CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
To even being having the discussion about healthcare as a right or privilege shows how very disturbed we have become as Americans. Who gave one person alive the right to say that in order to live healthy like everyone else you need to pay a health insurance premium? Again!! That's right, again because out of our taxes is a medicare tax, a health care tax, and from our overall federal and state tax obligation, how much of that money goes to paying for healthcare emergency room visits and non insured healthcare costs? Then our country, the only western world country, asks us to buy insurance so we can stay healthy. How perverse and perverted to maintain a system like this, to enrich executives who have the power of life and death over our general population. This is bullshit and Bernie Sanders is so correct when he says it is time for a Medicare for All system from the richest country on the planet.
So, you're telling me that you have a right to have the government confiscate money from everyone (including you) so they can provide you with whatever "care" they choose, while both removing your choice from the matter and hiding how much you're paying for it.
With a government that's shown itself to be both financially and organizationally irresponsible, what could possibly go wrong?
I think healthcare should be a right . Many years ago during a recession over here I had totally free healthcare as I was unemployed I didn't need to avail of the system but was glad it was there .
You can pay over here through your salary for various health coverage plans which gets more expensive by the year ; to pay into a plan is optional those who don't through unemployment etc,etc use government services and are covered by the tax payer .
Many years ago during a recession over here I had totally free healthcare as I was unemployed. Those who don't through unemployment etc,etc use government services and are covered by the tax payer .
Covered pay taxpayers and the contradiction is there you wrote it.
You can pay over here through your salary for various health coverage plans which gets more expensive by the year ; to pay into a plan is optional those who don't through unemployment etc,etc use government services and are covered by the tax payer .
This rather charitable notion seems reasonable only when you eliminate those who choose to "Game The System". Millions of people choose to have the government support their needs, rather than support themselves.
Today millions of people are migrating from the Midwest to the South, which is exactly the opposite of one hundred years ago. People have, are and will move for jobs. Those able-bodied who chose to stay, do so partly because the government support makes it possible.
A right would be deemed morally correct , just and honourable ; yes there are different types of rights as in natural human rights which are confirmed and protected by countries Constitutions .
Not every fundamental right that you possess is set out in the Constitution - you have many personal rights that are not specifically stated in the Constitution. These rights may be derived or implied from the Constitution. For example, the Constitution does not specifically state a right to privacy but the courts recognise that the personal rights in the constitution imply the right to privacy.
Well actually it is a right depending on where one lives ......
The right to adequate clothing, or the right to clothing, is recognized as a human right in various international human rights instruments; this, together with the right to food and the right to housing, are parts of the right to an adequate standard of living as recognized under Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The right to clothing is similarly recognized under Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDH
If all these things are mine by right, can I not be provided a house, clothing, food, healthcare, and an otherwise adequate standard of living and consider it moral, just, and honorable?
Yes I do distinguish as a privilege would be a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group
How are the rights you described (belonging to those who meet the criteria) different from privileges (available only to a particular person or group)?
I've not thought about rights that belong to everyone
The rights I described apply to all people if they meet the criteria , if you or any citizen of the country was unfortunate enough to be unemployed you would receive the same rights , if you cannot tell the difference between a right and a privilege then maybe that's something you should look into .
I don't know why my second statement is worth bookmarking but hey if it works for you good .
The rights I described apply to all people if they meet the criteria
If these criteria do not apply to all people, then these rights only apply to certain people, those who meet the criteria.
if you cannot tell the difference between a right and a privilege then maybe that's something you should look into
I know my thoughts. I am trying to know yours. What I gather so far is that a Privilege is โa special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or groupโ, whereas a Right applies to โpeople if they meet the criteriaโ.
Doesnโt that mean that not meeting the criteria places you outside the particular group that the Right applies to?
Now you're definitely just trolling and being deliberately argumentative for the sake of it .
I made my thoughts perfectly clear after several questions from you and answered each one directly you obviously have an axe to grind and are just becoming rather annoying now
Now you're definitely just trolling and being deliberately argumentative for the sake of it
Dermot, on a debate website, it doesnโt get less argumentative than asking clarifying questions, which is what I have been doing.
I made my thoughts perfectly clear after several questions from you and answered each one directly
Thatโs true. But based on your clear and direct statements alone, the distinction between Rights and Privileges requires clarification. If rights are for people who qualify, and privileges are for particular groups, whatโs the difference? I actually want to know where you draw a distinction. If I am misrepresenting your position in my question, tell me how. It may clear up any confusion.
Yes there is nothing wrong with asking clarifying questions , I explained earlier the definition of right and privilege .
You start out by asking ... if rights are for people who qualify ....
All citizens of a country are granted certain rights under the constitution , rights are there to be taken or claimed they are not automatically granted and are fundamental in nature .
A privilege is a special benefit not available to all members of society and is restricted to a chosen few , many are denied and indeed excluded these privileges.
