View Single Post
Old 25th June 2018, 03:17 PM   #42
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,435
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
This is a red herring and it's naive all in one.
I don't think so; it's at the heart of the matter. You'll have to expand your thoughts. We are discussing the appropriateness of their actions, after all.

These reason these psychs are breaking ethics (I will put aside standards of practice, for now) is because they cite a duty to warn the public about President Trump's dangerousness. The problem is that once he is elected, there is no easy mechanism to remove him based on their statements. There is no power in their words at this point; no one in a position to act -the VP and the cabinet- is listening to them.

Before the election, they might have convinced enough of the people in a position to act -the voters- to keep him out of office in the first place. Why didn't they hold their conference and write their books before the election? If Trump really and truly is dangerous, then the same duty to warn that they cite now would have applied, perhaps even more, before the election.

I'm genuinely curious as to their timing. How am I being naive?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top