BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/27/05 7:57 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/26/05 2:48 PM:

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?

I'm saying that based on the persona you've displayed here I could see you
with an assault rifle shooting up an entire town for passing a bylaw against
having a different colour mailbox than the one you have.

Well, that would make you a loon, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Perhaps you aren't aware of the loony image you are projecting.

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?

It's very simple, and I have explained it. I believe in universal education
and universal health care. This means I believe every citizen should
contribute. Most of the citizens in the society where I live agree with
this.

Polly want a cracker?

Scotty is a cracker!

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.

Handing out guns won't turn a barbaric society into a peaceful one.

Actually, you're wrong.

Actually, I'm not.

An armed society is a polite society. The usual
failure however is that *not enough* guns are available in society, so that
only the elite and the criminals have them, leaving the middle-class to be
victimized by both without any chance of defending themselves.

Why are the middle class being victimized?

It will
simply increase the rate of barbarism.

Could it be true that you really have never heard of the concept of "self
defense?" Can you possibly be that ignorant?

The ultimate self-defense would be to kill everyone else, and I have a
feeling that's not too far off from what you believe.

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.

You simply failed to understand. I'll try agian.

You can't have a universal program if the means to deliver that program is
dependent upon random contributions.

Why not? You falsely assume that most people are not willing to contribute
voluntarily to support those in need. Given the massive outpouring of
private donations for the tsunami victims, I'd say that shows a fundamental
mistrust on your part rather than any factual parsimony on the part of the
public.

An outpouring of donations for disaster relief has nothing to do with
providing and maintaining a universal system of healthcare.

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.

You asked why a charity cannot provide universal education and health care.

And you implied that without government funding, no care would be available.

No, I said you can't provide a system of universal health care if it is
dependent upon random generosity.

I merely posit that the closure of operations and the suspending of services
may not be harmful to the ability of people to obtain the services, but is
more likely to be a reflection of an elimination of government-mandated
duplication and waste.

And I merely posit that privatized health care (as it should) seeks to make
money. There is no money to be made in providing health care to people who
can't afford to pay for it.

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?

Some societies don't have universal education and health care.

Er, no society has universal anything. At best, countries with socialized
health care only provide minimal "free" services. Everything else is a la
carte or mostly unavailable.

How minimal is minimal? My father had a hernia operation last year. My
father in law had heart bypass surgery. One of my best friends had
successful cancer treatment. All provided through our universal health care
system.