments and they are sensible but part of that was directed at imposing or implying rediculousness on the other side (mine) of the argument to make yours stronger (nonsensical). You said earlier that you don't do team things. However, because you are attributing rediculousness to my position, I wonder. I have made it clear that rescuing children from problems for which they need to accept responsibility is wrong. So, I would not consider this type of activity as a choice between duty (to public) and family. We are of course not talking about a fire fighter leaving a burning building to go pick the kids up from day care. To suggest that either of these situation types qualifies as putting family before duty (the opposing argument) is rediculous. If you are confused about this then you have a filtering problem or you just like to push rediculousness into opposing views for the sake of adding volume to the discussion. A rediculous scenario from the other perspective would be that you refused to stop attending to reports at the office before the 5 o'clock whistle even though your child called needing your attention to save his/her life or to defend against a serious threat. I will make you a deal. I will not insist that this type of rediculousness is what you are basing your position on if you will refrain from the same. What would be a real test would be a tragic crisis in which one's child would suffer or die from your neglect because you felt duty bound to serve the state in a crisis situation that only you could solve. I don't think this type of test happens in reality. It would make a great tear jerking movie if it did. A Major General in the armed forces who had children at home who would suffer or die without his/her direct support should retire. There are plenty of people ready, willing, able, and eager to step up to a position like that. To hail the state and damn the family in a situation like this would be pathetic and evil. I actually think this is fairly common. People frequently make choices to seek higher status or increase their lot materially, while allowing family or dependants to be harmed by their neglect. This type of person would not get my support running for governer. Likewise a person who knows what is good for his family but sacrifices the lives, health, or well being of dependants so he/she can get or hold the office would not get my support for public office. Now there is plenty of room in the above paragragh for us to draw dissagreement. I remember that the big argument for supporting bill clinton was that his supporters believed he was doing a good job of perfoming his duties. A big argument for not supporting him was that his character flaws and insistance on remaining in power were effecting dependant and supportive persons in a harmful way. So in closing. My position is that family or dependants are more of a priority than duty to the state. You can retire, abstain, or change jobs when duty to the state is in conflict with your responsibilities to dependants. You can not ethically do the reverse. cc chris

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next