Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (85449)	11/10/2004 6:58:40 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793835

"do no harm" says even less. I rather liked that one. It makes a good touchstone. I remember the touchstone at the Pentagon when I worked there. It asked what the action does for the troops in the field. Touchstones are useful and "first do no harm" ain't a bad one. It doesn't lead to any particular policy. It's more a curb on proposed policies. "Embrace wisdom from a variety of sources not just Judeo-Christian tradition." I rather liked that one, too. It's appreciative of tradition but also appreciative of other religious traditions and secular sources. That doesn't seem to be the standard position of the Democratic party. None of what she said reminded me much of the Democratic Party. <g> I don't think she was describing what is but what she thinks should be. its also pretty vague even on the areas that it does cover Yes, the devil's in the details. But coming up with a framework is an iterative process. You sketch out an outline, see what detail follows from it, revise the outline if the detail goes the wrong way, and so on. Or you start from the detail, find broad themes, and start the iterative process there. A first cut is just to get the pen primed.

To: TimF who wrote (85449)	11/11/2004 9:33:18 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793835

Was Karen's post an accurate reflection of your thoughts? IF so can you also reply to the above points? Karen's synthesis was more accurate than at first I had thought. 1. Embrace wisdom from a variety of sources not just Judeo-Christian tradition. On that point, in my mumble jumbo, I wanted also to express a much stronger opposition to the current Conservative view that wants to change our Constitution to force recognition of God - and everything that goes with that initial change. 2. Do no harm. "First do no harm" says a lot. You could read a lot into it. You could probably apply it to foreign or domestic policy. It comes from the Hippocratic Corpus. <<<"I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves.">>> 3. Light touch with regard to rules. At first I thought this is more Karen than me - but on reflection, I am inclined to agree. 4. Help those who simply can't help themselves via taxation of the rich. In tone, this is definitely more Karen than me. There are probably tremendous differences in detail. But, the hippocratic oath could really apply to everything especially when you add - do good and do no harm. I am willing to bet that more doctors are more Liberal in their political views than the vast majority of the citizenry.