Why does the right want to deny basic human rights to US Citizens?

[jghiretire]

I think it has more to do with the fact that the leftists that WANT these programs invariably will be on the receiving end...not the paying end.

..............and you'd be wrong ..................again.

 

[jghiretire]

Like a better economy and safer cities. You and your kind couldn't care less about things like that.

As long as it doesn't affect them and they don't have to pay for it.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

The communist agenda is fact, not paranoia.

The "communist agenda" died decades ago, Senator McCarthy. Find something else to whine about.

 

[jghiretire]

why do you not actually do some research.
The lowest income people
get free housing, free good, free utilities, etc ...
most have at least 1 car cell, phone, cable tv etc ...

they do not live in dirt floors, usually with little or no
electric. so you really don't know what you are talking about.

not to mention that they live in probably the only country in the world where you can go from
rags to riches very quickly.

You know this how???

 

[jghiretire]

Big deal, we're already paying more than we can afford for insurance that doesn't even cover the cost of our care. American insurance sucks. Single payer is superior by every measure.

OOH
There it is!! I think you've got it!!

 

[DifferentDrummr]

You know this how???

He's been asked repeatedly for evidence to support this wild claim, but he never provides it.

 

[apdst]

The "communist agenda" died decades ago, Senator McCarthy. Find something else to whine about.

It's alive and well. Commies call themselves "Liberals" now.

 

[jghiretire]

Yes, just keep importing millions of poor uneducated illegals. That’s the ticket.

.....speaking of "human" rights.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

It's alive and well. Commies call themselves "Liberals" now.

They never called themselves that. And nobody cares what fantasy world you live in.

 

[NotreDame]

Either they do it directly or make some other organization(s) responsible for doing it.

Ok, that assumes the government has a mandate to either this themselves or compel some organizations to do so. The text you quoted doesn’t have an express or tacit mandate for governments to provide what’s mentioned or to compel an organization to do so. Seems to me the rights discussed are limits on governmental laws or governmental action that is designed to irrationally impede, interfere, or obstruct people from obtaining those objects listed.!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ataraxia]

It's alive and well. Commies call themselves "Liberals" now.

Nah, they call themselves Bigfoot now. Come on man, get with the times!

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Ok, that assumes the government has a mandate to either this themselves or compel some organizations to do so. The text you quoted doesn’t have an express or tacit mandate for governments to provide what’s mentioned or to compel an organization to do so. Seems to me the rights discussed are limits on governmental laws or governmental action that is designed to irrationally impede, interfere, or obstruct people from obtaining those objects listed.!

Red: The document does in fact have a tacit mandate, because logic dictates it by process of elimination.

Only three types of entities are capable of supplying any commodity: government, the private sector, and organized crime. It is unreasonable to expect the private sector or organized crime to supply something to the general population, because they have no incentive to do so. The incentive of government is to foster a more stable and more prosperous state.

Blue: Seems you're ignoring the positive rights in the declaration and focusing only on the negative ones. You DO understand the difference, right?

 

[VanceMack]

..............and you'd be wrong ..................again.

Nah....I'm pretty sure I'm right. The vast majority of the crowd that the rat politicians chase for votes are the pathetic ****ing piece of **** leftist hand out crippled and dependent pets. So...yeah...naw...Pretty sure I nailed it. And I'm pretty sure you know it.

 

[trixare4kids]

So you'd be ok with forcibly putting people into psych wards or drug treatment centers??
I always though conservatives were for less government...................:think::think::think:

Strawman.

 

[NotreDame]

Red: The document does in fact have a tacit mandate, because logic dictates it by process of elimination.

Only three types of entities are capable of supplying any commodity: government, the private sector, and organized crime. It is unreasonable to expect the private sector or organized crime to supply something to the general population, because they have no incentive to do so. The incentive of government is to foster a more stable and more prosperous state.

Blue: Seems you're ignoring the positive rights in the declaration and focusing only on the negative ones. You DO understand the difference, right?

The document does in fact have a tacit mandate, because logic dictates it by process of elimination.

Only three types of entities are capable of supplying any commodity: government, the private sector, and organized crime. It is unreasonable to expect the private sector or organized crime to supply something to the general population, because they have no incentive to do so. The incentive of government is to foster a more stable and more prosperous state.

This reasoning is built upon the assumption the prose is mandating to those capable of supplying a commodity to supply the commodity. It’s a circular argument.

Another assumption underlying this reasoning, which isn’t at all suggested by anything in the text, is that the text takes the position the private sector has no incentive to provide what is referenced, therefore, the text is speaking to governments. But there’s no language in the text in support of your assumption.

