Great. Thanks. Always a good thing for people to do and we need more of that. I wouldn’t say it’s warranted here, however, because I can see viewpoints and also think they are “out of control”. (Just a term of convenience so please don’t read too much into that specific way of phrasing things).
For example, I can see good intentions or the viewpoint behind letting people defecate and do heroin in the streets, and also come to view that letting people do so is still a crazy idea. (And I do, in fact I think it’s absolutely out of control).
Similarly, I can understand a small town in Alabama wanting to teach the Bible in their public schools because it’s their schools and they pay for them, but also find that utterly incompatible with my views.
Good ole’ Midwest. Right smack in the middle ;)
>> j: Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control.
> e: Not really sure what you're trying to get at here.
Just trying to encourage reasoning about viewpoints different to your own.
> e: if it was unusual or the hospital didn't want to do that, certainly they could have either not accepted the money or tried to remove that requirement?
Yep, perhaps they should have declined the offer. Hopefully there was good-faith debate about the terms and implications of it. Let's see whether we learn more over time; life goes on, either way.
> e: If you find my statement about politics in San Francisco to be antagonistic
Not really, no; it was something about your tone, so no worries there.