(July 2, 2014 at 3:24 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It makes me uneasy too. I'm shittifying my day for the amusement of others. It's a point of pride.
We don't have to use slavery, of course. Imagine any objectionable group or proffession (warlords....pimps...whatever) -with a possible conflict of rights-and try to apply this waiving of rights based upon the strength of a set of standards - a mission statement...even if true, I can't budge here.
I agree with you that doctors waive that right (or ought to be in a position such as they do not have that right) - I don't agree with the manner in which you propose it be done.
I, for example, once waived many of my rights (in the absolute sense - they were gone until my contract expired - I couldn't pull takesy backsies). It's something I would not only consider - but something that I did. To serve. I'm just not comfortable with using the justification offered here because it has horrible effects on other rights/the very concept of a right. I'm not willing to chip away at the base so that the fascia looks cleaner.
Just to be clear, what method am I proposing that you don't agree with, and what method would you agree with?
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Jefferson