| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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? 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. -- 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 |
| 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 | |||
Threaded Mode
