Virtual Teen Forums
 

Go Back   Virtual Teen Forums > >
Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read Chat Room

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 7th, 2018, 12:52 PM   #41
mattsmith48
VT Voice of reason
 
Name: matt
Join Date: March 8, 2014
Location: canada
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Default Re: Discussion on rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
So because treating patients is a doctor's job, it is alright to enslave them? (Force to work = slavery)
It is not enslavement, no one forced them to become doctors, they signed up to do this job knowing they have to treat anyone who wants to no matter what.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
That if someon doesn't voluntarily help someone, should they be forced to do so by government force.
The government does not force them to help anyone, unless its their job and they are required by the law to help people e.g. doctors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
Actually this isn't what Christianity is about, but I digress...

My point was that Jesus didn't advocate for state socialism, but for private charity.
And?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
1. I don't want people to die either.
2. I think it is a good idea to help people in need if you can.
3. I think it is immoral to acquire the help for yourself or others by the use of force infringing on someone's freedom, property or life. It doesn't matter if this force is your own or the government's.

Want to give people food and shelter to survive? Go ahead, if you are rich enough to do so.

Want to force others to do so too? You end up violating their rights.

You are correct in saying that wanting to give people access to necessary resources for survival IS NOT politics de facto.
But when you want to use governmental power to tax others and do the charity for you... THEN it is politics.

Clarification: Do you want the state to run this or do you advocate for 100% privatised charity?
I think you already know the answer is state run. It should be clear by now that voluntary charity is not enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
Where does the basic income come from? Who'se property do you advocate taking by force to fund this?
I thought you opposed stealing to save someone's life?

Also:
You said it is immoral to force someone to work to acquire their basic needs for survival.
Is it also immoral to force someone to work to acquire someone elses basic needs for survival?
Well a guaranteed basic income is an amount of money the government give to all its citizens unconditionally, the money to pay this comes from various places, from government programs replaced by the basic income, to the money saved in health care used to treat health problems related to the stress money can bring to people, to a slight raise in taxes. It is a small price to pay to stop people from dying because they can't afford to live and for eliminating poverty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
Do you think every person in the world has a right to basic needs without putting in any work of their own?
Who the fuck would answer no to that?

Straight Canadian boy
feel free to pm me will talk about anything
mattsmith48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2018, 11:39 AM   #42
Music Lover
Member++
 
Music Lover's Forum Picture
 
Name: Jere
Join Date: April 5, 2009
Location: Finland
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 2
Default Re: Discussion on rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowfox View Post
@Music Lover and @mattsmith48 has anyoneone of you ever heard "Any port in a storm"
A new phrase for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowfox View Post
In situation of great distress like distress signal everyone who has means to help has to help. financial matters can be settled afterwards.
Some freedoms are essentially more important than other. Like right to life is more important than right to property.
Emergencies and normal life circumstances should be handled separately. I agree that any decent person would help someone in an emergency if they were capable of doing so.

You got me thinking though... If I were in a crisis that required me to steal someone's car to save my life, I would probably do so for survival.
But right after the danger on my life has ended, I would do whatever it takes to:
1. Give the car back
2. Pay for any damage I caused and fill the tank
3. Offer compensation for inconvenience. If it was a businessperson who missed a meeting that cost him 10000$ in missed earnings, I would take that on as debt.

Now if we are NOT in an emergency of urgent life-threatening conditions, but rather in normal life, I would rather slowly die of starvation than steal something of someone elses (or have the government steal it for me). And I fully expect anyone else to choose the same course of action.

Stealing a loaf of bread to feed yourself is wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
It is not enslavement, no one forced them to become doctors, they signed up to do this job knowing they have to treat anyone who wants to no matter what.
So are you saying it is impossible to become a doctor without indentured servitude for anyone?
Are you saying after you graduate, everyone who wants to has a claim on your work and you have no say in it?
On what basis do you make this claim?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
The government does not force them to help anyone, unless its their job and they are required by the law to help people e.g. doctors.
Are there any professions you think shouldn't be forced to work?

