"Is There An Ethical Duty to Provide Health Care for All Immigrants to the United States?"

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

Another issue that fascinates myself, I forgot where I read about this issue, but about me reading about this issue was quite a while ago. So I'm curious what you all think about this current subjective topic. I for one Thanks.

 

[Braydon]

Try to talk about a legitimate issue, get ignored, talk about public nudity, get 50 responses, welcome to the debate hall.

Anyway, on topic. Governments make the rules we live by, it's their responsibility to make sure people don't fall through the cracks and die because of these rules. All the medical regulations we have, while necessary make it incredibly easy for doctors to extort money from people. Prices are so high poor people often do not get the proper care, especially from not being able to afford diagnostic procedures with the insane markups.

A government is supposed to protect it's people and that should include protecting them from corporate greed not just people with guns.

 

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

Try to talk about a legitimate issue, get ignored, talk about public nudity, get 50 responses, welcome to the debate hall.

Anyway, on topic. Governments make the rules we live by, it's their responsibility to make sure people don't fall through the cracks and die because of these rules. All the medical regulations we have, while necessary make it incredibly easy for doctors to extort money from people. Prices are so high poor people often do not get the proper care, especially from not being able to afford diagnostic procedures with the insane markups.

A government is supposed to protect it's people and that should include protecting them from corporate greed not just people with guns.

Absolutely true, you're a very wise fellow I must accede. I see, yes that's the world in general, there is a reason why America isn't the same which I've made a debate there. I'm very interested in what people imagine through these entities. This thread is quite a strong vacuum towards inhaling infinitesimal promiscuity. Thanks.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

For what it's worth, I don't really have a good answer to this one.

 

[Sucumbio]

Well I suppose you first have to decide if a government has an ethical duty ti provide health care at all (I happen to believe they do, so long as the free market is unchecked). From there it's a short leap to deciding if immigration candidates should be treated as citizens in this regard (which again, I believe they should be). Bottom line, healthy workers are productive workers. So it makes sense that a government, whose major focus should be to increase productivity, gross national product, etc., should vest interest in affordable health care.

 

[FlusteredBat]

I find it odd when people refer to immigrants taking advantage of welfare and fail to mention all the undeserving locals doing the same.

Healthcare becomes obscenely expensive precisely due to various mounting regulations which stifle competition. A lack of competition here shifts priority away from satisfying customers in favor of employing as many inefficient and/or redundant public servants as possible. It seems healthcare is both worse and more expensive thanks to government intervention.

How about we remove this backward system? Apparently that would be a disaster because "human nature" is just bad, even though the government is somehow good despite being composed of humans*. No, established state benefits are rarely ever repealed because the inevitable mass-tantrum would mark the downfall of any politician in the line of fire.

Democrats appeal to minorities with promises of "free" stuff in order to secure more votes, of course they would try to cloak this motive by evoking ethics. Unfortunately any ethical principle which calls for action (as opposed to restraint) invalidates itself because such edicts cannot be fulfilled by all people at all times.

*God is good because God is good because...

 

[Braydon]

I find it odd when people refer to immigrants taking advantage of welfare and fail to mention all the undeserving locals doing the same.

Healthcare becomes obscenely expensive precisely due to various mounting regulations which stifle competition. A lack of competition here shifts priority away from satisfying customers in favor of employing as many inefficient and/or redundant public servants as possible. It seems healthcare is both worse and more expensive thanks to government intervention.

How about we remove this backward system? Apparently that would be a disaster because "human nature" is just bad, even though the government is somehow good despite being composed of humans*. No, established state benefits are rarely ever repealed because the inevitable mass-tantrum would mark the downfall of any politician in the line of fire.

Democrats appeal to minorities with promises of "free" stuff in order to secure more votes, of course they would try to cloak this motive by evoking ethics. Unfortunately any ethical principle which calls for action (as opposed to restraint) invalidates itself because such edicts cannot be fulfilled by all people at all times.

*God is good because God is good because...

... Undeserving? What exactly makes someone become undeserving of healthcare? People die without health care, are they undeserving of living? Why? Because they're poor? We give food to the poor because we agree they don't deserve to starve, why should it be fine for them to die from disease.

I can see saying someone is undeserving if they can work but won't, but such people are really not as common as they're portrayed to be.

Yes, healthcare is expensive due to regulation stifling competition, but that doesn't mean we can allow regulation to be removed. Without regulation you would see far more bogus "cures" for diseases, more malpractice, more incompetence, you couldn't trust doctors to actually help you, an it would be easier for drug dealers to get prescription medication. The cost is simply to great to repeal regulations across healthcare.