All citizens of a country are granted certain rights under the constitution, rights are there to be taken or claimed they are not automatically granted and are fundamental in nature
Ok. So Rights are for all citizens and are fundamental. Does that mean you donโt have to meet certain criteria? Your rights are fundamentally yours by virtue of the fact that you are a citizen?
A privilege is a special benefit not available to all members of society and is restricted to a chosen few , many are denied and indeed excluded these privileges.
Does this mean that if there is a right, but you arenโt able to utilize it, then it is actually a privilege? I'm asking in my own words to make sure I am interpreting your position properly.
Rights are there to be taken or claimed so if you have a right to unemployment benefit as a citizen one would assume you would be unemployed .
If there is a right you as a citizen may claim it as in the example above if you are unemployed , this applies to all citizens who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed.
I have explained now several times my position regarding your questions I thought my last posting would further clarify matters for you but I see that is still not the case , you're definitely trolling now .
BTW when you say you're asking in your own words what do you mean ?
Rights are there to be taken or claimed so if you have a right to unemployment benefit as a citizen one would assume you would be unemployed
Since this right is limited to a certain group of people rather than everyone, why donโt you call it a privilege?
this applies to all citizens who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed.
Would the idle wealthy also receive unemployment benefits, or are they the wrong class for this Right?
you're definitely trolling now
Iโm really not. I am trying to understand how you conceive of Rights differently thanPrivileges. So far, you have described them in essentially the same way. Privileges are for anyone who is in a particular group and Rights are for everyoneโฆif you are in a particular group. I tried to ask about Rights that are actually for everyone, universally, and you said you havenโt thought about it. It seems to me that you believe only in Privileges but you call them rights. Since that is somewhat absurd, I am asking questions in the hopes that you will reduce the apparent absurdity.
BTW when you say you're asking in your own words what do you mean ?
If I simply quoted what you said, and then asked for clarification, you wonโt know how I am understanding your original statement. If a re-word what you said in a way that makes more sense to me, and you confirm that it means the same thing as what you intended, then we can be more assured that effective communication has occurred.
Every citizen in the country is entitled to a right if they meet the criteria as in the example I gave ; I've already given the definition of a privilege several times .
Your next point is ridiculous to say the least and incidentally every citizen over here gets a state pension regardless of private income or pension plans and that includes the rich .
You're entitled to free parking over here if you're handicapped it's a right by law , I suppose non handicapped people should have free parking as well otherwise using your logic it's a privilege.
How totally disengeous of you to claim I described them in the same way .... you say .... privileges are for anyone in a particular group and rights are for everyone ... correct , you then add in ....if you're in a particular group ... when you genuinely know otherwise ; a privilege is not available to all members of society but is restricted to a chosen few in society , some members of society may enjoy a right others are excluded or denied these rights as in members of parliament are granted certain rights that are not available to the common man .
If absurdity is present it's in your refusal to accept the difference , this is why I thought you were trolling .
Ok , that's fair enough, I've explained my position and if you still feel effective communication has not taken place well that does not bode well for future communication .
Every citizen in the country is entitled to a right if they meet the criteria
This is the same as saying that not every person is entitled since not every person will meet the criteria.
A right that is only afforded to those who meet the criteria, is a privilege according to your own definition. โA privilege would be a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or groupโ. How else do you determine a group but with criteria?
Your next point is ridiculous to say the least and incidentally every citizen over here gets a state pension regardless of private income or pension plans and that includes the rich
Do the rich collect unemployment?
You're entitled to free parking over here if you're handicapped it's a right by law , I suppose non handicapped people should have free parking as well otherwise using your logic it's a privilege
โA privilege would be a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or groupโ. Handicap parking is a privilege by your logic.
How totally disengeous of you to claim I described them in the same way .... you say .... privileges are for anyone in a particular group and rights are for everyone ... correct , you then add in ....if you're in a particular group
Perhaps now you see why I kept asking questions. I am not being disingenuous here. Handicap people are a group, as are the unemployed. Not everyone has the privilege of parking in a handicap spot, thatโs a privilege reserved for a group.
Would you find it less disingenuous if I had add โif you meet the criteriaโ rather than โif youโre in a particular groupโ? All I did, was repeat what you said in different language.
members of parliament are granted certain rights that are not available to the common man
Can anyone run for parliament? What criteria must be met for a person to be considered a member of parliament?
Oh dear , your problem seems to be one of definitions which you somehow are getting very confused on , my advice to you is to go the legal route and challenge the constitution of my country and insist they replace the ' problematic ' word right with your preferred term privilege ; feel free to use the arguments you used here , if successful you may even challenge your own bill of rights and have it changed to bill of privileges ....... so the right to bear arms is now a privilege.... good luck with that
You really need to start your campaign in your own country as six states have No Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms , which makes it a privilege using your criteria .... keep me informed as to the outcome ๐
Please keep in mind that I have only been using your criteria throughout this entire thread. My criteria is listed elsewhere on this debate. I know my thoughts on the matter very well. They differ from yours.
