Poll

Select your preferred candidate(s) for U.S. President

Donald Trump
1 (4.8%)
Some other Republican
1 (4.8%)
Third Party
1 (4.8%)
Joe Biden
1 (4.8%)
Elizabeth Warren
5 (23.8%)
Bernie Sanders
1 (4.8%)
Pete Buttigieg
2 (9.5%)
Kamala Harris
2 (9.5%)
Andrew Yang
1 (4.8%)
Some other Dem candidate (e.g. Klobuchar, Booker, Castro, etc)
3 (14.3%)
Some other Dem not yet in the race (e.g. Clinton, Bloomberg, Abrams, etc)
0 (0%)
A literal pile of rotting meat
2 (9.5%)
Jake/Pence 2020
1 (4.8%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closes: November 03, 2020, 02:48:43 PM

Author Topic: Election 2020  (Read 1288 times)

Mike

  • Ass Wipe
  • Posts: 12120
  • Karma: +168/-32
  • Ex Asshole - a better and more caring person.
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #120 on: November 23, 2019, 11:15:33 PM »
I would think that the right to life implies the ability to seek medical aid.  And, if the ability to seek that aid is curtailed by going into financial ruin then we are not supporting that right nor the right of liberty.

I find it morally and ethically reprehensible that the collective response is "don't be poor".

Yes, the right to life and liberty completely means you have the ability to seek medical aid.  And if the government was going to make a law that said only certain people could seek medical help, or that only some medical procedures could be allowed (yes, that's an abortion concession I'm making) then that WOULD be a violation of our rights.  I also agree 100% that if cost or some other factor curtails the ability to seek aid that it totally sucks.  But we (this group) were talking about rights guaranteed by the constitution and my point was that the bill of rights is there to stop the government from interfering in freedom.   Just like you can't yell fire in a theater or carry a gun at Six Flags; the bill of rights does not guarantee or defend your personal rights from anyone other than the government.

Just to be clear, I was arguing that Knuck's argument that healthcare isn't a right because the constitution doesn't enumerate it is just plain wrong given the 9th amendment.  The constitution doesn't enumerate all rights.

charlie

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 8532
  • Karma: +84/-53
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #121 on: November 23, 2019, 11:23:42 PM »
I do believe a goal of modern, wealthy society should be to ensure its citizens* have access certain basic "privileges". In other words, one goal of the government should be to "promote the general welfare".

I personally believe that can include access to food, shelter, basic healthcare and an iPhone.

The iPhone part was a joke, but I don't think there should be a hard and fast rule on what the "general welfare" includes. I think it should depend on the will of the people and the ability of the society to provide the "privilege" weighed against the cost (not just in money but in how it affects the privileges of other citizens). Most of our citizens agree that we can afford to ensure everybody in the U.S. has access to food and shelter. In my opinion I think we can also ensure all people in the U.S. have reasonable access to healthcare.

In other words, the question of whether it's a right or a privilege is moot for me. Food and shelter aren't rights either. But we should have it as a goal of our society to ensure they are available for every person here. I think we can do a much better job of it without significant cost if the government takes a larger role.

Mike

  • Ass Wipe
  • Posts: 12120
  • Karma: +168/-32
  • Ex Asshole - a better and more caring person.
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #122 on: November 23, 2019, 11:27:20 PM »
Sorry it took so long to respond, it has been a really long week.

Or why shouldn't schools educate students on the impacts of LGBTQ people? 

because I don't think that it is necessary to stress that this person was gay, or that person was black, yellow, white, whatever. I think we should stress the importance of that person and what they have done, instead of what it says on their facebook profile...constantly having breaking down people into groups has might have an adverse effect - and I think it does. It just points out how different we are, where I think that the point would be to show how similar.

This is because you are part of the majority culture.  It is easy for us to go "focus on what is the same between us" when we aren't being ignored and beaten down.  I think it is important to intentionally show the works and contributions of the minority cultures so that we can lift them up and show that - while different - they are deserving of respect and dignity.

I was recently thinking about a story I saw about a black kid being shown a Miles Morales comic and his reaction to seeing someone that looked like him as Spider Man.

That said, some people in all groups are just dicks and will blame everyone else.

Side note: I do find it interesting on how the definition of "white" has changed over the last century. At some point the Irish and Italians (and certainly not the Poles) weren't considered white.  Then the term solely grew to encompass more and more European groups.  It is also interesting how that definition shifts depending on the part of the country.  Like, around here you'd be white but I've seen evidence of other parts of the country that would not include Polish people in their definition of white.