 

[FlusteredBat]

... Undeserving? What exactly makes someone become undeserving of healthcare? People die without health care, are they undeserving of living? Why? Because they're poor? We give food to the poor because we agree they don't deserve to starve, why should it be fine for them to die from disease.

I can see saying someone is undeserving if they can work but won't, but such people are really not as common as they're portrayed to be.

Yes, healthcare is expensive due to regulation stifling competition, but that doesn't mean we can allow regulation to be removed. Without regulation you would see far more bogus "cures" for diseases, more malpractice, more incompetence, you couldn't trust doctors to actually help you, an it would be easier for drug dealers to get prescription medication. The cost is simply to great to repeal regulations across healthcare.

1. Nobody is entitled to anything, political/human rights are not anatomical attributes nor are they universal concepts such as property 'rights' (unfortunate conflated terminology here). That does not mean we're incapable of compassion.
2. The state forces responsible individuals to pay for the consequences of other people's regressive behavior thus perpetuating an exponential cycle of degeneracy, that is to subsidize terrible choices. What happens when we subsidize something? Hmm...
3. "Bogus cures" compared to what? Go compare the overall quality of public vs. private services. It is crucial to understand that private scam artists never last very long with their lifetime reputation at stake because they prey on naivety and ignorance. Furthermore, these qualities which foster vulnerability are about as innate as a broken leg. The state allows crooks to protect their personal reputation by becoming politicians who exploit a standardized system of propaganda mills which pump out unthinking compliant citizens ripe for the picking. Just look at Bill Clinton, now publicly considered the most respectable president of recent history, he's still invited around to give speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars a session.

If you believe somebody selling snake oil would easily rise to the top of society without government intervention then your perception of average human intelligence is so low it would make zero sense to advocate a democratic system. Indeed, it would be astoundingly arrogant/elitist for somebody to place themselves so far ahead of the curve that they can enforce orders which simultaneously satisfy millions of competing interests. People are just too stupid to effectively live their own lives, right? They're like infants incapable of responsibility. A perfect society should rob fully grown adults of moral personhood so that they may suckle mama government's teat - don't worry, the milk is magically infinite.
Psst, that milk is actually snake oil!

There is a huge difference between welfare and charity. Are you concerned about people giving to charity voluntarily? Would you give to charity? Either the concerns include some unsavory definition of human nature which mysteriously excludes yourself or you're a complete hypocrite. Walking contradiction or hypocrite? Take your pick... perhaps both. Secret option C is to go the honest A-hole route, i.e. "I wouldn't give to charity because I'm a jerk and people are jerks" then promptly be ostracized by the majority of society.

Whatever happened to family and friends as a social safety net? The welfare state eradicated it. Increased dependency equals more votes equals more power.

 

[Braydon]

@ FlusteredBat
According to the founding fathers of this country, everyone is entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" now you're telling me they are not entitled to medical care, which can be necessary for life. You never even offered a reason why people are not entitled to survive.

The state controls your life, the state makes the rules you live by, the state is responsible if those rules allow people to fall through the cracks and die because of it. Furthermore the state is well within it's rights to tax you to pay for it. You don't argue that the state cannot tax you to pay for roads, why can't medical infrastructure be payed for through taxes?

Cons would be very common in the medical profession without regulation, and besides that was only a part of the issue in removing regulation. There have always been plenty of cons and they are far more common in fields people do not understand, there is no reason to think the medical field would not once again be filled with con artists. And their reputation is irrelevant, as they are deemed disreputable more will come and fill their place.

Oh, and family and friends as a safety net never worked if your friends and family were poor as well.



You are the one trying to use so called ethics to hide your motives. Quite simply, you don't want to pay taxes, you're trying to disguise greed as moral outrage.

And I don't want it for the democrats political gain, I am not a democrat and would never support them. I wouldn't support any political party, political parties, including your precious republicans take away our freedom. They have become so important in being elected, that they can pick our candidates for office, they select only candidates that will follow them nearly absolutely and put them in office. Since the government is filled with puppet candidates, it is controlled by political parties, and ultimately the party leaders, who are not democratically elected control our government.


@ Sucumbio
The governments focus should be gross national product? Not, oh I don't know, quality of life and security maybe?

 

[Sucumbio]

Those, too but in theory high productivity would span all sectors including defense contracting, and interior development eg better roads, running water for everyone, etc.