After all, it is the text that is being interpreted, an exegesis of what the text is saying. Hence, any interpretation must adhere to the words used in the text, and a corollary is words not used to know what the text isn’t saying. The words mandate, commodity, private sector, government and provide are absent from the text, and no existing words used in the text imply anyone of those words. Hence, it’s untenable to interpret the text as mandating the government to supply a commodity because it is capable of doing so.

Seems you're ignoring the positive rights in the declaration and focusing only on the negative ones. You DO understand the difference, right?

Yes, I do. Where is it stated that what you’ve referenced is a positive right?

Reading the document, it seems to me that the document itself, and the rights you cited to, are not to be infringed upon by governments.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DifferentDrummr]

This reasoning is built upon the assumption the prose is mandating to those capable of supplying a commodity to supply the commodity. It’s a circular argument.

Not circular at all. If the commodity is not supplied by an organization that's able to supply it, how else will it be supplied?

Another assumption underlying this reasoning, which isn’t at all suggested by anything in the text, is that the text takes the position the private sector has no incentive to provide what is referenced, therefore, the text is speaking to governments. But there’s no language in the text in support of your assumption.

Are you arguing that the private sector DOES have an incentive to supply basic necessities to the less fortunate among a population? If so, you're going to have to do considerably better than a trite "It's not in some document."

After all, it is the text that is being interpreted, an exegesis of what the text is saying. Hence, any interpretation must adhere to the words used in the text, and a corollary is words not used to know what the text isn’t saying. The words mandate, commodity, private sector, government and provide are absent from the text, and no existing words used in the text imply anyone of those words. Hence, it’s untenable to interpret the text as mandating the government to supply a commodity because it is capable of doing so.

The text also contains no words to the effect that people should not consume arsenic. Your line of reasoning is what's untenable.

Yes, I do. Where is it stated that what you’ve referenced is a positive right?

It is a positive right because it requires one party to take action in order for another party's right not to be infringed. That's the definition of a positive right, amigo.

Reading the document, it seems to me that the document itself, and the rights you cited to, are not to be infringed upon by governments.

Pay attention: those are negative rights. In addition, the document contains positive rights. Please stop repeating the same unsupported assertions with no new arguments.

 

[NotreDame]

Not circular at all. If the commodity is not supplied by an organization that's able to supply it, how else will it be supplied?


Are you arguing that the private sector DOES have an incentive to supply basic necessities to the less fortunate among a population? If so, you're going to have to do considerably better than a trite "It's not in some document."



The text also contains no words to the effect that people should not consume arsenic. Your line of reasoning is what's untenable.


It is a positive right because it requires one party to take action in order for another party's right not to be infringed. That's the definition of a positive right, amigo.


Pay attention: those are negative rights. In addition, the document contains positive rights. Please stop repeating the same unsupported assertions with no new arguments.

Not circular at all. If the commodity is not supplied by an organization that's able to supply it, how else will it be supplied?

This assumes the prose is discussing something to be supplied. There’s nothing in the text supporting this assumption.

Are you arguing that the private sector DOES have an incentive to supply basic necessities to the less fortunate among a population? If so, you're going to have to do considerably better than a trite "It's not in some document."

No. I’m clearly arguing the text doesn’t support what you are saying about the text. The text says nothing about private sector, government, incentives, commodities, supply, all of which means that the text doesn’t have language supporting your view.

The text also contains no words to the effect that people should not consume arsenic. Your line of reasoning is what's untenable

Nor would it, since that’s not the subject matter of the text. The text also doesn’t contain language advising people not to run stop signs, nor would it since that’s not the subject matter being discussed by the text. Which is the point. The words used do not cover the subject matter of whether to run stop signs which means the text isn’t addressing whether to run stop signs. Similarly, the text isn’t discussing the subject matter of your argument and this can be deduced by the fact the text contains no wording that your using, precisely because the text isn’t discussing what you are asserting.

It is a positive right because it requires one party to take action in order for another party's right not to be infringed. That's the definition of a positive right, amigo.

That’s your conclusion. Where’s the evidence? That doesn’t tell me the text is listing a positive right as opposed to a negative right.

The action you reference may be nothing more than the government not passing any laws infringing upon this right. You’ve provided no evidence for the claim the text is someone or something take action to provide to people that which is referenced as a right.

Pay attention: those are negative rights. In addition, the document contains positive rights. Please stop repeating the same unsupported assertions with no new arguments

Pay attention: how does one know when a positive right is mentioned as opposed to a negative right and vice/versa? “Please stop repeating the same unsupported assertions with no new arguments” or evidence that shows how to distinguish between positive and negative rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[code1211]

I'm not here to instruct you on nutrition, in which your knowledge is obviously almost nonexistent.

To paraphrase Dick Cheney: Go educate yourself. Google and Wikipedia are good starts.