And for your information, slavery does not have in its definition a disclaimer "It isn't slavery if it is your job your are forced to do"

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
And?
That's it. No and.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
I think you already know the answer is state run. It should be clear by now that voluntary charity is not enough.
So in essence you are saying: "Citizens of a state should be free, unless they don't help their fellow citizens enough." Correct or incorrect?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
Well a guaranteed basic income is an amount of money the government give to all its citizens unconditionally, the money to pay this comes from various places, from government programs replaced by the basic income, to the money saved in health care used to treat health problems related to the stress money can bring to people, to a slight raise in taxes. It is a small price to pay to stop people from dying because they can't afford to live and for eliminating poverty.
The money has to come from somewhere. The government has no money. It can only take money by force or receive money by voluntary donations. Tax uses force to take it.

I previously asked you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
If said person doesn't need their property, is it moral to steal in order to survive?
and you answered
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
No because it is still stealing.
Is it okay for the government to steal its citizens money to feed the other citizens?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
Who the fuck would answer no to that?
Me the fuck

The reason: It is a ludicruos notion. If everybody followed that principle, there would be nothing to live on. Consuming more than you produce leads to destruction. It is a principle of destruction.

And by the way, apparently you do not even follow that principle consistently. You seem to exclude doctors. They in your opinion should be forced to work and cannot take part in the philosophy of a right to fruits of labour without putting in the labour.

Try listening to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-T0ey0IKDA
If you liked it, I suggest you read the whole book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. It will get you thinking. A lot

1 Corinthians 10:31 "So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." - Francisco D'Anconia from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

Ask Me Anything - I DARE You!
Likes: (1)
Music Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2018, 10:20 PM   #43
mattsmith48
VT Voice of reason
 
Name: matt
Join Date: March 8, 2014
Location: canada
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Default Re: Discussion on rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
So are you saying it is impossible to become a doctor without indentured servitude for anyone?
Are you saying after you graduate, everyone who wants to has a claim on your work and you have no say in it?
On what basis do you make this claim?
Doctors are forced by the law to treat anyone who needs it and wants to be treated without exceptions. And also it is their job

Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
Are there any professions you think shouldn't be forced to work?
If you sign up to do a job, you have to do the job you signed up for. If you don't want to do it pick another job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
And for your information, slavery does not have in its definition a disclaimer "It isn't slavery if it is your job your are forced to do"
It is not slavery if you voluntarily signed up to do the job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
So in essence you are saying: "Citizens of a state should be free, unless they don't help their fellow citizens enough." Correct or incorrect?
Where did I say that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
The money has to come from somewhere. The government has no money. It can only take money by force or receive money by voluntary donations. Tax uses force to take it.


I previously asked you

and you answered


Is it okay for the government to steal its citizens money to feed the other citizens?
Taxes is not stealing, as a society we agreed to give part of what we earned to the government in exchange of getting free services.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
Me the fuck

The eason: It is a ludicruos notion. If everybody followed that principle, there would be nothing to live on. Consuming more than you produce leads to destruction. It is a principle of destruction.

And by the way, apparently you do not even follow that principle consistently. You seem to exclude doctors. They in your opinion should be forced to work and cannot take part in the philosophy of a right to fruits of labour without putting in the labour.
What does that have to do with anything I said?

Straight Canadian boy
feel free to pm me will talk about anything
mattsmith48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2018, 06:43 AM   #44
Music Lover
Member++
 
Music Lover's Forum Picture
 
Name: Jere
Join Date: April 5, 2009
Location: Finland
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 2
Default Re: Discussion on rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
Doctors are forced by the law to treat anyone who needs it and wants to be treated without exceptions. And also it is their job
And I am saying it is wrong for such a clause to be in law.

If someone has made a contract with an employer, it is proper to be held to that contract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
If you sign up to do a job, you have to do the job you signed up for. If you don't want to do it pick another job.
I agree that you should follow voluntarily made contracts.