@ FlusteredBat

You seem to have gotten your talking points from Fox Noise... As a person who benefits personally from the Healthcare Marketplace I'd like to say I do not agree with this idea that socialization of health care is a bad thing. Here's why:

As soon as possible, a. Loop hole was found.

According to the Affordable Care Act a person should not have to pay more than 9.3 percent of their total household earnings for premiums. That's actually raised by the IRS from 2014. Also, an employer is required to offer coverage within this threshold.

My employer does offer a minimum coverage option. For Me. But I am married. And wouldn't you know, when applying for 2, the premium shot up 40 percent. FORTY. In whose world is that okay? So I got an insurance agent to lie for me basically. He signed up for me and clicked the No button on the question Does your employer meet the minimum standard. Because they don't. I can't just ignore the fact I have a wife to take care of. And she's a full time student so it's implausible for her to hold down a full time job, and no, her school doesn't offer health plans.

Basically the point is, big business doesn't want to pay for health care, and insurance companies don't want to pay for claims. Their both only interested in their profits. So we NEED the government, the only true authority, to step in and demand for citizens what they need. Other countries have systems in place that negate corporate greed in the health care industry. The US is way behind, but the ACA is a step in the right direction. Eventually I would like to see medicine be low cost, but not until Big pharma is brought down, will this happen. So in the meantime yes, we all nees to chip in to help each other. That's what a society SHOULD do. After all no man is an Island as they say, and if you think it really is every man for themselves and don't expect help and whatever other tea party libertarian bullshoi you believe, then go live in the Alaskan wild, while the rest of us enjoy Civilization.

 

[FlusteredBat]

@ FlusteredBat
According to the founding fathers of this country appeal to authority, everyone is entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" now you're telling me they are not entitled to medical care, which can be necessary for life. You never even offered a reason why people are not entitled to survive. It was the first line of my previous post

I repeat, rights do not exist. No living creature possesses an unconditional 'right' to continue existing nor is our continued existence ever guaranteed at any point.

The state controls your life, the state makes the rules you live by, the state is responsible if those rules allow people to fall through the cracks and die because of it. Furthermore the state is well within it's rights to tax you to pay for it. You don't argue that the state cannot tax you to pay for roads, why can't medical infrastructure be payed for through taxes?

You have created a separate moral category for the state even though it is composed of humans like you and I. The government is not a group of parental deities, they are not responsible for other people's choices, neither are you, neither am I. Humans do not possess any sort of 'right' to enforce our own preferential system of commandments upon our neighbors.

Cons would be very common in the medical profession without regulation, and besides that was only a part of the issue in removing regulation. There have always been plenty of cons and they are far more common in fields people do not understand, there is no reason to think the medical field would not once again be filled with con artists. And their reputation is irrelevant, as they are deemed disreputable more will come and fill their place.

My point was not whether con artists would be rare or common, it was that they would not be successful and you seem to think that calling an argument irrelevant is somehow a solid rebuttal, calling reputation irrelevant no less. How about you go employ a convicted pedophile as your child's baby sitter because reputation is irrelevant, right?

Ignored my paragraph regarding the arrogance of centralization? OK. What about the one about giving to charity? Not worth your time?

Oh, and family and friends as a safety net never worked if your friends and family were poor as well.

Do you ever stop to consider why particular communities are stricken with such universal poverty to begin with? ..or just assume they're poor due to genetic inferiority?

You are the one trying to use so called ethics to hide your motives rational thinkers do not use sophist tricks, your attempt to slander my position with your own shady moral relativism is nothing more than projection. Quite simply, you don't want to pay taxes now that is utterly irrelevant, but yes, I am hostile toward taxation for both moral and pragmatic reasons, you're trying to disguise greed as moral outrage.

And I don't want it for the democrats political gain, I am not a democrat and would never support them. I wouldn't support any political party, political parties, including your precious republicans take away our freedom I'm a voluntaryist, not a republican. They have become so important in being elected, that they can pick our candidates for office, they select only candidates that will follow them nearly absolutely and put them in office. Since the government is filled with puppet candidates, it is controlled by political parties, and ultimately the party leaders, who are not democratically elected control our government.

You're certainly correct about government being corrupt, although somewhat missed the mark as far as solutions are concerned, by "missed the mark" I mean "leapt off a cliff descending into the bowels of hell". An excess of power enables corruption, not an excess of freedom.

@ Sucumbio
You must understand that we cannot use examples from the contemporary world to illustrate why a free society would not work because everything is just so skewed toward the omnipresent threat of government intervention and the sheer advantage possessed by those with political power on their side. This is especially true for corporate monopolies.