Your last two posts amount to giving up. You cannot distinguish rights for those who meet the criteria as something different from privileges for those who meet the criteria, so you have stopped trying. When you appeal to authority (on the assumption that your constitution is using your definition), then you haven't not declared yourself to be correct, you have declared your constitution to be as inconsistent as yourself.
Your criteria is your criteria so if it suits you use it , you thoughts differ so what ?
My last two posts were certainly not giving up but issuing you a challenge which no doubt you will refuse , again it's not an appeal to authority it's a challenge to you and my definitions of the two terms are reasonable and correct making you incorrect and the one to be totally inconsistent and bordering on irrationally.
Just for you again .....
All citizens of a country are granted certain rights under the constitution , rights are there to be taken or claimed they are not automatically granted and are fundamental in nature .
A privilege is a special benefit not available to all members of society and is restricted to a chosen few , many are denied and indeed excluded these privileges.
Also I take by your silence it should now be reworded as the privilege of bearing arms ?
and my definitions of the two terms are reasonable and correct making you incorrect and the one to be totally inconsistent and bordering on irrationally
Well, that's a thoroughly supported position Dermot. Good job.
If your challenge was for me to go to your country and correct the foundations of your government, and then correct the issues within my own, you are correct that I will decline. That doesn't make your definitions consistent.
With your definitions, neither rights nor privileges apply to everyone. So when you say that healthcare should be a right, you are not saying anything different than healthcare should be a privilege.
With my definitions, which I have not presented in this post, Healthcare cannot possibly be a right (fundamentally), even if it provided to everyone by the government. But I digress. This whole thread isn't about how I am right, it's about how you are wrong.
I know , my definitions are fine and understood by most .
Yes you still fail to understand the difference between my two definitions that's clear , with your definition healthcare cannot be a right but your definition is just that your definition with no further implication .
The whole thread is about how you fail to understand terms simply explained which seems to be the norm ; by the way you have a habit of declaring yourself the winner of every encounter when it's rarely the case
by the way you have a habit of declaring yourself the winner of every encounter when it's rarely the case
It's often the case. With you it is always the case. You fall apart and start repeating yourself when my questions make it apparent that your position is incoherent.
Saying that "most" would understand is an appeal to populism. It is a type of appeal to authority.
I won't ask you the difference again, but if you can answer the following, I may change my position:
Yours is either a rhetorical question, because I haven't misunderstood, or a bad question, because if I have misunderstood then I wouldn't know the answer. There's your answer.
Incorrect , it's asking you a direct question as you fail to recognise the difference between two terms ; the two work adequately for Europeans but as you're American there's obviously alternative definitions that suit your peculiar mindset .
Your turn :
How do you repeatedly fail to comprehend the difference between two simple terms ?
How do you repeatedly fail to comprehend the difference between two simple terms ?
I fail to comprehend the difference between these two simple terms, because I don't know how to group people without using criteria. Until now I thought it couldn't be done. But you said that I am irrational and confused. I didn't know that until now either. Hopefully I can be made less confused with the answer to my recent question.
Yes you fail to comprehend the definition of the two meanings because you have alternative definitions for the two terms which suit your agenda as in a sizeable amount of Americans deeming healthcare a privilege rather than a fundamental human right .
Your alternative meanings have thankfully no influence in Europe on the accepted meanings of the two terms maybe it's time you guys caught up ?
How do you repeatedly fail to understand the difference between the two terms ?
You are actually not going to answer my question. The answer to my question would completely show me to be as confused as you say. But you won't answer it.
But I have repeatedly , if you cannot see the difference between the two terms .......
All citizens of a country are granted certain rights under the constitution , rights are there to be taken or claimed they are not automatically granted and are fundamental in nature .
A privilege is a special benefit not available to all members of society and is restricted to a chosen few , many are denied and indeed excluded these privileges.
A privilege can be revoked. By contrast, a right is irrevocable .
Yes I'm through , I don't mind at all if you have anything further to add .
in your own country as six states have No Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms
You're out of your depth here Dermot. You don't understand the principle of Incorporation or the Supremacy Clause, nor how they apply to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Nor does your misunderstanding of Rights and Privileges allow you to understand the basis from which this kind of Right could arise. To you it is as arbitrary as any other law or privilege.
I'm actually not , but I do know you will attempt to bullshit your way out as usual.
I understand rights and privileges quiet well and know the difference , your problem is you're American and you do not as most of yous do not even understand the second amendment and are still arguing about it , so I cannot blame you really as it seems to be a trait that's inherited
That's true. I do have a problem with the definitions you are using, that's why I keep seeking clarification.
You think that handicap parking is a right, even though not everyone can park there. You think that Parliamentary benefits are a privilege, even though any citizen who meets the criteria could be a member.
You could just as easily say that Parliamentary benefits are rights that are provided to all citizens who meet the criteria and handicap parking is a privilege for those few people who are handicapped.
It is not coherent to say that everyone has a right but only if you meet certain criteria, and then distinguish this notion from a privilege which everyone has, but only if they meet certain criteria.
