[QUOTE=s0beit;29213900]Who is "we", if those rights aren't absolute then rights are just what, a hope and a prayer? You yourself said that rights are afforded to you by the government, saying they "shouldn't be allowed to take away" those rights effectively means [b]nothing[/b]. They aren't absolute therefore you have no entitlement to them, the government grants them. If it decides to take them away well fuck you, you aren't entitled. This is where we disagree.
It isn't semantics it's about the definitions of this word. If rights are something that the government affords you or you [i]think[/i] the government should afford you, this is a subjective stance. Not everyone agrees with you.
Saying "healthcare is a right" is effectively meaningless.[/QUOTE]
Correct, rights mean nothing and are meaningless. That's why they're upheld by people and governmental process every day because it's legally required that they do so.
There are different kinds of rights. Legal rights are one kind of rights. That's what we're talking about in a political discussion. People have a legal right to be protected by their government, and a government that does not provide healthcare does not protect its people from harm
I especially liked this though:
[quote]It isn't semantics it's about the definitions of this word.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Catdaemon;29213968]Correct, rights mean nothing and are meaningless. That's why they're upheld by people and governmental process every day because it's legally required that they do so.
There are different kinds of rights. Legal rights are one kind of rights. That's what we're talking about in a political discussion. People have a legal right to be protected by their government, and a government that does not provide healthcare does not protect its people from harm[/QUOTE]
So declaring something a right when it's not already granted by the government is especially meaningless, good to know. "Healthcare should be a right" would have worked a whole lot better.
I'm glad you all shared your view though, albeit extremely alien to me.
[QUOTE=Catdaemon;29213968]I especially liked this though:[/QUOTE]
Sort of breezed through that part, I do that sometimes. You can't really deny it's something that needed to be ironed out though.
[QUOTE=Ridge;29209212]Which is why I said most. People lived outside their means, egged on by a society that told them they DESERVE a big house with a filled 2 or 3 car garage, that large tv and that 4x4 to take the kids to school.[/QUOTE]
Egging on greed and self absorption is not a good thing.
[QUOTE=Ridge;29209212]Which is why I said most. People lived outside their means, egged on by a society that told them they DESERVE a big house with a filled 2 or 3 car garage, that large tv and that 4x4 to take the kids to school.[/QUOTE]
So what do they deserve then?
[QUOTE=s0beit;29213023]We'll have to disagree. If you think rights are granted by the government then your argument automatically falls apart, since healthcare is not granted by the government in the United States it can't be a right, by your own logic, because the government hasn't granted it.
Further, you'd have to assume you have the right to other people's property.
Like i said, the merits of the system aren't at question, but if you think rights are granted by the government you're automatically wrong and if you're arbitrarily labeling things rights then i don't know what the distinction between a social program and a right is from your perspective.[/QUOTE]
So where are human rights, something not natural like you seem to suggest, come from? Who else besides governments breaks or upholds human rights?
When you eliminate law, y'know the whole government thing, you don't have human rights.
And healthcare isn't a fucking "social programme". It's medical care, plain and simple. What is with you people and constantly labelling healthcare a social programme or a welfare programme. Needing healthcare is not bias, it doesn't matter what you are, if you're hurt, you get care. (I mean, private healthcare IS bias, but hey, no one is saying private healthcare is a right)
[QUOTE=s0beit;29214118]So declaring something a right when it's not already granted by the government is especially meaningless, good to know. "Healthcare should be a right" would have worked a whole lot better.[/QUOTE]
Healthcare is a recognized right in many countries around the world (including the one Catdaemon lives in).
In the context of countries where the status of that right is ambiguous, like the USA, the argument is that the country is actually advertising such rights but aren't following up on or enforcing them.
Kind of like Chinese supporters of free speech would point to the fact that free speech is protected by the Chinese constitution.
[h2]s0beit is talking about 'natural' rights, what people have capacity to do in a world in which there is no social grouping beyond the family unit. For example, a natural right to the ability to think freely, or to protect yourself. Some rather influential philosophers said that such a state of nature does not exist, and is hypothetical only.
