Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by shockedcanadian, Aug 15, 2017.
You sound like a government employee. We are done here.
The answer depends how the government is constituted. Seeing as you live in Canada, and I don't know how Canada's government is constituted or how goes Canadian constitutional legal theory, I cannot, for the most part, credibly and comprehensively answer either question.
I suspect the Canadian government is based in large part on the rule of law. If that is so, whim has nothing to do with how the Canadian government pursues whatever actions it does.
I'm sure people feel as though they have. Some, for example, would say that the speed limit and speeding tickets constitute governmental imposition.
My housekeeper and her husband care for her father who is in his dotage and, of late, has frequently gone to the hospital (eight emergency visits in two months). The doctors there filed a "suspicion of neglect" with Adult Protective Services, and now she and her husband are having to demonstrate that they are not neglecting her father and are instead doing the best they can given their and his circumstances and her father's wishes.
The core reason the man has been going to the hospital is that among them, they don't have the financial means to provide 24 skilled nusing at home and the man's health has deteriorated to the point where the only choices they (he) have are:
Home hospice care, whereby the man will be made comfortable, but not treated, thus effectively "left to die," albeit at home. To do that is apparently in contravention with the man's tenets and practice of his Roman Catholic faith.
Send him to the hospital when his condition worsens, let the hospital get him "back to normal" (as normal as he's going to be given his age and health status), and then have him return home.
Put him in a nursing home or some other kind of extended care facility. (This is something that, so I'm told, throughout the better days of his seniority, the man explicitly stated he doesn't want.)
Apologies for the "funny" rating. I know you are less trying to be funny and more trying to share that you find absurd the remarks to which you responded. Seeing your comment before reading the passages you quoted just did make me laugh, so I ticked "funny."
OP-er, you may find the following helpful in arriving at your own answers to your questions.
The False Promise of Fiduciary Government
Translating Fiduciary Principles Into Public Law
Public Officials as Fiduciaries
The Fiduciary Duty of Former Government Employees
Government's fiduciary role considered via specific example
Obviously he thinks he's being perfectly logical......... But almost all psychiatric patients think that........ And given the fact he called me a government employee speaks volumes. Unfortunately I have to suspect some degree of early psychosis.
That need not be and probably isn't the only or most likely reason for his remark to that effect. People will say all sort of things when they either wont' or haven't a substantive retort to something they simply don't like to hear/see. Such responses derive from pathos, not from logos. Making such remarks doesn't necessarily bode for one's being psychotic, but neither do they militate for one's being a calm and resolutely rational being.
That was the least of my reasons for making that "diagnosis" as I'm quite aware how and why people respond the way they do.
??? Now, you're not making sense to me either. Why was "the least" of your reasons for your "diagnosis" the one you chose to highlight? I have to ask for discursively, rhetorically and argumentatively, one's least powerful reason(s) supporting one's conclusions are not the best one's to present or highlight/present solely.
I highlighted something? I was referring to his saying I worked for the government as being the least. What tangent are you off on?
Yes, you highlighted something. You highlighted exactly what you have noted, his calling your a government employee. You highlighted it by citing it, along with your generality about psychiatric patients, albeit a contextually accurate one, as the two sole reasons for your "diagnosis."
Have no other reasons? Is his epithet of lesser importance in your analysis than is the general theory of psychosis you've articulated (very high level) and applied, or is it merely an illustration of it, thus not a reason on its own?
Separate names with a comma.