Yes true , well get your own definitions then as these work for me and others , then again whats the point if you cannot differentiate between the two ?
So you see the right to bear arms as a privilege and would favour it worded this way ?
So you see the right to bear arms as a privilege and would favour it worded this way ?
No clarifying question that I have asked can be taken to mean that I am of this opinion. If you want to question me on my thoughts concerning this matter, don't pretend that I hold your definitions in mind. I have rejected them.
You cannot tell the difference between a right and a privilege and if you have your own definitions so be it , so you are trolling after all as what I stated simply below is plainly and simply put and the difference is apparent to most ,
All citizens of a country are granted certain rights under the constitution , rights are there to be taken or claimed they are not automatically granted and are fundamental in nature .
A privilege is a special benefit not available to all members of society and is restricted to a chosen few , many are denied and indeed excluded these privileges.
No Dermot. I was challenging your position using clarifying questions. This is a debate website.
what I stated simply below is plainly and simply put and the difference is apparent to most
Yet you can't articulate it.
not automatically granted and are fundamental in nature
Here is another inconsistency.
You believe that Rights are things that are granted to some (those who meet the criteria), and privileges are things that are granted to some. Repeating yourself will not make you right Dermot.
A privilege is a special benefit not available to all members of society and is restricted to a chosen few , many are denied and indeed excluded these privileges
Many are denied parking in handicap spots. You know that right?
It is a debate website your clarifying questions were addressed
I did articulate it several times your failure to comprehend is something you need to think about
Why not use the two definitions as i posted them ?
I was right from the start , the repeating is for you as I suspected from the start and said it , you're trolling
A privilege is a special benefit normally as a reward for or conditional upon good behaviour
Healthcare is recognised as a fundamental European right , its
the US and a majority of its citizens typically that sees healthcare as a privilege which in the year 2017 is rather embarrassing for a country which makes a lot of bold claims about itself .
I've not thought about rights that belong to everyone
As promised I have bookmarked this for later.
Rights are a moral concept that provide a basis for what individuals should respect in other individuals (their rights), and what the government must respect in it's people. All Rights are derived from or in support of the right to ones life, which everyone has unless or until they forfeit it.
Rights do not require any positive action on the part of anyone else. If they did, then you could morally demand that others do things for you (such as provide you with healthcare, or pick your cotton).
Special benefits provided for you by your government, such as welfare, healthcare, or free parking for the handicapped are all privileges. As are certain benefits of public office, such as the governors mansion.
Recap: Rights belong to all full citizens and require nothing from anyone else. Privileges are special benefits or perks, and often require funding from someone else.
Healthcare cannot be a right as it must be funded by someone else. Labeling things Rights that are actually privileges, resulted from socialistic philosophies that have appropriated the language of enlightenment philosophies and is the cause of much confusion in common political discourse.
It's is not just I labelling what you call special priviliges rights but the entire European union and its code regarding basic fundamental human rights , healthcare is indeed a right for me and others as are many other what you deem privileges .
I don't know what you have against socialistic philosophies if progressive measures like universal healthcare are the results of its labours and long may it continue .
No clarifying questions , I will continue to avail of the fundamental human rights so many Americans are denied , putting Americans in a rather embarrassing group of countries with regressive policies regarding basic human rights
Well actually we are the ones with the rights that yous are denied making you in actual fact incorrect because these rights are in our collective constitutions as rights and not privileges ; so congratulations I've proved you incorrect yet again ....zing
I've never met anyone more fond of appealing to authority than you. You would have made a great SS soldier. "Hitler says I'm right so that must make you wrong, Jew. Zing".
This is why asking you questions that force you to clarify your position doesn't work. You aren't thinking for yourself.
That's remarkable as I haven't done so yet thus your continued confusion , I'm telling what is fact in European law which again you say is wrong so Amarel must be right ... zing
I directed you to what European thought on rights are as you don't believe me or for that matter European law makers you are the true Hitlerite ...zing
Amarel says he's right so all those pesky European constitutional law makers are wrong , leaving you once again incorrect... zing
My position was clarified and it's the European position and it works beautifully for all but Americans who have a bill of . .. privileges
Regressive American mouthpieces are thinking for you .
My position was clarified and it's the European position and it works beautifully for all but Americans who have a bill of . .. privileges
It does? Last I checked, you had little military power without America and you had a refugee/immigration crisis on your hands. Wonderful politics there. Do you like getting kicked in the nuts too?
Incorrect yet again , if you care to pay attention I only use them on the site idiots such as you and other American religious loonies .
Incidentally it's rather telling that an idiot such as you who constantly types ' checkmate ' at the end of most of his inane rants accuses others of what they demonstrate namely the intellectual level of an American 12 year old ๐
If you are so fond of the Darwin fish, are you openly admitting that you are the result of random chemical reactions, and if so, then why do you trust your own thoughts that were caused by chaos and no meaning or purpose or designer? Would you trust a car that hadn't been intelligently designed? Me neither. Your pinned. Checkmate.