The rest of you are talking about socio-politico-legal rights conferred onto people by things such as legislation (and via that, force) and societal values.
In western society, we believe in the value of the individual (even if that means reduced efficiency overall, for example - we don't just kill off the elderly/sick), so we institute things like health care. It's better to think of socio-political rights as values/outcomes which are of ultimate importance, and override all other considerations, and not as natural rights.[/h2]
And apologies for huge text. But you're arguing semantics, when all are right.
[B][h2]I TOO CAN TYPE LIKE I'M RETARDED[/h2][/B]
[QUOTE=amute;29222141][B][h2]I TOO CAN TYPE LIKE I'M RETARDED[/h2][/B][/QUOTE]
Yes I know, I've read your posts before.
If man were to live in nature without a system of law, without highly socialized groups like we do, you wouldn't have a single right. Not one. You aren't granted rights by the universe or by mother nature, you have the closest thing to free will you're going to get, so if you want to kill someone in that situation, you can. Nothing is going to stop you, nothing is going to make you wrong for doing that, there's no system of laws outside a man made system of laws, no rights we havne't given ourselves, we're just playing an elaborate trick on ourselves if we think that the universe cares about us and has assigned us special rights, "natural" rights, it hasn't. We have what we have is what we give ourselves.
[editline]16th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Contag;29219694][h2]s0beit is talking about 'natural' rights, what people have capacity to do in a world in which there is no social grouping beyond the family unit. For example, a natural right to the ability to think freely, or to protect yourself. Some rather influential philosophers said that such a state of nature does not exist, and is hypothetical only.
The rest of you are talking about socio-politico-legal rights conferred onto people by things such as legislation (and via that, force) and societal values.
In western society, we believe in the value of the individual (even if that means reduced efficiency overall, for example - we don't just kill off the elderly/sick), so we institute things like health care. It's better to think of socio-political rights as values/outcomes which are of ultimate importance, and override all other considerations, and not as natural rights.[/h2]
And apologies for huge text. But you're arguing semantics, when all are right.[/QUOTE]
Assigning the term natural rights to things we naturally do anyways is a little silly.
[QUOTE=Contag;29222196]Yes I know, I've read your posts before.[/QUOTE]
[B][h2]ME TOO AND I'VE LEARNED HOW TO BE A PARANOID JACKASS, JUST LIKE YOU CONTAG.[/h2][/B]
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;29207790]Corporations are considered 'citizens'.
Why can't they pay their taxes?[/QUOTE]
Since a corporation is considered a single citizen and given their track record. They truely only belong in insane asylums because they are legally psychopathic.
Republicans play games with the United States and taxpayer's money: FUCKING IDIOT SCUMBAGS
Democrats play games with the United States and taxpapyer's money: heroes, they are all heroes
Some of you people are despicable, acting like children. Both parties are fucking around to make political points while everyone else suffers. Stop blindly praising one side because your mommies and daddies like them.
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;29224638]Republicans play games with the United States and taxpayer's money: FUCKING IDIOT SCUMBAGS
Democrats play games with the United States and taxpapyer's money: heroes, they are all heroes
Some of you people are despicable, acting like children. Both parties are fucking around to make political points while everyone else suffers. Stop blindly praising one side because your mommies and daddies like them.[/QUOTE]
they aren't playing, they were making a point.
I would have done the same thing in their position as well. if it passed, you could nail them to the wall with it, if it doesn't, you can still make them look like a bunch of disorganized idiots who have no idea what they're doing and no idea what their party represents.
Both are favorable outcomes, because both drop the chances of a republican majority existing ever again in any capacity in our government through the floor.
[editline]16th April 2011[/editline]
the Republicans who were going to vote yes if the Democrats voted no were merely using the vote as a publicity stunt to just show they supported conservative ideals, they were not thinking in the country's best interest. the entire thing was a sham, a show the Republicans tried to put on for the American people, they're the ones playing games.
the Democrats just came over and knocked the board off the table.
5% tax raise on someone making 20,000 dollars a year: "Shit so do I pay for my medication or stop paying my electric bill?"