Should sole practicioners who are self-employed be also forced to treat whoever comes to their practice?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
It is not slavery if you voluntarily signed up to do the job.
Of course not. But you explicitly said that it is okay to force them because they are a doctor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
Where did I say that?
When you said that voluntary charity is not enough.

If it is not voluntary, the only other alternative is force. Citizens compelled by their government are not free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
Taxes is not stealing, as a society we agreed to give part of what we earned to the government in exchange of getting free services.
This is a smokescreen argument.

The reality is that it is forced on the minority by the majority. The minority did not consent.

You cannot consent for other people, only yourself. I haven't consented and know many people who haven't. Taxes are forced on us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
What does that have to do with anything I said?
You said everyone has a right to basic needs without putting in any work of their own.

I took it to its logical conclusion, which you apparently don't agree with. So I am really doubting that you mean what you say.

If everyone demanded to live without working, everyone would die pretty quick. All wealth (food, shelter, health and luxuries) has to be produced before it can be used for survival or enhancing life.

If I misunderstood what you meant by saying "Who the fuck would answer no to that?" then please explain how you would apply that principle.

1 Corinthians 10:31 "So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." - Francisco D'Anconia from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

Ask Me Anything - I DARE You!
Likes: (1)
Music Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2018, 11:34 AM   #45
mattsmith48
VT Voice of reason
 
Name: matt
Join Date: March 8, 2014
Location: canada
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Default Re: Discussion on rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
And I am saying it is wrong for such a clause to be in law.
It is wrong to prevent doctors from decide who dies and who gets to lives?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
When you said that voluntary charity is not enough.

If it is not voluntary, the only other alternative is force. Citizens compelled by their government are not free.
I also said as a society we agree we need to pay taxes so the government can pay for some services we need.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
This is a smokescreen argument.

The reality is that it is forced on the minority by the majority. The minority did not consent.

You cannot consent for other people, only yourself. I haven't consented and know many people who haven't. Taxes are forced on us.
If by majority you mean 50% plus 1, then yes you can, that's how a real democracy work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
You said everyone has a right to basic needs without putting in any work of their own.

I took it to its logical conclusion, which you apparently don't agree with. So I am really doubting that you mean what you say.

If everyone demanded to live without working, everyone would die pretty quick. All wealth (food, shelter, health and luxuries) has to be produced before it can be used for survival or enhancing life.

If I misunderstood what you meant by saying "Who the fuck would answer no to that?" then please explain how you would apply that principle.
I said people shouldn't be required to work to meet their basic needs. Anything more then that you need to work for it. Humans are naturally greedy and how materialistic society is making it worst. Its in the name, basic income means you get what you need to meet your basic needs, anything more then that you have to earn the money for.

Your little theory would work, if it were still the 19th century, but now with automation, and how our progress with technology and how fast it keeps improving, if we don't want to or can't do a job we'll just have machines do it for us. They are more productive and cheaper anyway and that's the reason people are constantly losing their job to automation and why we need a guaranteed basic income

Straight Canadian boy
feel free to pm me will talk about anything
mattsmith48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2018, 12:03 PM   #46
Abyssal Echo
Lone Wolf
 
Abyssal Echo's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matt
Join Date: January 11, 2012
Location: A cold dark cave near the road to nowhere
Gender: Male
Default Re: Discussion on rights

Here in the U.S. we have Constitutional rights which were agreed on by our founding fathers and the bill of rights which was created due to the civil rights movement during the 1960s.

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience - Mark Twain
Abyssal Echo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2018, 07:23 AM   #47
Murk
Member+
 
Murk's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: February 4, 2016
Location: Everywhere
Age: 16
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 7
Talking Re: Discussion on rights

I just found this discussion, I have been very distracted by #2A and life. I will start here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abyssal Echo View Post
Here in the U.S. we have Constitutional rights which were agreed on by our founding fathers and the bill of rights which was created due to the civil rights movement during the 1960s.
The Bill of Rights was created in 1789 shortly after the founding of America.

