Today's discussion had less focus than usual. Today we talked about football coaches and salaries, namely if it is okay for a coach to accept a raise when instructors/programs at a university are being cut. We also talked about what our aliases would be if we were escaping the law. Annie didn't know. Pat's would be Scott McMurtrey. Wes would choose Andy Worthington. And Scott would choose Nova Scotia, Great, The.
We also talked about how we'd describe Wes - tall, thin, fun hair, nice lips, etc. and wondered if there are neutral adjectives for describing people.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Assisting Hitler's Suicide
December 11, 2009
Key topics for the day: math, assisted suicide, and Hitler.
Wes showed us how .9 repeated equals 1.0. Basically, there are mathematical proofs that show that there is no number between .9 repeated and 1, and algebraically, they are the same number:
We then talked about assisted suicide and the Hippocratic Oath. The discussion broadened to sin and alternatives to suicide. Scott remembered a time when he was told that no one will ever be given a hardship in life that he can't overcome. But Scott argues that is obviously not true for those who do succeed in killing themselves. Pat added that he disagrees with people who are anti-assisted suicide.
And finally, we talked about the prospect of going back in time to assassinate Hilter. Annie said that she definitely would because even if she couldn't kill the ideals of Hitler, she could take out the person who had the charisma, rhetoric, and power to follow through on despicable acts. Perhaps without Hitler, the genocide of 11,000,000 Jews would have never occurred. Scott disagreed, arguing that without such a despicable event, the hatred/ideas brewing in Germany and elsewhere would be stronger today. The event had to take place for the world to see how horrible it was and to prevent it happening again. Pat said something in the same vein. He said that he would not change anything in the past - like assassinating Hitler - because something worse might happen in its stead. (This led to a brief discussion about time travel, multiple realities, Back to the Future, and The Terminator movies.)
We left Dupus Boomers a bit more enlightened than when we entered.
Key topics for the day: math, assisted suicide, and Hitler.
Wes showed us how .9 repeated equals 1.0. Basically, there are mathematical proofs that show that there is no number between .9 repeated and 1, and algebraically, they are the same number:
We then talked about assisted suicide and the Hippocratic Oath. The discussion broadened to sin and alternatives to suicide. Scott remembered a time when he was told that no one will ever be given a hardship in life that he can't overcome. But Scott argues that is obviously not true for those who do succeed in killing themselves. Pat added that he disagrees with people who are anti-assisted suicide.
And finally, we talked about the prospect of going back in time to assassinate Hilter. Annie said that she definitely would because even if she couldn't kill the ideals of Hitler, she could take out the person who had the charisma, rhetoric, and power to follow through on despicable acts. Perhaps without Hitler, the genocide of 11,000,000 Jews would have never occurred. Scott disagreed, arguing that without such a despicable event, the hatred/ideas brewing in Germany and elsewhere would be stronger today. The event had to take place for the world to see how horrible it was and to prevent it happening again. Pat said something in the same vein. He said that he would not change anything in the past - like assassinating Hitler - because something worse might happen in its stead. (This led to a brief discussion about time travel, multiple realities, Back to the Future, and The Terminator movies.)
We left Dupus Boomers a bit more enlightened than when we entered.
Defending Responsibility
December 10, 2009
Today's discussion focused on the following topics: personal responsibility, suing, and self-defense.
The discussion started by Scott sharing an article that he read about a woman who was suing a debt collection agency because she held them responsible for her husband's death. I think that we were all in agreement that the agency - no matter how annoying or disrespectful - was not responsible for her husband's death.
This opened the discussion up to who can be held responsible for someone's misfortune. Could the wife win her lawsuit because stress caused her husband's heart attack? Could one sue an ex for mental anguish which then led to a firing or a car accident or a fight. The overriding question, then, is where is the line for personal responsibility? Is it fair to hold others accountable for our sadness, stress, failing health, etc.?
This questions relates to a discussion we have had on a couple of occasions about lawsuits, namely when it is okay to sue someone else. (The example that keeps coming up is if a person slips and falls on someone else's property. Pat contends that he would sue because he would not go bankrupt paying his own medical bills if a business, such as Wal-Mart, could pay for it. He believes it is an American's right to take it to court, and if he is in the wrong and has insufficient grounds to sue, then he would pay his bill. Annie agrees with Pat and adds that businesses have insurance for that very problem. If it doesn't cost Wal-Mart any extra but it would cost her everything she owns, then she wouldn't feel bad about trying to get her bills paid by Wal-Mart. Scott completely disagrees and is disappointed that good people feel that way. He believes that bad things sometimes happen - that is life - and no one else is responsible for his medical bills if he falls on some ice. Basically, he is unhappy with the system in place and the frivolous lawsuits that come about because of the system.)
And finally, we also discussed self-defense and murder laws. Here's the scenario: "A 110-pound male crack addict attacks a 265-pound football player with a knife. The football player feels threatened, knocks the knife out of the addict's hands, and proceeds to beat and kill his attacker." Was that self-defense or murder? Pat and Scott believe that the football player was justified in his actions because he felt threatened. Annie believes it stopped being self-defense once the attacker was incapacitated. (She remembered being told once that a woman could be taken to court for murder if she killed an attempted rapist. She was told that once the man was down, she could not keep beating him or go back to her car to get a gun to kill him; her responsibility is to get far away and call the police.)