The opinion of a an American religious nut ( that's you ) matters not to me ; your level of debate is typical of unfortunately a fair proportion of what's commonly known as American trailer trash and unworthy of serious commentary .
I'm not religious. I'm just smart enough to know that choosing a swift kick in the nuts (atheism) over some form of reward (theism), and on purpose, defies common sense.
No I don't. It's American humor. If you don't get it or cannot keep up, that's not my fault. Maybe we should just have a spelling contest. Hmmm... Nope, you don't even know how to spell "humor".
Well actually I spell it in real English as opposed to bastardised American English which excludes the U ; you truly are stupid but again I forgive you you're American
Yeah well, Europe followed our models and used our technologies to advance itself. If we are stupid, you are the less intelligent little brother to a stupid big brother. Perhaps you can beat the Russians, Arabs or the Chinese alone... doubt it..
Why? You said you weren't British. Oh yeah, you're the Brits' little *itch. I forgot. My mistake.
You are on...... an American site. Stupid Americans, yet Europeans flock to see our movies, get our technology, and run to us when the nonWestern world isn't behaving... but whatever..
I'm not British I know this is tricky for you Americans , Brits little itch , that's so mean and hurtful ๐ข
No , remember I did say you were a particular type of American which is what I'm referring to as in .. Trailer trash ... do keep up .
Your movies ? I give most of them a miss there's only so many times one can watch a movie where the US actually wins a war as opposed to never winning a war ... unless you count a country the size of my back garden ( Grenada ) a victory ?
Your technology ๐ Who has run to the US looking for your military help ?
You are very dim indeed I've already told you I do not understand your inane ramblings , I'm making allowances for you being a particular type of American
European lawmakers decided that handing their nations over to cultures that oppose them was a good idea. Are you claiming it was a good idea? Are you admitting that you are a mindless clown?
Again another mindless comment which possibly makes sense to you , I'm not interested in your inane ramblings , I see most others on C D are of a similar mindset .
You can't answer it. You don't know how. You are simply a fish that has evolved legs, but you haven't developed a human brain yet. You'll need 300 million more years.... apparently....
There are worse things. You could be Swedish and been ignorant enough to sacrifice your culture in order to be multicultural, and then become the rape capital of the West.
Wonder where that leaves the US ๐..........Oh dear firmly in number one spot in the world ๐
US
The super power of the world is at the first position in the race of rapes. Males are majorly the rapist holding a proportion of 99%. Out of all the victims, 91% are females while 9% are males. The U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and nearly 99% of rapists are male. According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 1 in 6 U.S. women and 1 in 33 U.S. men has experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. More than a quarter of college-age women report having experienced a rape or rape attempt since age 14. Out of all, only 16% of the total cases are reported. Outdoor rape is not common in USA rather most of the rape cases takes place inside homes.
The super power of the world is at the first position in the race of rapes
I know basic math is hard for you. I'll simplify. When your states are as big as European countries, and you have fifty of them, yes, you will lead in every category numberswise.
It's actually not , and it's hilarious coming from you who doesn't even know how these figures are gathered, it's nothing to do with the size of your population you dummy , you really are incredibly dense
1)You gave all kinds of stats with no citations or links. You're a horrible debator.
2)You gave me a stat that said only 16% of rapes are reported. Deductive reasoning shows this is a lie because you can't know how many rapes aren't reported if they aren't reported.
3)My point was about handing over your country to foreigners, and guess who statistically is guilty of violent crimes in liberal countries and America. I'll give you a hint. They aren't White.
Wonder where that leaves the US ๐..........Oh dear firmly in number one spot in the world ๐
US
The super power of the world is at the first position in the race of rapes. Males are majorly the rapist holding a proportion of 99%. Out of all the victims, 91% are females while 9% are males. The U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and nearly 99% of rapists are male. According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 1 in 6 U.S. women and 1 in 33 U.S. men has experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. More than a quarter of college-age women report having experienced a rape or rape attempt since age 14. Out of all, only 16% of the total cases are reported. Outdoor rape is not common in USA rather most of the rape cases takes place inside homes.
91% of rape victims are female? How do you know that? You just told us that most of rapes aren't reported. You're in quite a bs circle at this point. Each one of your previous points makes your next points lies or nonfacts. Keeping your argument consistent and logical is your friend.
Well I know it because it's from the US Bureau of justice ( you need to pay attention while reading ) which you are accusing of lying ๐ so you accuse me the messenger of lying when you should be accusing your own government of lying and feeding its citizens non facts ๐ yet again proving deductive reasoning is defineitly not your friend ๐ you truly are dreadful at debating ..... checkmate again
So now tell us how the Bereau of Justice (Which you still cannot provide a link or citation for) knows how many people "do not report rape", seeing they were never reported. It's okay to use your brain and think for yourself. The media told us Donald Trump had no chance of winning. Wrong. The polls told us he had no chance of winning. Wrong. Now you are telling me a Bereau says "84% of rapes are not reported"... Maybe you should go back to elementary school where they try to teach you the basics of common sense. It's okay to get your butt kicked in here. You do it all the time. Congrats.
