Helping a cop in need

[headcase]

Originally Posted by pex

No one should accept "just human" and "just have to make a livelihood" as excuses for a chosen pattern of violating constitutions or natural rights. Moral and legal obligations don't stop because "you're just human" and "you need to make a buck". Those who choose police work not only shall maintain moral obligations but shall accept the legal obligations of being part of the executive.


Since I see it clarified no where else, the guy said "deification", not "defecation" (or "defication [sic]").


The Golden Rule is not the simple, mono-a-mono "treat others how you wish to be treated" bullocks they taught you in elementary school. It also isn't the stuff that Kant said. It's this:
all the people that will be expected and could be expected to be affected by what you do must be taken in consideration as if you were they, affected by the implication of your doppleganger's actions. That's a lot of people to consider, and it is NOT simply "If you were the police officer, would you want to be helped by a Samaritan".

I don't have any idea what you are trying to say, but I do know that "mano-a-mano" means " hand to hand", so where that saying fits into whatever else you are trying to say, is very unclear to me.....

[40twist]

"Do onto others as you would have them do onto you" .............. screw that , unless its family or friends. I feel the way people are nowadays no one cares about any one else ... they are all about themeselves.... They cut you off in traffic when theres none behind you because they are in a bigger hurry , They piss and moan because you use coupons when you grocery shop and that is sooooo much more work for them , my god I could go on and on , for gosh sakes its even too much to ask to double check your order at the drive thru so you dont get the wrong stuff or that you even get stuff , ok im done I literally could do this for hours but that might turn into a Micheal Douglas "Falling Down" scenario lol

[GetSome]

I would employ my mad ninja skillz



***Footnote - credit to Thekatar

[pex]

Originally Posted by headcase

I don't have any idea what you are trying to say, but I do know that "mano-a-mano" means " hand to hand", so where that saying fits into whatever else you are trying to say, is very unclear to me.....

The three paragraphs are not intended to be intertwined in any way.

The third paragraph clarifies that the "Golden Rule" is not "How would YOU feel in the OFFICER's shoes." It is "How would you feel in the officer's shoes, the other guy's shoes, bystander's shoes, your wife's shoes, your child's shoe, <insert all other affected here>". One cannot just conveniently assign who they would like to treat as they would have themselves be treated.

The attempt 'mano-a-mano' reference may or may not be correct, I tried to see if it was and Wikipedia did not help in clarifying. Nonetheless, I explain what I am talking about in the paragraph immediately preceding this.

[angus]

Originally Posted by pex

The Golden Rule is not the simple, mono-a-mono "treat others how you wish to be treated" bullocks they taught you in elementary school. It also isn't the stuff that Kant said. It's this:
all the people that will be expected and could be expected to be affected by what you do must be taken in consideration as if you were they, affected by the implication of your doppleganger's actions. That's a lot of people to consider, and it is NOT simply "If you were the police officer, would you want to be helped by a Samaritan".

Actually, your phrasing sounds pretty close to Kant's categorical imperative about acting as if the "maxim" of your actions were to become, through your will, universal law. I'm not a Kantian philosopher or anything, but I did note a similarity between your statement and Kant's first imperative. My reading of Kant is that he did account for others, even though we generally associate outcomes for the masses to be more in line with the telelogical stuff (even though Kant assigned morality based on the inherent goodness of an act rather than benefit to numbers). I'm no expert on this stuff; it's just my take on it.

Jeez, sometimes I even bore myself. Sorry guys.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by GetSome

***Footnote - credit to Thekatar

I aways wondered what he looks like

[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by angus

Actually, your phrasing sounds pretty close to Kant's categorical imperative about acting as if the "maxim" of your actions were to become, through your will, universal law. I'm not a Kantian philosopher or anything, but I did note a similarity between your statement and Kant's first imperative. My reading of Kant is that he did account for others, even though we generally associate outcomes for the masses to be more in line with the telelogical stuff (even though Kant assigned morality based on the inherent goodness of an act rather than benefit to numbers). I'm no expert on this stuff; it's just my take on it.

Jeez, sometimes I even bore myself. Sorry guys.

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Angus again."

Well, nice post, anyway.

[jsb889]

Rule, I love your posts. I don't agree with some of the stuff, but they're ALWAYS very informative and interesting thanks for the reads!

I gotta go with Pat on this one. I'm by nature compelled to help people in need, even to a fault. I really couldn't see myself sitting back while someone else was getting hurt. I'd even jump in if it was two civilians. Its definately not the smartest thing to do financially, and I might take a hit on it. But its my (as well as many here) nature. If I were in the SAME situation, would I want/appreciate help? Thats how you should look at each situation, from possible murder, to a sliced finger, to being stranded on the side of the road.

[38SnubFan]

Rule and Chambered, I apologize if anyone has felt that deeply offended or insulted. Rule, you and I just plain disagree, and I apologize that I allowed it to get to the heated level it did. You and I have different viewpoints. That's the beauty of living in a free country: we're both free to have our own thoughts and express them.

Chambered: Again, I apologize. I'm sure Rule gives many a good advice here and even I am welcoming his input as an attorney. I hold a background and knowledge as well that both training and personal experiences give me as well, and I hope that as my tenure here increases, that my knowledge will be accepted as well.

To all: I'm here to offer advice and teach, but I'm here more to LEARN.

Hopefully this will no longer be an ongoing verbal struggle anymore.

Thanks as always,
38SnubFan

[headcase]

Oh hell, if everyone else is going to start apologizing, I'm *sniffle* sorry too. I'm not sure if I have offended anyone, but I try to state my opinions in a well thought out manner and avoid getting personal. If I have failed in that mission, I apologize.



*Note to Emptymag: Maybe the moon went down?