Women's Sports

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't know that at all. In fact, I think you're wrong. Most people who assert rights actually think that they are entitled to those things as you and I use the term. They don't think that it is merely the wisest way for society to vote. They think it is something they are entitled to regardless of any hypothetical or real vote.

I think you are wrong. I think most people who mouth the words "there is a fundamental right to health care" are saying that a just society would provide health care to the sick. This does not make it a "right" to my way of thinking, but that is besides the point. I agree that they would say that this is irrespective of what a majority at any one time would vote for, but that merely is a measure of how deeply they believe it is a requirement of a just society and nothing more.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What distinguishes iron lungs from wireless Internet access with regard to being primary, distributable goods?

Nothing, but I didn't claim that access to iron lungs was a primary good. Access to health care is a primary good. Whether or to what extent the government ought to provide or protect access to iron lungs is negotiable (and dependent on all sorts of empirical considerations like cost, effectiveness, ubiquity of need, existence of alternate treatments, necessity for the procurement of other primary goods, and so on). Similar comments apply to access to the information/communication infrastructure.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
But wouldn't we also under those condidtions agree to a 9-month chess leave for those who choose to not have children?

No, for obvious reasons.

Originally posted by Palynka
Without touching the subject of equity, libertarianism is not eficient in a Pareto sense.

All the (incorrect) economic support for libertarianism is based on the assumption that it leads to Pareto efficiency, when this is contradicted both by facts and theory.

No ones cares about Pareto efficiency except Pareto and he is dead.

EDIT: An equilibrum where one guy has all the donuts and everybody else starves to death is at Pareto Efficiency.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You were being evasive because you did not answer the question. Why would a mere difference in rhetoric make any substantive difference? Since you and I both know that people who say health care is a "right" aren't using the term as we would, it's ridiculous to say that you oppose National Health Insurance because it's not a "right".

EDIT: I hate it w ...[text shortened]... tates what I was trying to say in a more lucid and succinct manner than I can. Bastard.😠

You and bbarr are just allowing those with a political agenda to pervert language to their own ends. You allow words to simply mean whatever they want them to mean, and they lose their original meaning, which ultimately leads to the disappearance of the original concept. Before you know it, following your path, rights will actually denote that which the governemnt gives us. And what becomes of our real rights that the government then refuses to give? Well, they must not be rights anymore.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, for obvious reasons.

They are not obvious to me, because the reasons why paternal leave should be granted are not obvious to me.

Both chess and children are choices, ways that adults choose to spend their time. To do either correctly requires a full devotion of one's time, leaving none for work. Why would one be granted special status at the hypothetical summit?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You are bbarr are just allowing those with a political agenda to pervert language to their own ends. You allow words to simply mean whatever they want them to mean, and they lose their original meaning, which ultimately leads to the disappearance of the original concecpt. Before you know it, following your path, rights will actually denote that whi ...[text shortened]... s of our real rights that the government refuses to give? Well, they must not be right anymore.

Not at all. I simply prefer not to get into semantic wrangles when I can easily ascertain what the other person is saying. If their argument strays from where I think it is proper like to say that Health Care is the same type of right as, say personal autonomy, then I correct them.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
They are not obvious to me, because the reasons why paternal leave should be granted are not obvious to me.

Both chess and children are choices, ways that adults choose to spend their time. To do either correctly requires a full devotion of one's time, leaving none for work. Why would one be granted special status at the hypothetical summit?

While I don't particularly agree with Dr. S in this discussion, these reasons are also not obvious to me.

Originally posted by bbarr
Look, if you take the term 'right to X' to mean 'the government ought to provide or protect access to X', then the feminists' claim isn't absurd at all (in fact, it's true!).

Would you support me if I claimed that "Niggers ought to be imprisoned for life" if you knew that I was using the term "niggers" to denote serial killers?

Originally posted by bbarr
Nothing, but I didn't claim that access to iron lungs was a primary good. Access to health care is a primary good. Whether or to what extent the government ought to provide or protect access to iron lungs is negotiable (and dependent on all sorts of empirical considerations like cost, effectiveness, ubiquity of need, existence of alternate treatments, necess ...[text shortened]... and so on). Similar comments apply to access to the information/communication infrastructure.

Is there any specific, concrete sort of medical implement, like thermometers or latex gloves, that is a primary good subject to distribution, or is your notion of health care access as a distributable good purely abstract?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Would you support me if I claimed that "Niggers ought to be imprisoned for life" if you knew that I was using the term "niggers" to denote serial killers?

I think some of the posters here would support that statement without any such disclaimer at all though perhaps they would substitute a harsher penalty than life imprisonment.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I think some of the posters here would support that statement without any such disclaimer at all though perhaps they would substitute a harsher penalty than life imprisonment.

I want to hear dodger11 say 'Pareto efficiency'.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
They are not obvious to me, because the reasons why paternal leave should be granted are not obvious to me.

Both chess and children are choices, ways that adults choose to spend their time. To do either correctly requires a full devotion of one's time, leaving none for work. Why would one be granted special status at the hypothetical summit?

You won't understand the reasons until you understand the role that being a parent generally plays in leading a flourishing human life, and the importance to children in having a parent around during formative years, and the importance to society of having people that aren't, for economic reasons, alienated from pursuing those basic human desires like being a parent, and the importance to society of having people who were raised by parents who were secure and available.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I think some of the posters here would support that statement without any such disclaimer at all though perhaps they would substitute a harsher penalty than life imprisonment.

That's one of my points. When the intelligent endorse inacurate claims because they can figure out their real meaning, what effect does that have on the ignorant with respect to their belief in the same claim?

If bbarr really believed what he told me regarding feminist language, then he would endorse my claim that niggers ought to be imprisoned for life. But he's making that endorsement in the eyes of those too dim to understand what is going on and who may be persuaded to think that those who they denote by the term niggers actually should be imprisoned.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Is there any specific, concrete sort of medical implement, like thermometers or latex gloves, that is a primary good subject to distribution, or is your notion of health care access as a distributable good purely abstract?

It is abstract, but it has less abstract components (e.g., access to sufficient nutrition, shelter, medical technology, etc.). Of course, the manner in which these are distributed will be subject to the provisions mentioned above.