- Sep 17, 2019
- 22,242
- 35,275
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #26
Have you ever put a band-aid on someone else?
AOC v republican Karen's (and Ted)
- Thread starter Marcel Proust
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Have you ever put a band-aid on someone else?
Yes. Whats your point?
The basis of human rights have nothing to with "whether they contradict with other rights". This is an insane postulation of its existence that I've never heard before or anyone had ever uttered.
- Sep 17, 2019
- 22,242
- 35,275
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #29
Health care. Were you forced into providing it?
actually yes we are forced to provide it. Doesnt mean i wouldnt of done it anyway. But plenty of other people in our society would rather not give up taxes for free health care to others. They are forced to.
a right is not something that requires the action of others. It does require a lack of certain actions in others however but it never requires others to act (unless it is to rectify a right that has already been violated).
the freedom to avoid harm from others, the freedom to keep the fruits of your labour, the freedom of movement, the freedom from irrelevant discrimination. These along with others are all human rights. They do not contradict each other and can exist in any society regardless of size or wealth. even if you are the only person on the planet.
i want society to have free education, welfare support and free health care. But not cos they are a human right. I want them cause they make societies on average happier despite the fact they contradict human rights. Im a utilitarian. not a libertarian. Libertarians advocate human rights (my definition of human rights) as the end goal of life even if they dont say it specifically. Utilitarians advocate happiness instead.
Last edited:
My own definition based on the readings of various books on the topic. Maybe do some reading of your own rather then rely on dictionaries which just jot down a number of definitions (Often inconsistent with each other) based on how the common people use the term.
Last edited:
- Sep 17, 2019
- 22,242
- 35,275
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #32
It's also your right to help, or accept help from other humans.
No one is forcing doctors and nurses to go to work.
Again this highly incorrect.
You are not forced to pay for health care of others. You're making s**t up in your mind that does not exist.
Even if you don't pay for healthcare nobody at a hospital here would refuse to treat, you know human rights and all.
Fair comment, ive dragged the topic away from its intention. I will stop now.
Plenty of people in our society would rather not let other people own property and possessions and would rather take it from them. They are forced to comply by the law. Is this the standard we are taking for human rights now, what people would rather not do unless compelled to by an authority?
Gee whiz, your concept of rights has a lot of caveats.
Whats your definition of a human right as compared to what counts as a right?
my definition is pretty much the same as John Lockes:
John Locke claimed that certain rights self-evidently pertain to individuals as human beings because these rights existed in the hypothetical “state of nature” before humankind entered civil society. Chief among them are the rights to life, liberty (freedom from arbitrary rule), and property.
the caveat is they can exist in a state of nature, can be applied to all and do not violate each other. Its not that difficult a concept to understand.
Last edited:
not by my definition as human rights should be applicable even if you are the only person in your society.
- Sep 17, 2019
- 22,242
- 35,275
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #41
Little nuts, seeds. Same thing innit?
I think this page from Stanford University sums it up pretty well. Note that they include Locke's "old" natural rights alongside "new" human rights.
sherb
Hall of Famer
The quote in the opening post isn't stating that it is.
It's suggesting that, when held as a view, it isn't as extreme as those views held by white supremacists.
Huh? but thats the same in any society including those that dont have free health care.
no one advocating free health care as a humam right is advocating it simply as the right to treat yourself. They are advocating it as others having to treat you.
Universal and free health care is a good thing. I'm not sure why you're trying to get into semantically charged argument about it.
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,714
- 13,429
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
Coconuts are large and have no human rights.... and why bring me into it?
I find it bizarre certain Americans associate universal health care with the communism
I read an amazing book on the regular polio epidemics in the United States. There were doctors who were angry that the Salk vaccine was free because it was the first step to socialised medicine, aka communism.
Right wing/wealthy forces have really brainwashed a lot of people, to argue against their own interests.
What is the argument? Universal health care, you know who likes that? Communists? Communists such as Stalin, Stalin killed 5 million people, you will be killed and live under communist rule!
My best guess is that he read a new book that he didn't fully comprehend recently and he's trying to show off. It was likely some Steven Pinker trash
