A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/24/05 6:16 PM:
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
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?
Evasion. What specific evidence do you have to make the claim "I've noticed
you yourself don't give a damn for the 'rule of law' if it doesn't meet your
needs"?
You have accused me of something, now either substantiate this accusation or
be branded a liar.
Brand away rick. Er, Scotty.
It's clear to me that you wouldn't give a damn about a law that contradicted
what Scotty Weiser believes to be his fundamental rights.
Based on what evidence, precisely?
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?
Because it imposes costs on people unwillingly for the medical care of other
adults.
It requires selfish prigs to contribute their share.
You falsely presume that a "share" of some adult's medical problems can be
ethically and legitimately imposed on others.
Oddly enough, I've never met one Canadian who complains of unwillingly
contributing to universal health care.
The minuteness of your circle of friends is not determinative of the issue.
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.
And yet the Tutsis would have been much better off if they'd had guns,
wouldn't they?
They'd have been better off not being shot.
Many of them weren't shot, they were hacked to death with machetes. They
were stoned to death. They were herded into pits and burned to death while
alive. They had limbs hacked off. The bellies of pregnant mothers were
sliced open and their children were hacked to pieces in front of the mothers
as they died. Women were raped wholesale before having their breasts cut off
with machetes so that they could never nurse a child again.
Do you suppose that if they had all had a gun, that the genocide in Rawanda
would have even been possible?
Or are you simply too callous and uncaring in your paranoid hoplophobia to
admit that sometimes, having a gun can be a good thing.
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.
Sure you can. Charity begins at home.
Charity cannot provide universal education and health care.
Why not?
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.
What ever made you think that?
Your preceding statement.
Stupid is as stupid does.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser