Precisely. The original post made a broad sweeping blanket statement that we should not get involved. I pointed out an instance where that would, and I think should, be difficult (to not come to the aid of a child being murdered). I was raised that we have responsibilities beyond looking out for number 1.03Lightningrocks wrote:I think most of us here would intervene if we saw a person being physically attacked. I know I would in some situations and not other situations. ...
Wildbill rebutted my post with his argument that his responsibility was only to himself if doing otherwise put him in danger.
I believe there is a logical argument to be made for looking out for one another and I am not advocating playing policeman or intervening for the sake of intervening. The example I gave was very specific. Beyond logic, stepping in at our own peril, financial or physical, is an intrinsic part of our humanity, or certainly should be.
An honest debate however ends with disrespect and name calling. I am no-ones 'Sonny', I have been in harms way before, although not in the way that Mr. Clayton was. And if I am on a high horse I invite others to join me. The air is better up here than in the mire of 'every man (and child) for himself' with only jungle law.
Yet I can not help but think that most who espouse such a philosophy, if on their backs and at the mercy of a crazed killer, would hope that someone like Mr. Clanton were at hand rather than someone who shared your philosophy.