There is nothing transcendental about government authority, the top echelon of politics is almost invariably composed of self-righteous mobsters. Thugs with guns. It has been like this throughout all of human history repeatedly fostering economic chaos and collapse then subsequently war.

 

[Braydon]

I repeat, rights do not exist. No living creature possesses an unconditional 'right' to continue existing nor is our continued existence ever guaranteed at any point.

Rights may not be a tangible object but that doesn't mean you can disregard them... They're a concept not an object, that doesn't mean they are meaningless...

And no you never offered a reason why people aren't deserving of survival, all you did was said they had no right to it. You simply tried to pass unilateral moral judgement with no reason.

You have created a separate moral category for the state even though it is composed of humans like you and I. The government is not a group of parental deities, they are not responsible for other people's choices, neither are you, neither am I. Humans do not possess any sort of 'right' to enforce our own preferential system of commandments upon our neighbors.

The state fits into an entirely separate moral category, and it wasn't created by me. The state is not a person, the state is not supposed to behave like a person, the state has responsibilities beyond that of a person.

If humans have no rights how do you think you have a right to be free from society? How is it you have the right to not be subjected to other peoples' "preferential system of commandments" if humans have no rights? I suppose you are above humans, you're above everyone else in the world and you're the only one who should have rights.

You partake in the benefits of the state, the protection, stability, infrastructure, the state has a right to take funding for the service you enjoy.

My point was not whether con artists would be rare or common, it was that they would not be successful and you seem to think that calling an argument irrelevant is somehow a solid rebuttal, calling reputation irrelevant no less. How about you go employ a convicted pedophile as your child's baby sitter because reputation is irrelevant, right?

Reputation dose not matter in the con game, therefor reputation does not matter to a con artist. If their reputation gets sufficiently horrible they will simply relocate, find new people to exploit.

Ignored my paragraph regarding the arrogance of centralization? OK.

You mean you mocking me? It deserves no acknowledgment.

Do you ever stop to consider why particular communities are stricken with such universal poverty to begin with? ..or just assume they're poor due to genetic inferiority?

Primarily, because poor people are bunched together in poor neighborhoods, the only places they can afford to be, they only meet poor people and therefor the friends they make will be poor people.

Did you ever consider I might have a valid reason for thinking that or do you just think everyone is mentally inferior to you and incapable of rationale thought?

...

"Sophist tricks?" Try "accurate portrayal."

You're certainly correct about government being corrupt, although somewhat missed the mark as far as solutions are concerned, by "miss the mark" I mean "leapt off a cliff descending into the bowels of hell". An excess of power enables corruption, not an excess of freedom.

I didn't say allowing excess power was the solution, I said the problem was allowing political parties to amass excess power.

And your party is still guilty of amassing power.

@ Sucumbio
You must understand that we cannot use examples from the contemporary world to illustrate why a free society would not work because everything is just so skewed toward the omnipresent threat of government intervention and the sheer advantage granted to those with said power on their side. This is especially true for monopolies contingent upon regulations won through political donations. As I alluded before, there is nothing "true" or transcendental about government authority, the top echelon of politics is almost invariably composed of self-righteous mobsters. Thugs with guns. It has been like this throughout all of human history fostering economic chaos and collapse time and time again.

Governments are also necessary for protection and stability. Without government we would always be in a state of ruin, the only reason we wouldn't have repeated collapse is because there would be nothing to collapse.

Remove the government and you will be at the mercy of "thugs with guns." No one else will stop them. Government may contain problems, but much less so than anarchy allows.

It would take no large amount of power to harm you without government protection, anyone stronger than you could simply order you around at gun point... The government solves more problems than it causes.

You seem to make the assumption that in your wonderful anarchist utopia everyone will suddenly become model citizens, that's not reality. People would have to be free of greed and malice for your foolish ideals to work.

 

[Sucumbio]

Braydon sums up my response. Gotta have government. The fact that corruption exists is a necessary evil. It's not an excuse to have no government.

 

[FlusteredBat]

I probably shouldn't be arguing with a poster of Big Brother...

Rights may not be a tangible object but that doesn't mean you can disregard them... They're a concept not an object, that doesn't mean they are meaningless...

'Rights' are simply expressions of preference masquerading as ethics. I never said 'rights' are meaningless and I'm not going to repeat myself verbatim, so go back and process my previous posts before putting words in my mouth. My favourite colour is blue - is that meaningless?

