Kyle Cassidy wrote:
The whole of the community's never going to completely
agree on anything as we saw with the dog park, and the
liquor store move, so I think that ANY group is going to
have to take a side on something -- if I announced that
all soup kitchens in west philadelphia should not to
serve meals with meat in them because I'm a vegetarian, I
wouldn't Catholic Outreach to not take a stance or pick a
side. I'd expect them to weigh the issue and do what
benefits their constituents.
Can you think of _any_ community group that exemplifies
the neutrality you'd like?
well, for starters, a group could begin with the premise
that addressing trees and property values have equal value,
equal validity. for example, on your block the choice was
'trees or no trees'; it was never 'trees or help with
property values'. if it had been the latter, imagine the
possible alternative outcomes. imagine what's possible when
we really stick to your words: 'making it a better place to
live for the people who live here'...
I'm not saying that 'picking a side' is in itself wrong, but
surely you can see how 'picking a side' can become wrong
when you don't consider how the sides are defined to begin
with.
gotta run-- I can see we have a lot of ground to cover...
:-)
..................
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
[aka laserbeam®]
[aka ray]
SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES.
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
