"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/23/05 12:23 AM:
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/22/05 11:41 PM:
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
One can have concern for others without being compelled by law to
enable
their bad decision making and behavior. Nobody's asking you to live
without
concern. You can have as much concern as you like. You can give all
your
goods to the poor and spend your life serving the poor while wearing
sackcloth and ashes if you like. You may not, however, compel anyone
else
to
join you unwillingly. That would be immoral and repugnant. Each
individual
gets to choose how much concern he or she shows to others. It's not
the
government's duty or authority to compel it.
I disagree. I think there are basic human rights that should be
afforded
everyone. This includes education and health care.
Well, that's a reasonable argument to make. But are they basic human
rights?
I say no.
I know. Becuase you are a selfish prig.
No, because unlike you, I have a reasoned argument to support my
assertion.
No, your just a selfish prig who for some reason feels the need to try
and
justiry your selfishness through goofy arguments. Do you actually
experience
guilt, or what is it that drives you to such foolishness?
Nope, no guilt whatsoever. Remember to keep telling yourself, "It's just
the
Usenet, not reality."
I've always suspected a real person could not be so completely without
value.
Heehee. Now I know you are just putting me on. Nobody is that
stupid.
And yet you're the one who doesn't have the wit to formulate a rational
rebuttal. Stupid is as stupid does.
You're right, I can't think of a "rational rebuttal" to someone who
thinks
having guns is a fundamental right but an infant who is dying should fend
for themselves.
Well, that just goes to show that you can't think at all, since I've never
made any such suggestion.
Ooo, I think if you read your own crap you will see that you have.
It means as a society agreeing that education and health care should be
available to all. If not infringing upon the religified is something
important to a certain society, but they still believe that health care
is a
basic human right, then they will negotiate the situation.
Sorry, but once again, anything that imposes on others a burden or duty
to
affirmatively act in furtherance of the exercise of the "right" is not a
right, it is, at best, an "entitlement," which is an entirely different
thing.
Any society can declare whatever rights they want to declare.
True. Stalin declared that nobody he didn't like had a right to live, but
that doesn't make it moral or ethical.
True.
And Canada declares that all people should be able to get health care. And
that is both moral and ethical.
You declare that people who can't afford health care should fend for
themselves. That is immoral and unethical.
In Canada most people think of health care as a basic human right. But
a
doctor who doesn't want to perform abortions doesn't get forced into
the
job.
What about the doctor who doesn't want to treat the indigent patient?
Does
he violate that person's "rights" by refusing to do so? Your definition
of
"rights" says yes.
Sounds good to me. What kind of a dickhead doctor would let someone die
because they are poor?
Who knows? It doesn't matter. What you propose is slavery.
LOL. Only the same slavery as anyone who accepts that they have certain
responsibilities.
This affirmative burden nonsense is so...so...goofy!
Only because your fractional wit is incapable of understanding the
subtleties of my argument.
It's not subtle at all.
One incapable of understanding the subtleties would be unlikely to
recognize
subtlety.
Or, you might just be a jerk with really obvious arguments that make little
sense.
Any society will have "affirmative burdens" all over the place.
Indeed, but are the underlying precepts that impose those burdens
characterized as "rights" which accrue to an individual, or are they
instead
merely societal obligations created as a part of the social contract
under
which people live in community, according to some method of ratifying
those
obligations, such as democratic voting?
I say the latter.
You have yet to rationally explain how my thesis is wrong.
Your thesis, in English, is nothing more than "Scotty wants certain
things
to be rights and other things not to be rights." That's all there is to
it.
How erudite.
Sorry, truth hurts sometimes.
You like guns, so you want the right to carry one.
Er, no, I HAVE the right to carry one.
Currently.
You don't give a damn
about children in poverty,
Er, no, I merely require you to engage in some small degree of rational
thought in supporting your argument.
Not a problem. That is ongoing.
so you don't want them to have the right to
education or health care.
Er, no, I merely question whether such a "right" exists and if so, what
are
the unintended consequences.
Whatever "right" only exists when it is declared and supported by whatever
society concerned.
That's neither reasonable nor fair, nor would it comport with the
Constitution
As you are aware, I don't give a fig about that.
Indeed. Therein lies the root of the problem: expedience and selfishness
over the rule of law.
I've notice you yourself don't give a damn for the "rule of law" if it
doesn't meet your needs.
Really? How so?
If it became a law that you could not have a gun, how would you feel about
that?
If some "rule of law" says a child born into poverty should die because
they
can't get health care, then I say to hell with that rule of law and the
society that would support it.
But I've never suggested that happen. In fact, I've explicitly stated that
society should provide health care to indigent children. So, what's your
beef?
If that's your position, then what's your beef with Canadian health care?
I am 100% comfortable with viewing health care and education as
fundamental
human rights, and I will gladly accept the "affirmative burden" that
comes
with it.
Which you are free to do. You are not free, however, to impose that
burden
on others without their consent.
In some societies it is simply something people want.
Which people? The Hutus wanted the Tutsis dead. Is that okay with you?
No, and it's not OK with me that an idiot like you has a gun either.
None of which has anything to do with education and health care as
fundamental rights.
You don't seem to understand that not everyone views helping other
people -
by supporting fundamental rights such as access to education and
healthcare
- as a burden.
Er, no, you don't understand that the issue is not what some people think,
its the deeper, more subtle issues of "rights" and public policy that are
merely under discussion. That some people don't mind bearing the burden is
not a justification for imposing the burden on those who do.
You obviously can't have education and health care (or a fire department)
for all if selfish prigs can simply opt out.
Talk about repugant. You define selfishness.
Selfishness is a civil right, that's rather the point. You may not
admire
or
like it, but you don't get to dictate how other people live their
lives...at
least down here in the US, which is a *good* thing.
It's ugly. And so are you :-/
And therein lies the difference between us: I respect and treasure
individual liberty and freedom, while you have no problem forcibly
imposing
your worldview on others. It's only a short journey from where you are
now
to the Gulags and the Highway of Bones.
ROFL.
I'm sure Stalin would agree with you.
LOL. Stalin was the ultimate selfish prig. You'd have done well as one of
his underlings.
I want innocent children to get medicine if they are sick and have a
chance
to learn how to read.
Then give them that chance.
But, you have yet to produce any rational argument as to why others should
be required to do so.
Because children will die without medicine and if they can't read their
ability to participate in society will be severely limited. Sorry if that's
not rational enough for you.
You are already a prisoner of your selfish beliefs.
Not really. This is just a Usenet debate. You appear to be a prisoner of
your own prejudices and rhetoric.
Ah, I see, whatever you say, no matter how stupid, is just "Usenet debate"
so it doesn't count, but whatever others say in the same forum does.
Interesting!