|
|
Post by wesleymctoon on Mar 22, 2016 8:34:29 GMT -5
No, there's nothing evil about letting nature take its course. So you would advocate withholding treatment to a sick child isn't evil? You statists love straw men arguments. I've indicated no such thing. The child/caretakers are free to pursue whatever treatments and services are available to them. If you choose to manipulate the way those products and services are managed naturally in the market, thus making them unattainable to some, that was your decision. Live with it. If you fail to understand that your meddling has created the problem you seek to solve, and feel bad about it, then YOU do something for that patient. But don't prop up state-sanctioned violence to force others to comply with your personal morality, then hypocritically call others evil or delusional. Your ignorance is your issue, not mine. |
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Mar 22, 2016 8:38:52 GMT -5
So you would advocate withholding treatment to a sick child isn't evil? You statists love straw men arguments. I've indicated no such thing. The child/caretakers are free to pursue whatever treatments and services are available to them. If you choose to manipulate the way those products and services are managed naturally in the market, thus making them unattainable to some, that was your decision. Live with it. If you fail to understand that your meddling has created the problem you seek to solve, and feel bad about it, then YOU do something for that patient. But don't prop up state-sanctioned violence to force others to comply with your personal morality, then hypocritically call others evil or delusional. Your ignorance is your issue, not mine. Or more to the point, your ignorance would be the child's issue. Seems like you only care about people when they are in the womb. |
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Mar 22, 2016 8:40:58 GMT -5
Sick children. Veterans. Whats the difference? Yes, let nature take its course. Apparently we do. |
|
|
|
Post by wesleymctoon on Mar 22, 2016 9:09:21 GMT -5
You statists love straw men arguments. I've indicated no such thing. The child/caretakers are free to pursue whatever treatments and services are available to them. If you choose to manipulate the way those products and services are managed naturally in the market, thus making them unattainable to some, that was your decision. Live with it. If you fail to understand that your meddling has created the problem you seek to solve, and feel bad about it, then YOU do something for that patient. But don't prop up state-sanctioned violence to force others to comply with your personal morality, then hypocritically call others evil or delusional. Your ignorance is your issue, not mine. Or more to the point, your ignorance would be the child's issue. Seems like you only care about people when they are in the womb. Another false equivalence. A human life taken at the hand of another man is not the same as a human life taken by nature. The child's issue has nothing to do with me. If I feel compelled to help the child, I will, of my own choosing. The fact that you believe that I am required to, and that you will happily use force or imprisonment or any other means necessary to do something that you feel is right is what makes you the violent person. |
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Mar 22, 2016 9:13:30 GMT -5
Or more to the point, your ignorance would be the child's issue. Seems like you only care about people when they are in the womb. The child's issue has nothing to do with me. Good to know. |
|
|
|
Post by wesleymctoon on Mar 22, 2016 9:25:47 GMT -5
The child's issue has nothing to do with me. Good to know. Prove otherwise |
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Mar 22, 2016 9:34:24 GMT -5
You find a baby has been left on your door step. What action do you take? |
|
|
|
Post by wesleymctoon on Mar 22, 2016 9:57:06 GMT -5
You find a baby has been left on your door step. What action do you take? To no one's surprise, you didn't provide a response to the request posed. Totally changing gears with a hypothetical dissimilar to the previous example might provide a handy distraction for yourself to forget that you're incapable of providing justification for your use of violence, but it isn't a real response. |
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Mar 22, 2016 10:01:17 GMT -5
You find a baby has been left on your door step. What action do you take? To no one's surprise, you didn't provide a response to the request posed. Totally changing gears with a hypothetical dissimilar to the previous example might provide a handy distraction for yourself to forget that you're incapable of providing justification for your use of violence, but it isn't a real response. you asked me to prove other wise the statement that a child has nothing to do with you. whereas we all know as human beings, deep down we care about others...regardless of political ideology. |
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Mar 22, 2016 10:25:08 GMT -5
I believe there are times when we should let Darwinism take its course. But with children is not one of them. Children cannot function or fend for themselves the same way an adult can. And although we have many things in common with the rest of the animal kingdom those differences we have are the ones that give us dominion over them and thus a responsibility. We are 98% ape but that 2% makes all the difference.
Its just not apples to apples.
