Jerrek said:I think we don't share that belief then... Because, I sure as hell don't believe that people have those "rights", nor did I ever sign such a document, and looking at the source, well, they are a joke anyways. The same organization that decided people have those "rights" also made Kadaffi the leader of the Human Rights comission.
In any case, those rights, suppose I just FLAT OUT REFUSE to do any work. Are you going to feed me, clothe me, and take care of me? I mean, I have that RIGHT, just like I have the RIGHT to free speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion.
jerreks article said:It is a society based on opportunity and genuine compassion
nambit said:it is my belief that every human on this planet has certain rights. basic, fundamental rights. here's a quote for you. Article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights:
Nambit said:any argument i make is built upon this belief. if you don't share it, then we shall never come close to agreeing.
I think you hit the nail on the head ,without social programs and caring for those less fortunate we are no better than animals.I would rather have government making the decisions as to where the $$'s go then a Corporations ,whose only drive is the shareholders.Even non-profit organizations have paid managers ,that are more than willing to take their cut before the less fortunate see a penny.squiggy said:and on and on till we're back to the survival of the fittest in its pure form....
Yes, we need social programs, but not government ran and controlled programs. We don't need the state handling this for us... it has shown it's inability to handle many other industries, and I believe this is another good example.A.B.Normal said:I think you hit the nail on the head ,without social programs and caring for those less fortunate we are no better than animals.I would rather have government making the decisions as to where the $$'s go then a Corporations ,whose only drive is the shareholders.Even non-profit organizations have paid managers ,that are more than willing to take their cut before the less fortunate see a penny.
Squiggy said:Its supposed to ask why laws protecting the 'haves' are ok, but laws protecting the 'have nots' are bad. Especially when natural superiority would go to the stronger more often than the smarter...
Ardsgaine said:Then you're starting in the middle, or near the end. You require some moral justification for that right, an ethical argument for why some people have the right to other people's property. I don't expect to ever agree with you on the issue, but you could at least try to go a little deeper and defend the moral assumptions that you're relying on.
Artice 25 said:(1) 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.
Squiggy said:But why then , do the corporate welfare $$$ dwarf the regular welfare$$$? If a company is going to fail, let it fail. Then the 'little guy' has a chance. Instead we bail out large corporations whose execs are earning ludicrous amouts and then scream about the people trying to hold their lives annd families together.
nambit said:You are saying that you would deny someone a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family?
nambit said:I feel absolutly no need to defend my morality as far as that goes.
Ardsgaine said:nambit said:I feel absolutly no need to defend my morality as far as that goes.
Of course you don't. I'm sure you don't have a clue where you got it from. You inhaled it in the air you breathed, sucked it from your mother's teat, drank it in the water... it's never occurred to you to question it. It's self-evident, like the existence of God to a 13th Century English peasant. Everyone knows that morality consists of self sacrifice and the purpose of our existence is to serve others, just like everyone knew that the sun moves round the Earth.
nambit said:there really isn't any need to make personal attacks against me, even quite poetic personal attacks like that one.
nambit said:i do find it self evident, and i'm very happy about that. i'm amazingly glad that i don't share your views, and i stand by my statement that the burden of proof here is on your side.
Ardsgaine said:Jerrek said:Selfish? I don't think of myself as selfish.
* Ardsgaine is selfish because he places his own happiness first.
Squiggy said:Guess we should snip deadbeat dads too....
Why do you say that the burden of proof is on me? I'm not the one advocating the use of force against people to confiscate their wealth and give it to someone else. If anything, I would think that the burden of proof rests on the person advocating such force.