A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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 only I had a warrant...

But seriously dear Scotty, it's just an impression.

Again, based on what evidence? Or are you admitting that you're just a
brainless bigot who judges people based on some mental aberration you suffer
from?


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.

It's imposed on me and I find it totally ethical and legit.

Which is your right. How do you ethically justify imposing it on others,
however? Do you have any reasoned argument in support of your position, or
are you just brainlessly parroting some socialist dogma you once heard?


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'd have been better of not being hacked to death as well.

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.

Only if you have a means of ensuring that the good people have 'em and the
bad ones don't.

So, because it's factually impossible to keep "bad people" from illegally
obtaining guns, or machetes, or stones, or gasoline and matches, it's okay
with you if "good people" are brutally murdered because they have been
disarmed and are incapable of defending themselves, merely in order to
comply with your impossibly stupid utopian ideal of a gun-less society?

How remarkably barbaric and abysmally stupid.


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?

Because it is a charity, not a universal program with the requisite funding
to operate one.

That's not an explanation of why, that's a tautological assertion.

When the charity doesn't get enough donations, what do you
think happens? Operations close. Services are eliminated.

So what? Perhaps those operations and services are unneeded or improperly
run and need to be eliminated.

Perhaps society, through its unwillingness to fund these programs, is saying
that the objectives are unworthy and no longer comport with society's
beliefs about who is eligible for charity. Why is society precluded from
making such determinations?

--
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