Quote:
If our intentions are good, some good things are bound to happen.
As long as our intentions are placed in a way that promotes good feelings while maintaining respect for our fellow human beings, then the subjective matter of what's actually best for the woman no longer becomes an issue.
This is the typical Western-Christian-missionary ideal. The backbone of this ideal is of course, "I am better than you and thus I have the right to push and pull you the I see fit."
How about just leaving them "alone"? . . . nope. We can't do this . . . we know more than them. We are smarter than them. . . hell, we know them better than they know themselves. We'll make them better. Right . . . but before that, we'll take care of our needs first.
Do you know how psychiatrists diagnosis add and adhd?
1. 5th grade teacher gets pissed off at rowdy kid.
2. Vice Principle gives disciplining a twirl.
3. School nurse wants part of the action.
4. School Doctor observes.
5. A standardized test is given.
6. Doctor 1: "I think the kid's got adhd. Do you concur?"
7. Doctor 2: "Yes."
8. Parents: "We just want what's best for our child."
9. Kid, "I guess I want to get better."
10. Doctor 1's family gets a Hawaii vacation from frequent mileage points for his meeting the annual psychiatric drug prescription goals.
11. Doctor 2's wife is jealous of Doctor 2's Hawaiian Holiday and tells him to try better next year.
Can you point to any "bad intentioned" cast member in the above play?
What's best for the woman? This isn't even our business in the first place. I agree with Lowery that Chief seems like a nice guy and the initial example seems like a nice act. But if good intentions and our concept of respect is all it takes for "good outcomes", we would still be euthanizing and sterilizing the mentally ill, relieving them of their "horrible suffering". For most of us, I'd think "tread lightly" is probably a more honest and realistic goal.