And no you never offered a reason why people aren't deserving of survival, all you did was said they had no right to it. You simply tried to pass unilateral moral judgement with no reason.

You continue to ignore arguments which are in clear view, there is no hidden agenda. A property must be objective or universal in order to be valid, 'rights' are neither.

Humans are bipedal = objective property
Humans own their bodies = universal
Humans should not die = preference

Reality does not acknowledge political 'rights'.

The state fits into an entirely separate moral category, and it wasn't created by me. The state is not a person, the state is not supposed to behave like a person, the state has responsibilities beyond that of a person.

Empirically the state is not a god, it is a group of humans. If you insist on asserting otherwise then I truly am a fool for continuing this conversation. All humans must be subject to the same consequences for their actions, but governments are allowed to break the rules which they enforce. If ethics/'rights' are not universal, then they merely represent a grandiose preference to control others.

If humans have no rights preferences how do you think you have a right preference to be free from society? How is it you have the right preference to not be subjected to other peoples' "preferential system of commandments" if humans have no rights preferences? I suppose you are above humans, you're above everyone else in the world and you're the only one who should have rights preferences. (Statist projection)

I hope you can see how ridiculous this is.

You partake in the benefits of the state, the protection, stability, infrastructure, the state has a right to take funding for the service you enjoy.

Ah yes, we should be grateful for the generosity of our slave masters! That is exactly the same sort of argument anti-abolitionists used (In fact, their entire stance mirrors justifications for statism to a tee). The international slave trade was defeated by staunch ethical conviction, government must fall in the same manner if we are to progress as a species.

Reputation dose not matter in the con game, therefor reputation does not matter to a con artist. If their reputation gets sufficiently horrible they will simply relocate, find new people to exploit.

So the solution against private con artists who obscure their reputation is to set up a public system of legitimized force run by people who use it to obscure their reputation? OK. Let's also herd all kids into public schools where they are taught to accept and repeat without question. That will protect them from con artists!

Try considering the boundless multitude of innovative solutions which do not involve violence before worshiping the state as lord and savior.

First we need to start raising our kids with psychological consideration and respect for their adult selves rather than perpetuating the oogabooga-club-you-over-the-head might-makes-right crap that still passes for parenting.

Primarily, because poor people are bunched together in poor neighborhoods, the only places they can afford to be, they only meet poor people and therefor the friends they make will be poor people.

"Poor communities are poor because they are poor" *head desk*

Did you ever consider I might have a valid reason for thinking that or do you just think everyone is mentally inferior to you and incapable of rationale thought?

The projection is strong with this one.

I didn't say allowing excess power was the solution, I said the problem was allowing political parties to amass excess power.

There is literally nothing stopping a government from amassing power. What? You think constitutional 'rights' scare the baddies away?

1. With limited state intervention comes economic prosperity amidst a flurry of unrestricted ideas and innovations.
2. As wealth grows people become more wary of how their competition might appeal to the state for an advantage through legislation, so they strive to seize that gun before anyone else can. Both tax revenue and the magnitude of political donations increase alongside economic booms thus making public sector work more enticing.
3. There is a rising prevalence of public servants and other dependent classes who take advantage of the state's constant threat of violence against productive citizens (suckers) - an easy guaranteed income.
4. Freedoms diminish as anti-competitive preferential regulations compound, the economy begins to stagnate and collapse.
5. Guess what happens next.

And your party is still guilty of amassing power.

Voluntaryists do not represent a political party, we reject politics for the racket that it is. Clearly you aren't even bothering to understand my posts yet you pretend to be an expert.

Governments are also necessary for protection and stability. Without government we would always be in a state of ruin, the only reason we wouldn't have repeated collapse is because there would be nothing to collapse.

Blah blah blah, propaganda blah. Look around you, son, economic doomsday is already upon us. Our political overlords want us to blame freedom so that the masses do not start calling for their heads on pikes for selling out the future.

Remove the government and you will be at the mercy of "thugs with guns." No one else will stop them. Government may contain problems, but much less so than anarchy allows.

It would take no large amount of power to harm you without government protection, anyone stronger than you could simply order you around at gun point... The government solves more problems than it causes. Big assertions, yet all evidence to the contrary

Oh no! There are guys with guns who are going to steal our property! We need guys with guns who are going to steal our property to protect us! This is how statists sound to anarchists.

You seem to make the assumption that in your wonderful anarchist utopia everyone will suddenly become model citizens please point out where I made such an assumption, "seem" is not a quote, that's not reality you're the one rejecting reality by worshiping the state like a god. People would have to be free of greed and malice for your foolish ideals to work.