We then discussed how our opinions would change if the person being attacked was a woman. Or what if the attacker was a woman? Or what if the person being attacked had a record of violence? Where is the line between self-defense and murder?
Lunch ended and Pat existed gracefully.
Today's discussion focused on the following topics: personal responsibility, suing, and self-defense.
The discussion started by Scott sharing an article that he read about a woman who was suing a debt collection agency because she held them responsible for her husband's death. I think that we were all in agreement that the agency - no matter how annoying or disrespectful - was not responsible for her husband's death.
This opened the discussion up to who can be held responsible for someone's misfortune. Could the wife win her lawsuit because stress caused her husband's heart attack? Could one sue an ex for mental anguish which then led to a firing or a car accident or a fight. The overriding question, then, is where is the line for personal responsibility? Is it fair to hold others accountable for our sadness, stress, failing health, etc.?
This questions relates to a discussion we have had on a couple of occasions about lawsuits, namely when it is okay to sue someone else. (The example that keeps coming up is if a person slips and falls on someone else's property. Pat contends that he would sue because he would not go bankrupt paying his own medical bills if a business, such as Wal-Mart, could pay for it. He believes it is an American's right to take it to court, and if he is in the wrong and has insufficient grounds to sue, then he would pay his bill. Annie agrees with Pat and adds that businesses have insurance for that very problem. If it doesn't cost Wal-Mart any extra but it would cost her everything she owns, then she wouldn't feel bad about trying to get her bills paid by Wal-Mart. Scott completely disagrees and is disappointed that good people feel that way. He believes that bad things sometimes happen - that is life - and no one else is responsible for his medical bills if he falls on some ice. Basically, he is unhappy with the system in place and the frivolous lawsuits that come about because of the system.)
And finally, we also discussed self-defense and murder laws. Here's the scenario: "A 110-pound male crack addict attacks a 265-pound football player with a knife. The football player feels threatened, knocks the knife out of the addict's hands, and proceeds to beat and kill his attacker." Was that self-defense or murder? Pat and Scott believe that the football player was justified in his actions because he felt threatened. Annie believes it stopped being self-defense once the attacker was incapacitated. (She remembered being told once that a woman could be taken to court for murder if she killed an attempted rapist. She was told that once the man was down, she could not keep beating him or go back to her car to get a gun to kill him; her responsibility is to get far away and call the police.)
We then discussed how our opinions would change if the person being attacked was a woman. Or what if the attacker was a woman? Or what if the person being attacked had a record of violence? Where is the line between self-defense and murder?
Lunch ended and Pat existed gracefully.
A Little Background
Discussions. Conversations. Arguments. Debates. Regardless of their name, we take part in them daily as we sit in Annie's office, munching on Cheez-Its, Lean Pockets, and Sun Chips. Every weekday around noon, we gather into a little space and share ideas, challenge each other, and work through complicated and often controversial issues. Sometimes we argue just to get multiple perspectives on the table. Sometimes we sit back and hear what others think. Often we leave our little space at 1:00 with something new to think about, something that we can mull over as we are driving, eating dinner, or drifting off into sleep.
In my experience with this group of debaters/arguers/etc., I know that I have gotten much out of our time together. Although on the outside we seem pretty similar, we come from different political backgrounds, have separate cultural experiences, and have unique personalities that color our discussions in beautiful and interesting ways. Our religious backgrounds, family histories, genders, politics, educations, and experiences shape our original stances on a subject, and our open-mindedness and respect for each other shape the way we approach that topic during lunchtime.
It is my hope that this blog acts not only as an electronic record of these lunchtime conversations but also as a shared space to continue working through ideas. As the secretary for this blog, I will do my best to represent our ideas clearly and fairly, and I hope that my lunchtime companions contribute to this blog to clarify their ideas, fill in gaps, make connections, and think about future discussions.
I have opened this blog up to anyone who wants to read it and contribute to it. I have my doubts that others will find our discussions as interesting as I find them, but I encourage all readers to comment on our ideas. Enjoy!
In my experience with this group of debaters/arguers/etc., I know that I have gotten much out of our time together. Although on the outside we seem pretty similar, we come from different political backgrounds, have separate cultural experiences, and have unique personalities that color our discussions in beautiful and interesting ways. Our religious backgrounds, family histories, genders, politics, educations, and experiences shape our original stances on a subject, and our open-mindedness and respect for each other shape the way we approach that topic during lunchtime.
It is my hope that this blog acts not only as an electronic record of these lunchtime conversations but also as a shared space to continue working through ideas. As the secretary for this blog, I will do my best to represent our ideas clearly and fairly, and I hope that my lunchtime companions contribute to this blog to clarify their ideas, fill in gaps, make connections, and think about future discussions.
I have opened this blog up to anyone who wants to read it and contribute to it. I have my doubts that others will find our discussions as interesting as I find them, but I encourage all readers to comment on our ideas. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