A good debater provides the link to his statistical claims. Apparently you haven't mastered copy and paste. If you're not that far along, can I assume you are a chimpanzee randomly typing at a keyboard? No I can't, because the chimp would have provided the links...
Wonder where that leaves the US ๐..........Oh dear firmly in number one spot in the world ๐
US
The super power of the world is at the first position in the race of rapes. Males are majorly the rapist holding a proportion of 99%. Out of all the victims, 91% are females while 9% are males. The U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and nearly 99% of rapists are male. According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 1 in 6 U.S. women and 1 in 33 U.S. men has experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. More than a quarter of college-age women report having experienced a rape or rape attempt since age 14. Out of all, only 16% of the total cases are reported. Outdoor rape is not common in USA rather most of the rape cases takes place inside homes.
Okay, show us this magical fairytale land where women are the primary rapists... Are they using their vagina to penetrate the man? How does that work. Get outta here with that crap.
Wonder where that leaves the US ๐..........Oh dear firmly in number one spot in the world ๐
US
The super power of the world is at the first position in the race of rapes. Males are majorly the rapist holding a proportion of 99%. Out of all the victims, 91% are females while 9% are males. The U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and nearly 99% of rapists are male. According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 1 in 6 U.S. women and 1 in 33 U.S. men has experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. More than a quarter of college-age women report having experienced a rape or rape attempt since age 14. Out of all, only 16% of the total cases are reported. Outdoor rape is not common in USA rather most of the rape cases takes place inside homes.
1 in 33 U.S. men has experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime
And of course you purposefully left out which races commit the most rape in the West percentagewise. I know it would kill the liberal narrative to say a higher percentage of minorities commit rapes than whites, so I don't blame you. Avoiding Sweden alltogether eh? Can't blame you there either. What about Denmark? No? I didn't figure.
Wonder where that leaves the US ๐..........Oh dear firmly in number one spot in the world ๐
US
The super power of the world is at the first position in the race of rapes. Males are majorly the rapist holding a proportion of 99%. Out of all the victims, 91% are females while 9% are males. The U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and nearly 99% of rapists are male. According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 1 in 6 U.S. women and 1 in 33 U.S. men has experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. More than a quarter of college-age women report having experienced a rape or rape attempt since age 14. Out of all, only 16% of the total cases are reported. Outdoor rape is not common in USA rather most of the rape cases takes place inside homes.
Out of all, only 16% of the total cases are reported. Outdoor rape is not common in USA rather most of the rape cases takes place inside homes.
Which has nothing to do with... well anything. So tell us how you know how many were unreported if...they weren't reported.... yeah makes perfect sense...
Why don't you give us rape stats on Sweden pre Islamic immigration and after. Then tell us the rape stats now.
Wonder where that leaves the US ๐..........Oh dear firmly in number one spot in the world ๐
US
The super power of the world is at the first position in the race of rapes. Males are majorly the rapist holding a proportion of 99%. Out of all the victims, 91% are females while 9% are males. The U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and nearly 99% of rapists are male. According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 1 in 6 U.S. women and 1 in 33 U.S. men has experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. More than a quarter of college-age women report having experienced a rape or rape attempt since age 14. Out of all, only 16% of the total cases are reported. Outdoor rape is not common in USA rather most of the rape cases takes place inside homes.
Healthcare should be one of the most fundamental rights a person has. It is not like a car or house. It is, in some situations, the right to live. It is like saying should a person be left to die because they do not have enoughf money.
Well, It's apparently a "right" in Australia where Trump ADMITS they have "better health care than ours"! (The "socialistic kind")! As do, last I knew, 36 other countries not as "rich" as we are. WE, have to take care of our "needy" ... the 1% that is supposed to be taking care of America .... not China. THEY get the best health care, along with our Washington "care people"! Screw the amputees, the sick, the infirm, the unemployed because the 1% sold their jobs for profit and locked it up overseas because they didn't want to share it! (I know that was a long sentence, on purpose)!
I'm too old to move to Australia, but, if I'd seen Trump coming, and a conservative America, I likely WOULD have moved to a place where they STILL have "rights".
To live you need good health. To have good health you, most likely, will need healthcare. I believe everyone has a right to life, and if you are religious you should see that God would want his children to live as you would believe that he gave the gift of life and that we humans should protect everyone's gift and right to life.
Of course it's a right. How can anyone claim to live in a civilised country when they are not even given something as basic as good, professional healthcare?
The right constantly attempt to justify their amorality on this issue. It shouldn't be considered a grey area with equally ethical choices; it should be considered something that all humans, rich or poor, should be given a right to.
The argument here is whether life's losers have a right to access other people's hard earned dosh to meet the cost of whatever illness they be be suffering.
Life's prudent, high earning achievers will make provision for all contingencies including sickness and old age.