A glorious strawman conclusion after weaseling your way through my arguments like I didn't give them, well done.

 

[Braydon]

Oh no! There are guys with guns who are going to steal our property! We need guys with guns who are going to steal our property to protect us! This is how statists sound to anarchists.

That's because you're ****ing delusional. You're so ****ing insane you can call me a marxist, and say I serve big brother within 24 hours of each other and not even realize how far reaching, contradictory, and insane your accusations are. You can't understand my argument because you lack the capacity, not because of any fault of mine.

 

[Troll Man]

I repeat, rights do not exist. No living creature possesses an unconditional 'right' to continue existing nor is our continued existence ever guaranteed at any point.

I would disagree completely with this point, in fact, I would go so far as to claim that we are born with every right. In order to integrate and indeed form a society we give up some number of these rights, all of us, or at least the majority of us.

Following this logic, monarchs, who do not give up any rights, are savages, as they do not integrate into society at all because they don't give up any of their rights.

Taking this argument one step further, those who are given the right to live comfortably at the expense of their neighbors (I am of course talking about the domestic and foreign exploitation of labor), are savages.

Until I am truly equal with every person of color, woman, homosexual, transgendered or working-class member of society, I am relegated to the status of savage, for I have not given up the rights that these people have, and as such, am not as much of a member of society as those with the characteristics listed above.

 

[FlusteredBat]

I would disagree completely with this point, in fact, I would go so far as to claim that we are born with every right. In order to integrate and indeed form a society we give up some number of these rights, all of us, or at least the majority of us.

Did you even read my posts? It looks like you were just triggered by one particular thing I said and decided to ramble as If I'm wrong without making any counter-arguments (claims are not arguments)."I would disagree completely", disagree with what? That death can strike us at any time and how there's no magical force called 'rights' preventing it from happening?

Following this logic, monarchs, who do not give up any rights, are savages, as they do not integrate into society at all because they don't give up any of their rights.

Why monarchs? Kings are humans, not gods. We're all humans with the same biological functions/limitations (relatively speaking). I still don't understand what you mean by this or how it could internally make sense to you.

Taking this argument one step further, those who are given the right to live comfortably at the expense of their neighbors (I am of course talking about the domestic and foreign exploitation of labor), are savages.

You continue to make claims without reason or evidence. Establishing something as "logic" does not make it so.

Until I am truly equal with every person of color, woman, homosexual, transgendered or working-class member of society, I am relegated to the status of savage, for I have not given up the rights that these people have, and as such, am not as much of a member of society as those with the characteristics listed above.

I am still completely baffled by what you're trying to say.

'Rights' are invalid mental constructs pretending to represent something innate to the human experience. This has nothing to do with the consequences of giving them up. The problem is how people are propagandized into believing 'rights' (whimsical preferences) are an essential aspect of ethics.

 

[Troll Man]

Did you even read my posts? It looks like you were just triggered by one particular thing I said and decided to ramble as If I'm wrong without making any counter-arguments (claims are not arguments)."I would disagree completely", disagree with what? That death can strike us at any time and how there's no magical force called 'rights' preventing it from happening?



Why monarchs? Kings are humans, not gods. We're all humans with the same biological functions/limitations (relatively speaking). I still don't understand what you mean by this.



You're continuing to make claims without reason or evidence. Establishing something as "logic" does not make it so.



I am still completely baffled by what you're trying to say.

I don't see why you have to reply with so much contempt.

 

[FlusteredBat]

I don't see why you have to reply with so much contempt.

Is it not contemptuous to ignore another person's arguments or not be bothered to process them?

 

[Troll Man]

Is it not contemptuous to ignore another person's arguments or not be bothered to process them?

I didn't ignore your arguments, I just disagreed with one.
Even so, there was no intent, and your comments are clearly designed to be passive aggressive.

 

[FlusteredBat]

I didn't ignore your arguments, I just disagreed with one.
Even so, there was no intent, and your comments are clearly designed to be passive aggressive.

You rejected the foundation of my entire argument so it can't be said that you agree with the rest of what I posted. Stop trying to frame me as the one who initiated passive aggression, it's extremely insulting. Regardless, even if you did only disagree with something minor, zero effort was made to back up your claims.

 

[Troll Man]

You rejected the foundation of my entire argument so it can't be said that you agree with the rest of what I posted. Stop trying to frame me as the one who imitated passive aggressive, it's extremely insulting.

But you are?