| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. In essence, a human right is something that society is compelled only to respect and not infringe upon. The right to life, the right to liberty, the right to own a gun, the right to freely exercise religion, even the right to obtain an abortion...if the service is available. All are things with which others, in particular the government, may not *interfere.* But in no case is anyone compelled to participate or facilitate the exercise of those rights. What you refer to, however, are called "entitlements," not "rights." The difference is that rights are inherent to a person's humanity, they are not "provided" to them by someone else. No burden other than the respecting of the exercise of one's rights is imposed on either society or individuals. No affirmative act is required by another person to effectuate or enable those rights. ROFLMAO So owning a gun is a fundamental human right, but a child getting medical care is not? Yup. Well...the right to keep and bear arms, including guns, is. 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. Education and health care, however, require the active participation of others if the "right" is to be exercised. In so doing, an affirmative burden or duty is placed on someone else to provide or facilitate the enjoyment of that right. In order to exercise the "right" to health care, someone must be compelled to provide that health care, otherwise the person's "rights" are "violated." Never has our society imposed an affirmative burden on another in the exercise of a right by an individual. There is great danger in doing so, because it leads to impositions on the rights of those compelled to provide the services, who have a right of free association...and disassociation. Should the Catholic doctor be compelled to provide an abortion because not to do so would violate the "rights" of the woman requesting it? Should the Jewish teacher be compelled to teach a neo-nazi college student because the student's "right" to an education outweighs the teacher's right to not associate with neo-nazis? Should the gun store owner be compelled to give a gun to anyone who asks because failing to do so would infringe on a person's right to own a gun? I think not. You may have a right to own a gun, but no one is compelled to provide you with a gun as an affirmative act in facilitation of your rights. The UN believes that housing is a "basic human right," which means that someone is going to be compelled to provide that housing, perhaps against their will and likely at their own expense. Such "entitlements" pose a serious threat to the rights of people who do not choose to facilitate those "rights." Medical care and education are fundamentally the same. Using your plan, anyone who refuses to provide medical care or education is violating the rights of the person who wishes to exercise the franchise. Er. No. 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. 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. This affirmative burden nonsense is so...so...goofy! Only because your fractional wit is incapable of understanding the subtleties of my argument. 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. 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. or the understanding we have of fundamental precepts. And imagine the flood of lawsuits that would result. It would paralyze the legal system. No, you cannot impose an affirmative burden on others in the exercise of your rights. If you must, it's not a right, it's something else. Whatever you want to call it, I believe in a society where a child can get help when they are sick and can go to school no matter what the financial status of the family they are born into. Then provide the funding for such a society and be called a hero. 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. Contributing to public education and public health is a simple and effective means of showing concern for others. Indeed. However, being compelled to to contribute to those causes by force of law is morally repugnant. Not to me. I'm proud to do it. I'm not proud when government does a poor job of it, don't get me wrong on that. But I am proud to be a part of a society that sees education and health care as necessities of life. Which is fine. What about those who don't want to do it? Are their feelings to be considered, or should they just shut up and pay for whatever you happen to think they ought to pay for? Selfish prigs are a part of every society, and you can't worry much about their feelings, or you'll soon have a society of paranoid freaks walking around with concealed weapons ready to shoot at their own shadow. Classic socialist swill: "Shut up and do what we tell you..." 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. -- 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 |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
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." 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. You like guns, so you want the right to carry one. Er, no, I HAVE the right to carry one. 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. 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. 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 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? 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. -- 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 |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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! |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. 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. 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? None of which has anything to do with education and health care as fundamental rights. Sure it does. You're just incapable understanding the link. 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. 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. That states a couple of not-very-accurate presumptions, it does not comprise a rational argument. 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? -- 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 |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT Bush propaganda against Kerry | General | |||
| Bush fiddles while health care burns | General | |||
| OT- Ode to Immigration | General | |||
| OT-Think government-controlled health coverage will work? Think again! | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
