The Boxing Ring Revived 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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (4663)	2/21/2003 3:00:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 7720

This is not a lot different from my reluctance to just storm in and take over my father's health care when I know it's important to his quality of life to feel independent and competent. It would be arrogant and disrespectful to dismiss that. I need to work with him to find some role I can play in the quality of his medical care that he's comfortable with. And if he'd rather suffer lesser quality care than have me intervene, that's his prerogative as long as he's competent, which he still is, IMO. Taking over your fathers health care against his wishes is infringing on his autonomy. Invading Iraq is not an infringement on Saudi, or Turkey or Egypt or France or Germany. It is of course infringing on Iraq but your argument was not based on what Iraq or Saddam think but rather how invading against the wishes of 3rd parties would be dismissive of their opinions and acting disrespectfully towards them. Say there's someone on the block, a mean-spirited fellow, who comes and goes at odd hours of the night with his car radio blasting waking all the neighbors, particularly the little old lady next door who suffers from migraines. You want to smash him or his radio or both. But the lady and the rest of the neighbors disagree with that approach. Say they think it would just make things worse or they think it's immoral to damage him or his radio. Seems to me that it's un-neighborly and arrogant to dismiss the POV of the rest of the neighbors and go a-smashing anyway. That is a better analogy. Esp. if you add their being no police that you could go to rather then smashing the radio yourself. I think we should pay attention to our neighbors opinions in a situation likes this but I don't think that going along with the neighbors opinions is required. And I'm not talking about a legal requirement but rather just required to be neighborly and respectful of others rights and viewpoints. If the neighborhood does have a way to communally address the situation and if you think it is normally reasonable and effective then it does makes sense to try to try and work with your neighbors. Even if there is no formal mechanism or forum it would be neighborly and respectful to consult with them (unless you think they would warn the guy with the radio). But if in the end no consensus can be reached then you have to go ahead and make and live with your own decision. I don't think subjecting yourself to very loud music every night for 12 years is a required in order to avoid being unneighborly. In any case I'm pretty sure that there either will be a second resolution or there will be a veto. So you aren't even talking about the majority of the security council lining up against the idea just one or three countries with veto powers. Going back to the loud radio in the neighborhood its as if one or two neighbors vetoed the idea of doing anything about it even if there was decent support for the idea. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next