If Healthcare is a ''right'' then such a right must apply to all the world's population. Why would it not? The question wasn't qualified by listing any exclusions.
Who's going to pay for the health care and treatment of the sick and infirm of Africa's failed nations where millions of starving and diseased people die ''EVERY DAY'' from malnutrition and a range of diseases?
How this question brings out the extreme lack of education and knowledge of people talking here is astounding. Don't you fools see that even having this conversation here in the conversational way precludes the fact that the world pays for healthcare for its people in every country except here. So to even be having this conversation as a right or privilege shows the arrogance of our privileged thinking. Look in the damn mirror at yourself, why are you better than anyone, rich or poor? Here's the headline; You're not!
Most countries have horrible healthcare and waiting lists a mile long. We also have 350 million people to cover rather than 10 million. And if our medical goes socialist, Doctors will have no reason to go through a decade of schooling to get government wages rather than Capitalist wages. We can't get enough doctors as it is. Once their pay spirals down, you'll have no doctors and the ones you have will not be the best or brightest, that is, unless you want to force people to become doctors. There's a reason so many rich people from foreign countries come to America to treat terminal illness.
Every nation in the world has it's winners and losers, it's hierarchy of achievers and it's lowly minions, otherwise known as sheepeople, of which you are clearly one.
The incapable 'hanger on' hirelings get what they deserve, i.e., the crumbs from the rich man's table, for which they should be thankful.
It's ''holier-than-thou'' filth such as you who spew out their sanctimonious drivel which has the low lives believing that the world owes them a living.
The poor nations of Africa either don't have effective health care systems in place or they have none at all. That's why in times of so called natural disasters their begging bowls are always pointing west.
Your pitiful bullshit may pluck the heartstrings of losers such as yourself who cannot provide for themselves nor their families so they want to rob others from a high % of their hard earned dosh to pay for their shortcomings.
Instead of feeling sorry for yourself and sitting in your computer room typing shit go out to work and make money that can pay for all contingencies including sickness, retirement and so forth.
The first thing you say is that "All privileges have to be earned". Witch I can agree with, but what I am arguing is that healthcare should be a right not a privilege.
Next you say the people who need support are "life's losers". Asserting that anyone who needs health care and can't afford it must just not be doing something right. Thay can't just be in bad situation or have supprise health issues spring up on them.
Next is the fact that you say high earners will prepare for situations like this. Which while true, implies that those who make less money deserve to not only live lower quality lives, but don't even get to keep living if they get something like a curable illness.
You say that if health care is a right then it should be given to all people like it a rediculas idea. And yet it should be that way. Even if there is no way to do it, it dose not mean it is not something that we should strive for.
Lastly you go on about how there is no way to pay for all the people in less devoloped country's and there health needs. And even if this is true, it dose not change the fact that in places where it is possible it should be done, and that we should try to help people who are in situations like what you listed.
Your argument is flawed in so many areas it would be nigh impossible and also cruel to list them all.
Suffice to say that if you and the bleeding heart brigade wish to provide both domestic and international health care for the world's more unfortunate creatures then go right ahead, no one is stopping you.
Let's get away from the faceless vote conscious politicians of big government and personalize it;- what you're doing here is trying to justify you taking my money to pay for the social and health care requirements of you and your family because you cannot provide for yourself.
Why in heaven's name do you think you have the right to take my money?
I earned my money the hard way, no one gave me a cent, so why do people like you assume that you have a right to steal money from my hip pocket and deprive me of the ability to spend/invest MY money as I so wish?
Get off your fat bum, forget about the ''oh poor me syndrome'' and go out and earn your corn'.
What are you talking about? God? You have got to be the biggest fool out here. What do you say about Iceland giving salaries to their citizens? Sharing the countries wealth just for breathing as a citizen. Tell me about God and that position genius. To even equate God into this conversation is bastardizing this conversation with absurdity and bastardizing God. No wonder Trump is president with folks thinking like you.
It could be declared a statutory right, but it certainly isn't a moral right or a natural right. You can't have a right to something that requires other individuals to take action on your behalf.
I like this point the best. A right, by law alone, is very distinct from a moral right. The left simply conflates the two, in order to imply healthcare is equivalent to life and liberty.
Do you think that natural rights are automatically moral rights?
I think the concept of Rights probably derived from moral language such as a person defending their position in a fight by saying "I have the right of it". Eventually, "that's right" and "you're right" became "your Rights".
Natural Rights are those conditions that are necessary and proper to human survival and flourishing. We require life, liberty, property, etc. to survive and thrive. As such it is morally correct to uphold and defend these conditions, and to recognize that they are common to all people if they are common to any. Thus, everyone has them, unless or until they do something that makes it "not right" that they have these things. Life, liberty, and property can only be morally taken if a person has done something to morally forfeit them. Therefore the right to due process is derived from natural rights, and is provided by statute, in an attempt to maximize those rights that man would have even in a state of nature, and to take them only when it is right to do so.
