One is missing. I wouldn't be surprised if more were soon.
Don't you know pointing is not polite?
@pete_zeratt @Zalo
Once we could make anything a civil right, we made everything a civil right.
Incels want to add sex to the mix.
Once we could make anything a civil right, we made everything a civil right.
Incels want to add sex to the mix.
Once you make free food, Free water, free shelter, free healthcare human rights that must be provided or you're satan, why not free sex?
I'm not even necessarily saying that from for example the standpoint of saying that universal healthcare should never exist, but there's a difference between making something available through the state because it's a nice or useful idea and making something available through the state because there is a duty or obligation to provide that thing, and if they are failing to then they are committing some crime against humanity.
In the example of healthcare, it's a nice thing to have while society is Rich enough to provide it, but if society ceases to be rich enough to provide it then that service has to go away. In that case it ends up being a government provided service that is not a fundamental human right.
As fundamental human rights, both healthcare and sex require a specific person in the sense of an individual with certain attributes that are not common. Institutions do not provide health care, doctors do. The doctors are particularly intelligent and particularly hard-working people, energy universal sex care system, the state prostitutes would be particularly attractive men and women.
And then you get into the stickiness of making healthcare a human right and some healthcare procedures are effectively murder. For example, if doctors are forced to provide medical assistance in dying or forced to provide abortions, then they are being forced to engage in murder. Is it really so morally different forcing someone to have sex versus forcing them to commit murder against their will?
A lot of people will argue until they're blue in the face as to why not free sex, but perhaps the more important question is, why free murder? Demanding that we take resources from everyone regardless of their moral view to pay for this, not because it is a nice thing to do but because it is becoming human right that is a crime against humanity if you don't provide it, in both cases seems really suspect.
I'm not even necessarily saying that from for example the standpoint of saying that universal healthcare should never exist, but there's a difference between making something available through the state because it's a nice or useful idea and making something available through the state because there is a duty or obligation to provide that thing, and if they are failing to then they are committing some crime against humanity.
In the example of healthcare, it's a nice thing to have while society is Rich enough to provide it, but if society ceases to be rich enough to provide it then that service has to go away. In that case it ends up being a government provided service that is not a fundamental human right.
As fundamental human rights, both healthcare and sex require a specific person in the sense of an individual with certain attributes that are not common. Institutions do not provide health care, doctors do. The doctors are particularly intelligent and particularly hard-working people, energy universal sex care system, the state prostitutes would be particularly attractive men and women.
And then you get into the stickiness of making healthcare a human right and some healthcare procedures are effectively murder. For example, if doctors are forced to provide medical assistance in dying or forced to provide abortions, then they are being forced to engage in murder. Is it really so morally different forcing someone to have sex versus forcing them to commit murder against their will?
A lot of people will argue until they're blue in the face as to why not free sex, but perhaps the more important question is, why free murder? Demanding that we take resources from everyone regardless of their moral view to pay for this, not because it is a nice thing to do but because it is becoming human right that is a crime against humanity if you don't provide it, in both cases seems really suspect.
@sj_zero @Zalo @pete_zeratt
The egalitarians often argue utility over morality.
"A UBI is just more efficient than a welfare state."
It never occurs to anyone to simply stop having any programs of this nature.
I remember Japan had a free sex for incels program some years ago.
The egalitarians often argue utility over morality.
"A UBI is just more efficient than a welfare state."
It never occurs to anyone to simply stop having any programs of this nature.
I remember Japan had a free sex for incels program some years ago.
@sj_zero Any service that gives you a right to another's time is slavery. Human, or natural, rights do not include healthcare, food, or housing.
All the way back in aristophanes: "we will have a society where everyone is equal and nobody needs to toil!" "but who will do the work?" "The slaves!"
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 1
- likes
- 2