As it happens, I know quite a bit about both nutrition and the availability of food in the worst parts of town here in Indy.

You are so far out of your depth, it's laughable.

 

[MrWonka]

That is proof the drug testing works. The goal isn't to "save money." The goal is to get people off of drugs. It is an ideal way to get people off of drugs. They should test for alcohol if they don't too.

HAHAHAHA!!!!

Who exactly do you think you're lying to that's going to accept that crap? The goal of the legislation was to prove that most people on welfare are drug addicts and that the only reason they can't get jobs is because they're lazy addicts who can't pass a drug test. This has nothing to do with identifying drug users and getting them help. It's about cheap assholes who don't want to pay their taxes trying to justify their irrational hatred of people who are in poverty. These numbers prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bull**** right wing lie about welfare queens is nothing more than propaganda.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

As it happens, I know quite a bit about both nutrition and the availability of food in the worst parts of town here in Indy.

You are so far out of your depth, it's laughable.

Sure you do. That must be why you haven't shown any links or sources... :lol:

 

[DifferentDrummr]

This assumes the prose is discussing something to be supplied. There’s nothing in the text supporting this assumption.



No. I’m clearly arguing the text doesn’t support what you are saying about the text. The text says nothing about private sector, government, incentives, commodities, supply, all of which means that the text doesn’t have language supporting your view.



Nor would it, since that’s not the subject matter of the text. The text also doesn’t contain language advising people not to run stop signs, nor would it since that’s not the subject matter being discussed by the text. Which is the point. The words used do not cover the subject matter of whether to run stop signs which means the text isn’t addressing whether to run stop signs. Similarly, the text isn’t discussing the subject matter of your argument and this can be deduced by the fact the text contains no wording that your using, precisely because the text isn’t discussing what you are asserting.



That’s your conclusion. Where’s the evidence? That doesn’t tell me the text is listing a positive right as opposed to a negative right.

The action you reference may be nothing more than the government not passing any laws infringing upon this right. You’ve provided no evidence for the claim the text is someone or something take action to provide to people that which is referenced as a right.



Pay attention: how does one know when a positive right is mentioned as opposed to a negative right and vice/versa? “Please stop repeating the same unsupported assertions with no new arguments” or evidence that shows how to distinguish between positive and negative rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Clearly you read a book, went to a seminar, or somebody told you some half-baked analysis of what rights are, and you now treat it as gospel.

None of the above is really an argument at all; you're just throwing out random buzzwords of 'no evidence' and hoping that some of it sticks. Because I've "provided no evidence" that the text contains the letter R, you seem to feel free to assert that it doesn't. (Watch, folks: he's going to take that last sentence literally.)

Come up with an honest argument or I'll leave you to your sandbox.

 

[code1211]

Sure you do. That must be why you haven't shown any links or sources... :lol:

Your posts are a joke.

Get in the fight or get out of the arena.

If you would like to volunteer here in Indy, here are some good places to get off your bottom and help:

Wheeler Mission Ministries | Home | Homeless Shelters in Indianapolis

St. Vincent de Paul – Society of St. Vincent de Paul-Indianapolis Archdiocesan Council, Inc.

MENTOR Indiana - Become a Youth Mentor Today

 

[ludin]

Bull. S***.
I did not make the argument that:



That's all you, sport. Now support it or STFU.

You have yet to support your OP.
i am still waiting for you to do that.

Stop shifting the burden of proof and provide a link that supports your OP.

So you are saying that you are never heard of all of the social programs wee have that give people
free housing, free food, and either free or subsidized utilities?

are you serious?
this is all common knowledge. sources are not needed.

HUD-- provides free or reduced cost housing as well as uilities.
food stamps provides free food.

you are telling me you have never heard of these programs or are you just being obtuse?

 

[ludin]

You know this how???

are you serious? i seriously have to start questioning you guys and your actual seriousness at this point.
we have numerous social service programs in this country that provide

free/reduced cost housing, free/reduced utilities, and free food.

i think you guys need to go take a US civics class or something.
there is simply no way to have a discussion with people that have no idea
what they are even talking about.

 

[ludin]

Your posts are a joke.

Get in the fight or get out of the arena.

If you would like to volunteer here in Indy, here are some good places to get off your bottom and help:

Wheeler Mission Ministries | Home | Homeless Shelters in Indianapolis

St. Vincent de Paul – Society of St. Vincent de Paul-Indianapolis Archdiocesan Council, Inc.

MENTOR Indiana - Become a Youth Mentor Today

these people are more than a joke at this point.
i mean the level of nonsense in some of these posts are amazing that they don't
even know or have even heard of basic social programs.

there is no point in engaging these people anymore. they have proven they are not interested in honest discussion
or even debate.