|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Tim Cook wrote:
> 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'.
OK.
>> Am I beginning to sound like I play too much Bioshock? ;-)
>
> Eh...haven't played Bioshock, so I'm missing the reference. I assume
> something in-game's related?
One main character is stereotypical Ayn Rand objectionist type. He's
constantly getting on the PA saying things like "Is a farmer not entitled to
the sweat of his brow?"
> The obligation is there because that's what they've volunteered to do,
> to bear that responsibility.
They only volunteered to put out the fires of people who donated. Indeed,
everybody knew that, or nobody else would have donated. You even got a
sticker to put on your window to show it. :-)
> Yes, but the one doesn't make the other correct or nobler. And a
> firefighter's function is to preserve what life and property they can by
> extinguishing fires. Deciding someone is unworthy of help is something
> you do after the fact.
Not in this case. :-)
> Kind of the way hospitals are obligated to save
> a patient's life whether they can pay or not if they come into the ER.
I'm pretty sure that's part of the law.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |