Oh so basically it wasn't worth saying. Good.
So why do you keep replying to me if you believe that?
You are now plainly lying.
If two things are the same, it's logically consistent to treat them the same.
You equated prevention in your life to prevention in the government. I understood it perfectly. Calling me stupid is not helpful to you.
It is when it's true.
I'm not claiming anything. I'm telling you it is not.
You are not in touch with reality.
I made it perfectly clear what needs to be provided for everyone and what I want is not the same thing.
Until you contradicted yourself by saying that there are "all kinds of things" you want the government to provide for you. In any case, I've already said that you want the government to provide only what you want it to (i.e. you think it ought to) provide for you. You don't want healthcare provided by the government - so "what needs" to be provided for everyone is not healthcare. You contradicted that and now you confirm it again.
Protecting of rights and liberties generally comes with punishing of violations. It has nothing to do with what I want and everything to do with logic.
The other two are you just projecting on me.
I didn't ask you what you want, I asked if those laws were "moral".
The problem with you is that what's "logical" is tied to what you "want" or what you think it ought to be. You can't see it, but your answers confirm that every time.
Explain your logic if you don't mind then. Where does this responsibility naturally come from? If you haven't noticed it doesn't exist outside of man made creation.
Wrong. It exists in other social animals too. Dolphins have been known to protect the members of their pods, even killing sharks to revenge their members. Elephants have been known to conduct funerals for their dead members. Birds share the burden of flying in front when migrating. Penguins huddle together to shield each other from the wind and cold and share their heat. Even lions hunt in pack and share their kills.
Mine are based on how the word actually works on how people actually think. Yours are based on how the world should work, on how people should work. Aka baseless bull**** as I said.
Contradicted by the following:
My argument doesn't ignore how it is current but simply says that the system needs to change to end that connection.
My arguements are base on the problems currently experienced in the system and the remedies used in other countries - mandate makes people buy insurance - that's proven in Switzerland. None of your arguements so far are supported by actual facts on the ground.
Until you can show me where these morals come from and not just ramble on about nothing related I will continue to say they are baseless.
Say whatever you want, it doesn't make anything you say true. Try to understand what "subjectivity" means, and you might understand my arguements.