I think the concept of Rights probably derived from moral language such as a person defending their position in a fight by saying "I have the right of it". Eventually, "that's right" and "you're right" became "your Rights".
It's interesting that you point out that Rights could have have derived from a resolved fight. You are suggesting that the link between morality and Rights is communication and an accord ( some sort of social contract ). Is that correct ?
Natural Rights are those conditions that are necessary and proper to human survival and flourishing. We require life, liberty, property, etc. to survive and thrive. As such it is morally correct to uphold and defend these conditions, and to recognize that they are common to all people if they are common to any.
Life, liberty, and property are conditions to survival. Logically, they are good. For the most part I agree. As well, I should because I am American.
You then use the words "common" and "recognize" to link these rights to natural Rights. These are words that once again suggest that for rights (moral) to become Rights there needs communication and accord.
Thus, everyone has them,
This is where I don't understand.
Unless every human being recognizes it as a right, how could everyone have the right to life, liberty and property ?
Even if one believes it to be morally correct, some might not. Unless, there is a fight (as you described), and an accord, it cannot be a Right.
Even by translating it in different languages, they won't mean the same. The simple language barrier makes it difficult for Rights to not be relative.
It's interesting that you point out that Rights could have have derived from a resolved fight
Rights that previously existed were not derived from, but illuminated by human conflict resolution.
You are suggesting that the link between morality and Rights is communication and an accord ( some sort of social contract ). Is that correct ?
Close. Morality and Rights are not linked by communication. Rights ARE morality made explicit. Itโs not right that I murder you because it is your right to live.
You then use the words "common" and "recognize" to link these rights to natural Rights. These are words that once again suggest that for rights (moral) to become Rights there needs communication and accord
Your natural Rights are yours whether anyone names them or not. If you live alone in the woods, you have your right to your life. If you build a cabin, you have a right to your property. If someone comes along and burns down your cabin, takes your saw, or tries to kill you. They are breaching your rights. Even if no one ever says so.
We make things explicit and call them Rights so that we have a standardized law upon which society can function with regularity. We communicate these Rights and create legal social contracts so that we society can function. The Rights were there before the naming of them, and before the Laws that are based upon them.
Unless every human being recognizes it as a right, how could everyone have the right to life, liberty and property?
Rights are based on the idea that morality has objective truth apart from subjective opinion. The person in the woods doesnโt think you have the Right to your saw, cabin, or life. He believes his ability to take it all from you gives him the Right to take it all from you. Nonetheless, his action is immoral. Your Rights persist despite a brutes failure to recognize them. Thus, you would be morally correct in defending yourself, another natural right.
Even if one believes it to be morally correct, some might not.
Lots of people think you donโt have the Rights that are naturally yours. If you encounter them, I recommend protecting yourself. You are Right to do so.
Even by translating it in different languages, they won't mean the same. The simple language barrier makes it difficult for Rights to not be relative.
All health humans have an understanding of morality. Itโs an evolved trait. Even chimps have notions of property Rights. While different cultures talk about right and wrong in different ways, and have different standards by which they treat each other, everyone is capable of discussing what conduct is right and what conduct is wrong. You donโt have to say that people have a right to their life in order to convey that it is wrong to murder. Putting the human moral condition in terms of rights, is a highly effective way to indicate who has moral high ground. Though it may not be the only way to discuss it, the fact of the high ground is unchanged.
Healthcare is a privilege. The left will ball and squall, but it is. No one is obligated to help you for free on their dime and their time. And if you refuse to work, then why are you owed anything?
Why is healthcare a privilege in this country and not in Australia, Germany, England, Canada and all the other western countries like ours and some not like ours, like Russia? Why do you even think about this as mine and there's.? Why not everyone have healthcare as provided by and supported by the government, like the entire world does? Are you blind or ignorant to the way the world pays for healthcare or are you one of these patriots who thinks we do everything better than the entire world and we don't listen to anybody arrogant? C'mon man. Make sense with your damn argument
Are you blind or ignorant to the way the world pays for healthcare or are you one of these patriots who thinks we do everything better than the entire world and we don't listen to anybody arrogant
1)The quality of healthcare would collapse due to an influx of customers vs doctors. You think it's slow now? If it takes a month in Cuba, how long do you imagine it would take in a country our size? There are people who died waiting to be seen by aย doctor, and that's with the amount of patients we have now.
2)You give the world government s full control of medicine, we have to do as told in every other area of life, or we don't get our medicine. It's tyranical government leverage against the people.
3)If you socialize the medical system, our piss poor number of doctors would crumble. Are you going to medical school, risking malpractice suits, and doing surgery on people for average wages? It's hard to get people to be doctors already with high capitalistic salaries. Or was your plan to go full tyrany and make people be doctors like it or not?
There is no doubt that healthcare is a privilege. we wouldn't be talking about it today if we weren't for our government to hear out to our opinions. They make the decision at the end of the day.. At the same time, helping those who need it, and can't afford it, out of compassion and empathy, is completely different. You can't make it a right, but can always ask for help.