Define a right, dblack.
In the context of the US Constitution, it's a freedom to act unhindered by other people.
Fair enough, I accept that to an extent but it has obvious flaws.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Define a right, dblack.
In the context of the US Constitution, it's a freedom to act unhindered by other people.
Still looking for the argument that healthcare is a right.
If we agree it is a right it is, simple as that. Some would argue any which way on any which way, so in the end democracy decides and it decided recently. That is its function call it whatever.
No, that's just wrong. Calling health care a "right" isn't a statement of values, it's a category error. We can all 'agree' that a cow is a bird, but that won't give it the power of flight.
I'd like the 'health care is a right' people to answer the question "How much health care?"
The unfortunate fact is, all of us will face the the point where we can't afford enough health care to stay alive. What then?
I guess then we throw up our hands and say what exactly? Die, oh, you have money? give it to me, like Jesus I charge to save, he didn't? you sure? oh....
I have to get out my old logic textbook, what is the faulty argument that when using a word like 'right' you attach it to something and all solutions disappear? Conservative and libertarian's constitutive principles defines a situation in which the answers flow easily and often paradoxically. But oddly there was a time when people felt differntly and said so.
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. ¶ Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection." Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-healthcare-being-a-right-25.html#post4763674
The logical fallacy you're looking for is "equivocation". And, at least on the part of those leading this campaign, I think it's deliberate.The goal is to radically broaden the responsibility, and power, of the federal government. It's widely accepted that the US Constitution charges the government with protecting our rights. By erroneously declaring being take care of as a "right", statists hope to evade resistance to their plans with wordgames rather than persuasion and democracy. That might make it sound trivial, but it's not. Orwell rightly recognized the supreme power inherent in controlling language. If your crowd gets away with this doublespeak, we're taking a giant leap down the road to tyranny.
Define a right, dblack.
In the context of the US Constitution, it's a freedom to act unhindered by other people.
Fair enough, I accept that to an extent but it has obvious flaws.