I hear many pro-government healthcare folks make the case that the people who already receive government healthcare LOVE their healthcare. But is love enough to justify the theft of wealth from some people to pay for the healthcare of others? In other words, is love enough to justify the violation of rights? I say no. Anyone else care to have their say?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Kinda like the people in Iraq who loved the food rations they were receiving from Saddam. Food sure is good. Beats going hungry. Not much of an argument for Saddam to be the one to provide it though.
Why hasn't anyone posted this?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
on this appeal to love:
logical fallacy 'appeal to emotion'. specifically quite possibly the specie of such called 'appeal to pity'
especially the contradiction that love is achieved by coercion (sounds like the propaganda of a rapist).
wilderness: on this appeal to love: logical fallacy 'appeal to emotion'. specifically quite possibly the specie of such called 'appeal to pity' especially the contradiction that love is achieved by coercion (sounds like the propaganda of a rapist).
Since you brought up rape, should rape be allowed as long as rapist loves raping? What about government healthcare?
You mean does it justify it to themselves?
Daniel Muffinburg: I hear many pro-government healthcare folks make the case that the people who already receive government healthcare LOVE their healthcare. But is love enough to justify the theft of wealth from some people to pay for the healthcare of others? In other words, is love enough to justify the violation of rights? I say no. Anyone else care to have their say?
The boilerplate "love" argument is an appeal to popularity in emotional wallpaper; take no heed of it. It's either used as a distractionary tactic or non-sequitur.
Capital Pumper: Daniel Muffinburg: I hear many pro-government healthcare folks make the case that the people who already receive government healthcare LOVE their healthcare. But is love enough to justify the theft of wealth from some people to pay for the healthcare of others? In other words, is love enough to justify the violation of rights? I say no. Anyone else care to have their say? The boilerplate "love" argument is an appeal to popularity in emotional wallpaper; take no heed of it. It's either used as a distractionary tactic or non-sequitur.
I know. I wonder if anyone else (besides us) notices these quick and brief appeals to emotion in debates over government healthcare.
I love having beautiful girlfriends that do everything I please.
Therefore, the government should provide it to me.
Daniel Muffinburg: I know. I wonder if anyone else (besides us) notices these quick and brief appeals to emotion in debates over government healthcare.
The problem doesn't end there, but also begins with a faulty premise based on pure ignorance of the terminology they use (ie: everyone has a right to health care!) Do most people possess a basic understanding what is a right? IMO: No. As they use it, rights is just another vacuous buzzword like profit used to make people boo or clap.
Capital Pumper: Daniel Muffinburg: I know. I wonder if anyone else (besides us) notices these quick and brief appeals to emotion in debates over government healthcare. The problem doesn't end there, but also begins with a faulty premise based on pure ignorance of the terminology they use (ie: everyone has a right to health care!) Do most people possess a basic understanding what is a right? IMO: No. As they use it, rights is just another vacuous buzzword like profit used to make people boo or clap.
Are you saying that, after 13 years of American government schooling, most people don't poses a basic understanding of what a "right" is?
I think they know what a right is, they just don't see the contradiction in have a 'right to property' and a 'right to healthcare'
Daniel Muffinburg: Capital Pumper: Daniel Muffinburg: I know. I wonder if anyone else (besides us) notices these quick and brief appeals to emotion in debates over government healthcare. The problem doesn't end there, but also begins with a faulty premise based on pure ignorance of the terminology they use (ie: everyone has a right to health care!) Do most people possess a basic understanding what is a right? IMO: No. As they use it, rights is just another vacuous buzzword like profit used to make people boo or clap. Are you saying that, after 13 years of American government schooling, most people don't poses a basic understanding of what a "right" is?
Don't forget conjuctive adverbs.
Laughing Man: I think they know what a right is, they just don't see the contradiction in have a 'right to property' and a 'right to healthcare'
I don't think they understand the difference between negative rights and positive rights.
Daniel Muffinburg: I don't think they understand the difference between negative rights and positive rights.
Get out of my head!
Daniel Muffinburg:I don't think they understand the difference between negative rights and positive rights.
...Things have really gone down hill since Bob.
Eh, should have posted this instead.
Laughing Man: ...Things have really gone down hill since Bob.
ORLY?
Wow.
Daniel Muffinburg:I hear many pro-government healthcare folks make the case that the people who already receive government healthcare LOVE their healthcare
Who wouldn't love it if the entire country was subsidizing your HC?
As they say: when you get something for free, you are bound up to love it. You also have to consider that the "progressive"medias in countries with socialized healthcare have done a wonderful job at painting the horrors of the US where poor children are thrown into a ditch as soon as they catch a cold. Look how fortunate you are and how terrible is the situation in countries without socialized healthcare!
But think that, like drug dealers who do not use the junk they sell to other people, politicians tend to either use private clinics or go abroad in even more expensive clinics (Switzerland as usual is a huge hit).