On 24-8-2009 23:29, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/24/09 14:19, Tim Cook wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> So anyone who is capable of saving your property should be required to
>>> voluntarily do so?
>>
>> No, but if someone who is capable has declared themselves to be part of
>> a volunteer team whose function is to do that task, they should be
>> reasonably expected to perform that task when called upon if they're 'on
>> duty'.
> 
>     I'm not sure you understand what "volunteer" means.

I think he does, at least it matches with my definition of a volunteer.

> 
>>> Should the construction worker be required to rebuild your house for
>>> free if it burns down in spite of the fire fighter's best efforts?
>>
>> No. But a volunteer member of FEMA or the Red Cross or Habitat for
>> Humanity or whatever should be reasonably expected to rebuild the house
>> when there is need and they have the resources and capability do so and
>> can see the need.
> 
>     I'm not sure you understand what "volunteer" means.

I think he does.

>>> How about fires in different towns? Should they be required to drive
>>> 30 miles to go fight fires elsewhere?
>>
>> If they've volunteered to do so.
> 
>     I'm not sure you understand what "volunteer" means.

I think he does.

>     And they didn't volunteer to do so - that's Darren's point. They 
> volunteered to put out fires in *this* city. And they volunteered to put 
> out fires for the houses that opted in, not for all the houses in the city.
> 
>> The obligation is there because that's what they've volunteered to do,
>> to bear that responsibility. If you volunteer to join the army, you
> 
>     I'm not sure you understand what "volunteer" means.

I think he does.

>     I know I'm getting repetitive, but I'm also seriously. Using the 
> word "obligation" and "volunteer" in the same sentence blows my mind.

I think the essence of a volunteer is that he promises to do something, 
so there is an obligation. The concept of a volunteer that at any time 
can decide not to keep his promise because he only is a volunteer blows 
*my* mind.


>> don't get to disregard this or that order because you're a volunteer. In
>> for a penny, in for a pound, as they say.
> 
>     That's because the army has rules, not because they're volunteering.
>

Post a reply to this message