Unpopular opinions you hold

Pie · 03-29-2007, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pie

You are responsible for your actions, not their outcomes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And that, my friends, is what is wrong with America today.

Take it another way -- you are only responsible for doing your absolute best in all circumstances. What happens as a result of that is not yours, either for blame or praise. You own your actions and nothing else.

How is this a problem for America?

HungLikeJesus · 03-29-2007, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pie

Take it another way -- you are only responsible for doing your absolute best in all circumstances. What happens as a result of that is not yours, either for blame or praise. You own your actions and nothing else.

How is this a problem for America?

This implies that one cannot possibly predict or anticipate the consequences of their actions.

For example, cane toads were imported into Australia "from South America during the 1930s in a failed attempt to control beetles on Australia's northern sugar cane plantations. The poisonous toads have proven fatal to Australia's delicate ecosystems, killing millions of native animals from snakes to the small crocodiles that eat them." http://www.livescience.com/animalwor...iant_toad.html

Were the importers of the toads not responsible for the negative results of introducing a foreign species? (Same with the rabbits.)

TheMercenary · 03-29-2007, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pie

Take it another way -- you are only responsible for doing your absolute best in all circumstances. What happens as a result of that is not yours, either for blame or praise. You own your actions and nothing else.

How is this a problem for America?

So you get in a car and drive drunk. You are responsible for that action. An hour later as you drive you kill a mother of three and her children in a head on collision. You say you are not responsible. How?

Sundae · 03-29-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So you get in a car and drive drunk. You are responsible for that action. An hour later as you drive you kill a mother of three and her children in a head on collision. You say you are not responsible. How?

Action - driving while drunk
Result - Head on collision and death of innocent people
Conclusion - The driver is fully responsible because he made a decision that was illegal and immoral knowing that his ability was impaired

Action - Driving your kids to the swimming pool
Result - Hit by a drunk driver and killed along with your children
Conclusion - the mother took an action she believed was healthy and responsible. Her children would be alive if she hadn't signed them up for swimming lessons but she is not responsible for their deaths, despite the fact that her action led to it.

TheMercenary · 03-29-2007, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Action - driving while drunk
Result - Head on collision and death of innocent people
Conclusion - The driver is fully responsible because he made a decision that was illegal and immoral knowing that his ability was impaired

Action - Driving your kids to the swimming pool
Result - Hit by a drunk driver and killed along with your children
Conclusion - the mother took an action she believed was healthy and responsible. Her children would be alive if she hadn't signed them up for swimming lessons but she is not responsible for their deaths, despite the fact that her action led to it.

Goes both ways eh?

Sundae · 03-29-2007, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Goes both ways eh?

Oh yes - but that's what I think Pie was saying. If you are doing the best you can, you hope that your actions don't have bad consequences. But you can't guarantee it.

TheMercenary · 03-29-2007, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Oh yes - but that's what I think Pie was saying. If you are doing the best you can, you hope that your actions don't have bad consequences. But you can't guarantee it.

Ok, if that is the case I get it. It did not read that way when first posted to me. Makes sense.

HungLikeJesus · 03-29-2007, 12:26 PM

We all drive almost every day. We all know the risks of being on the road. But what percentage of drivers take action to improve their driving skills (winter driving course, defensive driving course, etc.) to reduce those risks?

Since many collisions could have been avoided by a driver with advanced training, those of us who don't make that effort bear an increased percentage of the responsibility when we are involved in an accident.

A similar arguement can be made for self-defense training.

Pie · 03-29-2007, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Oh yes - but that's what I think Pie was saying. If you are doing the best you can, you hope that your actions don't have bad consequences. But you can't guarantee it.

Exactly. You are responsible for doing the best you can. Ethically, morally, and every which other way. Always.

If something bad happens as a result, it is not your fault.

If something good happens, it is not to your praise.

However, if you don't do the best you can by your own yardstick, you are always to blame, even if nothing bad comes of it.

HungLikeJesus · 03-29-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pie

However, if you don't do the best you can by your own yardstick, you are always to blame, even if nothing bad comes of it.

So you seem to agree that, since most drivers don't do their best to improve their driving skills, they are at least partly to blame when they are in an accident?

Shawnee123 · 03-29-2007, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pie

Exactly. You are responsible for doing the best you can. Ethically, morally, and every which other way. Always.

If something bad happens as a result, it is not your fault.

If something good happens, it is not to your praise.

However, if you don't do the best you can by your own yardstick, you are always to blame, even if nothing bad comes of it.

Where in this set of absolutes does one get to think "you know, I really worked hard for that outcome. I deserve to feel good about it."?

Kingswood · 03-29-2007, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Action - driving while drunk

Illegal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Action - Driving your kids to the swimming pool

Legal

That's the difference.

xoxoxoBruce · 03-29-2007, 10:28 PM

Being a legal act does not remove any responsibility for your actions.

wolf · 03-30-2007, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Being a legal act does not remove any responsibility for your actions.

No matter how guilty she feels about the death of the kids, the mom's not responsible in any way. The drunk is.

xoxoxoBruce · 03-30-2007, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

No matter how guilty she feels about the death of the kids, the mom's not responsible in any way. The drunk is.

Dat true, but legality has nothing to do with it.

03-29-2007, 12:26 PM	#8
HungLikeJesus Only looks like a disaster tourist Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: above 7,000 feet Posts: 7,208	We all drive almost every day. We all know the risks of being on the road. But what percentage of drivers take action to improve their driving skills (winter driving course, defensive driving course, etc.) to reduce those risks? Since many collisions could have been avoided by a driver with advanced training, those of us who don't make that effort bear an increased percentage of the responsibility when we are involved in an accident. A similar arguement can be made for self-defense training. __________________ Keep Your Bodies Off My Lawn SteveDallas's Random Thread Picker.

03-29-2007, 10:28 PM	#13
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Being a legal act does not remove any responsibility for your actions. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)