I'll just say that I think you are projecting your own framework of thinking (and understanding) on to the doctor(s), in this case.
"Should they even be a doctor?"
See my previous comment.
I mean, serious question: do you think that you should decide who should or shouldn't be a doctor?
maybe you are just surprised that people can become 'doctors' who cannot see things that to you are obvious. But you should also register the fact that you do not see some things that are obvious to others, maybe?
Anyway, I can see that we fundamentally agree, but I have an inbuilt resistance against judging or evaluating others based on my limited perceptions.
I guess if you framed it like "I would not trust or go to a doctor who I think can't figure out that blah blah..." that's pretty easy for me to accept. But personally, I'm not ready to judge or evaluate a whole community of people based on what I would prescribe for them.
(I mean, "should" is such a strong word, when its coupled with what others should do or not do. I mean, should God love sinners?)
Anyway, I appreciate the response. I think we're basically on the same page, and I'm just going into a nuance in terms of how I think.
Fair enough. There are enough nuances in this to keep us picking nits for a week. After "should", we can discuss what the meaning of "is" is. Yikes!
As for deciding who should and who should not be a doctor, I have to say the people who do decide base their decisions on cash, and they approve of their doctors injecting harmful chemicals into the blood stream of healthy babies. If those doctors are state licenced then yes it's the whole community of doctors and I'm quite ready to evaluate the entire group.
I appreciate the civil conversation and the food for thought.
Thanks for the resp, Framus.
I'll just say that I think you are projecting your own framework of thinking (and understanding) on to the doctor(s), in this case.
"Should they even be a doctor?"
See my previous comment.
I mean, serious question: do you think that you should decide who should or shouldn't be a doctor?
maybe you are just surprised that people can become 'doctors' who cannot see things that to you are obvious. But you should also register the fact that you do not see some things that are obvious to others, maybe?
Anyway, I can see that we fundamentally agree, but I have an inbuilt resistance against judging or evaluating others based on my limited perceptions.
I guess if you framed it like "I would not trust or go to a doctor who I think can't figure out that blah blah..." that's pretty easy for me to accept. But personally, I'm not ready to judge or evaluate a whole community of people based on what I would prescribe for them.
(I mean, "should" is such a strong word, when its coupled with what others should do or not do. I mean, should God love sinners?)
Anyway, I appreciate the response. I think we're basically on the same page, and I'm just going into a nuance in terms of how I think.
Thanks for reading.
Fair enough. There are enough nuances in this to keep us picking nits for a week. After "should", we can discuss what the meaning of "is" is. Yikes!
As for deciding who should and who should not be a doctor, I have to say the people who do decide base their decisions on cash, and they approve of their doctors injecting harmful chemicals into the blood stream of healthy babies. If those doctors are state licenced then yes it's the whole community of doctors and I'm quite ready to evaluate the entire group.
I appreciate the civil conversation and the food for thought.
Kekeke. Well played!
Ditto.