|
|
|
|
Post by wesleymctoon on Mar 22, 2016 10:34:53 GMT -5
To no one's surprise, you didn't provide a response to the request posed. Totally changing gears with a hypothetical dissimilar to the previous example might provide a handy distraction for yourself to forget that you're incapable of providing justification for your use of violence, but it isn't a real response. you asked me to prove other wise the statement that a child has nothing to do with you. whereas we all know as human beings, deep down we care about others...regardless of political ideology. Yes, I asked you for proof and you provided none. A random sick child is not the same as a child left on my property. The sick child does in fact have nothing to do with me. As I stated (but you left out), I may choose to help, but in no way am I obligated to. Saying "as we all know" does not make something factually correct. Caring for others is a personal emotion/value/morality that one possesses. Many share similar ones. But it is not correct that we all share the same morality or priorities. The only inherent truth is that we have our differences, and they are differences that define who we are. Each has the right to act or not act based on those principles and priorities until the point that you are impeding the ability of another to exercise the rights that also define them. Using threat of force to impose your principles on others is not something you are entitled to as an ingredient of your existence. Take some responsibility for yourself instead of imposing your will on others, and you'll rid yourself of all that guilt and denial. |
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Mar 22, 2016 10:38:38 GMT -5
you asked me to prove other wise the statement that a child has nothing to do with you. whereas we all know as human beings, deep down we care about others...regardless of political ideology. Yes, I asked you for proof and you provided none. A random sick child is not the same as a child left on my property. The sick child does in fact have nothing to do with me. As I stated (but you left out), I may choose to help, but in no way am I obligated to. Saying "as we all know" does not make something factually correct. Caring for others is a personal emotion/value/morality that one possesses. Many share similar ones. But it is not correct that we all share the same morality or priorities. The only inherent truth is that we have our differences, and they are differences that define who we are. Each has the right to act or not act based on those principles and priorities until the point that you are impeding the ability of another to exercise the rights that also define them. Using threat of force to impose your principles on others is not something you are entitled to as an ingredient of your existence. Take some responsibility for yourself instead of imposing your will on others, and you'll rid yourself of all that guilt and denial. You give great speeches that say very little. "Force" you to help a child? You cant even answer a simple question without a diatribe. I have no guilt. I have basic human empathy for my fellow man. |
|
|
|
Post by wesleymctoon on Mar 22, 2016 10:43:55 GMT -5
Yes, I asked you for proof and you provided none. A random sick child is not the same as a child left on my property. The sick child does in fact have nothing to do with me. As I stated (but you left out), I may choose to help, but in no way am I obligated to. Saying "as we all know" does not make something factually correct. Caring for others is a personal emotion/value/morality that one possesses. Many share similar ones. But it is not correct that we all share the same morality or priorities. The only inherent truth is that we have our differences, and they are differences that define who we are. Each has the right to act or not act based on those principles and priorities until the point that you are impeding the ability of another to exercise the rights that also define them. Using threat of force to impose your principles on others is not something you are entitled to as an ingredient of your existence. Take some responsibility for yourself instead of imposing your will on others, and you'll rid yourself of all that guilt and denial. You give great speeches that say very little. "Force" you to help a child? You cant even answer a simple question without a diatribe. I have no guilt. I have basic human empathy for my fellow man. Your lack of understanding does not speak to the content. Yes. Force. As in, if I don't turn over 30% of what I earn, you force me into imprisonment. You have plenty of guilt, you're just blind to it. Only those that have guilt for their own shortcomings attempt to impose their emotion on others. I too have emathy for my fellow man. Which is why I service my fellow man in a myriad of ways. But I would not ever use the treat of violence to make another mimic my behavior. Leading by example is much more powerful and much less lazy. |
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Mar 22, 2016 10:47:14 GMT -5
You give great speeches that say very little. "Force" you to help a child? You cant even answer a simple question without a diatribe. I have no guilt. I have basic human empathy for my fellow man. Your lack of understanding does not speak to the content. Yes. Force. As in, if I don't turn over 30% of what I earn, you force me into imprisonment. You have plenty of guilt, you're just blind to it. Only those that have guilt for their own shortcomings attempt to impose their emotion on others. I too have emathy for my fellow man. Which is why I service my fellow man in a myriad of ways. But I would not ever use the treat of violence to make another mimic my behavior. Leading by example is much more powerful and much less lazy. Oh you don't want to pay taxes. That what this is about? Who has threatened you with violence lately? |
|
|
|
Post by Warfish on Mar 22, 2016 10:52:13 GMT -5
Yes, I asked you for proof and you provided none. A random sick child is not the same as a child left on my property. The sick child does in fact have nothing to do with me. As I stated (but you left out), I may choose to help, but in no way am I obligated to. Saying "as we all know" does not make something factually correct. Caring for others is a personal emotion/value/morality that one possesses. Many share similar ones. But it is not correct that we all share the same morality or priorities. The only inherent truth is that we have our differences, and they are differences that define who we are. Each has the right to act or not act based on those principles and priorities until the point that you are impeding the ability of another to exercise the rights that also define them. Using threat of force to impose your principles on others is not something you are entitled to as an ingredient of your existence. Take some responsibility for yourself instead of imposing your will on others, and you'll rid yourself of all that guilt and denial. You give great speeches that say very little. "Force" you to help a child? You cant even answer a simple question without a diatribe. I have no guilt. I have basic human empathy for my fellow man. Of course he can't. He's been very clear, life means nothing to him if it isn't directly related to him. If 100,000 babies die of starvation, he's fine with it, no, supportive of it, because "the strongest should survive and the weak allowed to die", paraphrasing of course. It is literally the justification of every horrid act of mankind throughout history, one group who thinks it's superior to another, and thus treats the "other" as less than human, and their lives as less than nothing. The irony of course is that your average Republican is a bigger leach on Government services and benefits than anyone around, milking the system for all it's worth on one hand, they telling anyone who'll listen how "they did that" all by themselves without help. You know, except at every step along the way where they actually got help from society or from the State. |
|
