What?
If you say you didn't say numerous times now that what that it appears I'm for them dieing go right ahead.
Your new line of arguement is to write sentences that make no sense?
If you want to talk about logic, at least try to understand the difference between "letting someone die" and "wishing death on someone".
How is government being the only legal arbor of force equal to everything else? How is the idea prevention in government usually calls for restricting rights and liberties equal to protections in your life that just call on your action on your own free will? Its not.
You said they are both not "reliable", if they are both not reliable, the logically consistent position is to treat them in the same way when it comes to reliability. And now you're ranting, with no logical arguement. Clearly you don't know what you want to say from one post to the next.
:lamo You demonstrate your lack of logic and understanding with every post, clearly it's true.
Look up the term and get back to me. I will admit its closer than it ever was intended to be, but its still falls short.
I don't have to look up anything. You are the one who have to prove why you are sane when you say that the US does not have democracy.
General protection, IE police and military are related to the reason government even exists. Without them there would be no purpose to government. Like I said plenty of times this has nothing to do with what I want.
If you actually read for comprehension, you might understand what the arguement is.
If they are moral or not is not the point. They are based on logic.
So why did you ask the question of whether something is "moral" if "morality" is not the point? You don't understand logic, that's the problem.
No. Not my say so. It's what your written words demonstrate.
They are all connected on personal level where they personally know and are dependent on the others for survival. We are not.
Then you are not living in reality. The reality is that almost everyone is dependent on other people they don't "personally know" for survival. Your clean water, whether from the tape or the bottle, were checked and tested by many people you never met. Your car's safety were ensured by people you probably never met. These people all have a "duty of care" towards you even though they have never met you. And the product of your labour is probably being purchased by people you've never met, whose money feed you and your family, and whether you realise it or not, you have a "duty of care" towards these people too.
Comparing animals to human generally fails and comparing them on how they protect each other is just another example.
If that's the case, why did you claim that the "natural responsibility" towards the group does not "exist outside of man made creation" as if it is a valid arguement in this thread? Do you notice how you flip on yourself every time your arguement fails?
The problems in this country exist because of government intervention and the third party system. In other systems they worry about price while giving up care. The mandate doesn't do much of anything other than spread cost to cover up bad policy.
That's your opinion, you are free to have it, it doesn't make it true.
Morals as you understand them never has made any sense. Its the kind of nonsense some hard line conservatives use on gay marriage. It not about logic and all about the feelings of the person that have them.
I doubt you know anything about my understanding of morality. You have failed to grasp the arguements I made from the beginning. Your arguements are void of logic for the most part and they never rose above your subjectivity and totally unrealistic world views.
