Originally posted by Wajoma Here's another line you need to stop relying on, it dosen't matter how much you tax people to pay for their health care all treatable diseases will not be cured.
Politely, you're exagerating, more accurately, you're lying.
I don't recall claiming that ALL treatable illnesses could ever be cured, so the liar is you.
My argument is pretty simple; it is not in our human nature to allow our fellow humans to die if it can be prevented. Your Ayn Randian philosophy is at odds with our basic nature as intelligent social animals.
Originally posted by no1marauder I don't recall claiming that ALL treatable illnesses could ever be cured, so the liar is you.
My argument is pretty simple; it is not in our human nature to allow our fellow humans to die if it can be prevented. Your Ayn Randian philosophy is at odds with our basic nature as intelligent social animals.
So all these times you roll out your pet cliche' about treatable disease you haven't been saying anything at all.
People have in the past died of treatable disease.
People do at present die of treatable disease.
People will continue to die of treatable disease.
Originally posted by zeeblebot see how recently Newsweek, et al were running cigarette ads. only stopped in the last few years, if ever. lip-service liberalism.
Originally posted by Wajoma So all these times you roll out your pet cliche' about treatable disease you haven't been saying anything at all.
People have in the past died of treatable disease.
People do at present die of treatable disease.
People will continue to die of treatable disease.
It's a step up from telling lies I guess.
Implementation of your political philosophy would result in wide scale death from treatable diseases that implementation of other political philosophies prevents. There's nothing "cliche" about that esp. to the people who would die of said treatable diseases if you had your way. Fortunately, virtually every society that ever existed has rejected your peculiar anarchistic philosophy (since it is at odds with the very notion of society).
Originally posted by no1marauder Implementation of your political philosophy would result in wide scale death from treatable diseases that implementation of other political philosophies prevents. There's nothing "cliche" about that esp. to the people who would die of said treatable diseases if you had your way. Fortunately, virtually every society that ever existed has rejected your peculiar anarchistic philosophy (since it is at odds with the very notion of society).
Originally posted by Melanerpes do you think this response is going to have any effect on convincing No1 to reconsider his beliefs on this topic?
Of course not, do you think No1 making up stoires about people dying from treatable disease is going to change the mind of any reasonable person either.
Originally posted by kmax87 why not simply give a couple examples please as evidence to show your point of view. or do you prefer school boy accusation as a debating tactic?
Do you deny people die while on waiting lists for state sponsored health care?
Originally posted by Wajoma Of course not, do you think No1 making up stoires about people dying from treatable disease is going to change the mind of any reasonable person either.
No1 is talking about how government can and does help sick people afford to get treatment that they would otherwise not be able to afford.
In Wajomistan, poor people who got sick would be out of luck unless private charity stepped in to cover them.
Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to show No1 that even the poorest citizens of Wajomistan would indeed be able to get the healthcare that they need for treatable conditions - or at least more healthcare than they get under the current system or the one No1 favors.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Perfect solution fallacy.
If you had been following the conversation you would see what this is about instead of dipping in with one of your witless oneliners.
There is no cure for No1's busybody control freak ways but one thing that can be done is keep the language he uses honest. People dying of treatable disease has been a stock reply, which is ok if it means something, but it dosen't. He has nothing to prove more or less people die of treatable disease under his ideals than a system where people are free i.e. free to stand on their own two feet, free to join a collective, free to take responsibility for their choices and not have the consequences of others choices forced on them.
Originally posted by Wajoma If you had been following the conversation you would see what this is about instead of dipping in with one of your witless oneliners.
There is no cure for No1's busybody control freak ways but one thing that can be done is keep the language he uses honest. People dying of treatable disease has been a stock reply, which is ok if it means something, but it ...[text shortened]... sponsibility for their choices and not have the consequences of others choices forced on them.
What percentage of people in Wajomaistan would freely choose to starve to death or die of a treatable disease if they found themselves with insufficient means to pay the going rate for such necessities?
Personal responsibility??
15 Nov '10 05:54
Back to Top