5% tax raise on someone making 100,000 dollars a year: "Shit do I get rid of HBO or switch to a cheaper plan on my $500 smart phone?"
Creation of a new tax bracket taxed at 40% for those making $1,000,000 or more a year: "Shit now I can't stay in the presidential suite at the Ritz on my annual vacation to Hawaii."
GOP: "Not extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy is socialism!"
Ridge: "Let's have flat tax because that's fair for everyone!"
[QUOTE=s0beit;29213211]I think they do exist in nature, if somebody tries to kill you in nature you have the "right" to defend yourself and stop them through any means you can, the "right" to "life", likewise if a government tries to take that right away from you, the same rules apply.[/QUOTE]
what if you are a worm you can't defend yourself from a bird
[QUOTE=amute;29224385][B][h2]ME TOO AND I'VE LEARNED HOW TO BE A PARANOID JACKASS, JUST LIKE YOU CONTAG.[/h2][/B][/QUOTE]
Wow, quite the personal grudge you have there. I didn't realize that I had hurt you so deeply.
I'd made some remark about you needing tissues, but your post illuminates that well enough.
[editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;29225868]what if you are a worm you can't defend yourself from a bird[/QUOTE]
you can grow opposable thumbs and offer your worm brethren as sacrifice?
Wait...when did this become about rights?
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;29203949]Perhaps to highlight that republicans are a bunch of silly cunts who'll support shit they don't actually stand for.[/QUOTE]
You are an absolute fuckwit if you think the democrats only vote on things they stand for. You people who think politics is all black and white need to understand both sides are full of shit and backstabbing assholes who are only looking out for number 1.
[QUOTE=StormHammer;29226539]You are an absolute fuckwit if you think the democrats only vote on things they stand for. You people who think politics is all black and white need to understand both sides are full of shit and backstabbing assholes who are only looking out for number 1.[/QUOTE]
[b]I'd like to think[/b] that if the Republicans gave them any slack, the Dems would push through progressive legislation given the chance. The problem is that the Republicans don't give any slack. The compromise ends up on their field most of the time. This showed how divided the Republicans are in the end.
Sure, the lobbyists may have a lot of power, but the parties are still ideologically opposed.
[QUOTE=VengfulSoldier;29226487]Wait...when did this become about rights?[/QUOTE]
Since glaber said healthcare is an entitlement
[QUOTE=subenji99;29206832]The so-called strongest power in the world everyone
Americans, get your politicians to grow up.[/QUOTE]
because American politicians are the only ones that act silly and immature.
[QUOTE=torero;29226807]I think that if the Republicans gave them any slack, the Dems would push through progressive legislation given the chance. The problem is that the Republicans don't give any slack. The compromise ends up on their field most of the time. This showed how divided the Republicans are in the end.[/QUOTE]
You are in support of the Democrats so of course you'd believe that. You claim is only supported by your bias.
[QUOTE=Pepin;29227634]You are in support of the Democrats so of course you'd believe that. You claim is only supported by your bias.[/QUOTE]
I meant to say "I'd like to think that". Besides, I didn't even claim anything, I said "I think". I'll edit it, if it wets up your vagina.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29226815]Since glaber said healthcare is an entitlement[/QUOTE]
Oh for the love of fuck!:doh:
[QUOTE=goon165;29225245]they aren't playing, they were making a point.
I would have done the same thing in their position as well. if it passed, you could nail them to the wall with it, if it doesn't, you can still make them look like a bunch of disorganized idiots who have no idea what they're doing and no idea what their party represents.
Both are favorable outcomes, because both drop the chances of a republican majority existing ever again in any capacity in our government through the floor.
[editline]16th April 2011[/editline]
the Republicans who were going to vote yes if the Democrats voted no were merely using the vote as a publicity stunt to just show they supported conservative ideals, they were not thinking in the country's best interest. the entire thing was a sham, a show the Republicans tried to put on for the American people, they're the ones playing games.
the Democrats just came over and knocked the board off the table.[/QUOTE]
They essentially gave the republicans enough rope to hang themselves with.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