The original Civil rights movement was during the 1860s, by the Republicans, both 13 amendment freeing slaves, as well as the 14th, granting African-Americans full citizenship, eg. To vote, speech, rights, both pushed and passed by Republicans, highly opposed by Democrats. The 1960s movement was only when the Democrats stopped filibustering the 1860s movement, only acknowledging the rights already established by the Republicans a century earlier.

This is my entry into this discussion. Hopes this helps some people understand the concept of the civil Rights movement a little more

I'll answer anything, and I'm up for a chat. pm me
My Blog
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold, is for people of good conscience to remain silent." -Thomas Jefferson
"If you got it flaunt it ;p"-Alex1s
Likes: (1)
Murk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2018, 12:20 PM   #48
mattsmith48
VT Voice of reason
 
Name: matt
Join Date: March 8, 2014
Location: canada
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Default Re: Discussion on rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Murk View Post
I just found this discussion, I have been very distracted by #2A and life. I will start here


The Bill of Rights was created in 1789 shortly after the founding of America.

The original Civil rights movement was during the 1860s, by the Republicans, both 13 amendment freeing slaves, as well as the 14th, granting African-Americans full citizenship, eg. To vote, speech, rights, both pushed and passed by Republicans, highly opposed by Democrats. The 1960s movement was only when the Democrats stopped filibustering the 1860s movement, only acknowledging the rights already established by the Republicans a century earlier.

This is my entry into this discussion. Hopes this helps some people understand the concept of the civil Rights movement a little more
Incredible how much things can change in 150 years

Straight Canadian boy
feel free to pm me will talk about anything
mattsmith48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2018, 09:47 PM   #49
Just Tim
Nice Poster
 
Just Tim's Forum Picture
 
Name: Timothy
Join Date: December 6, 2017
Location: Neverland
Age: 13
Gender: Male
Default Re: Discussion on rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
Incredible how much things can change in 150 years
You mean 100 years? Wouldnt 100 years have passed from 1860 to 1960 not 150? I mean I guess your point still stands but still you know.


JUST TIM
Also known as, the hash-slinging slasher


Likes: (1)
Just Tim is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2018, 09:59 PM   #50
mattsmith48
VT Voice of reason
 
Name: matt
Join Date: March 8, 2014
Location: canada
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Default Re: Discussion on rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Tim View Post
You mean 100 years? Wouldnt 100 years have passed from 1860 to 1960 not 150? I mean I guess your point still stands but still you know.
I was thinking more about how much things have change from the time the Republicans wanted to abolish slavery to what is happening now in that same party. Its not related to the discussion just wanted to point it out.

Straight Canadian boy
feel free to pm me will talk about anything
mattsmith48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2018, 04:06 AM   #51
the_power_slave
Nice Poster
 
the_power_slave's Forum Picture
 
Name: eli.
Join Date: February 4, 2018
Location: in poor taste
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 6
Default Re: Discussion on rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
I was thinking more about how much things have change from the time the Republicans wanted to abolish slavery to what is happening now in that same party. Its not related to the discussion just wanted to point it out.
are you saying you think the republicans as it stands want slavery?
Likes: (1)
the_power_slave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2018, 02:38 PM   #52
Murk
Member+
 
Murk's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: February 4, 2016
Location: Everywhere
Age: 16
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 7
Default Re: Discussion on rights

I got thee same impression from that statement... Do you think republicans want slavery, opression, rape, abuse, torture, all the things that democrats did to slaves and "minorities"?

The republicanparty was founded on opposing the tyranny of the president at the time, Andrew Jackson, one of the founders of the democrat party. Andrew owned 51 slave at the time of his death, and is believed to have owned over 300 during his life.

The African-American civil rights movement, to give black people equal rights, was started by and fought by Republicans.

13 ammendment was pushed by all of the republicans, and highly resisted by democrats, with only about 23% of them supporting it.
14th ammendment 94% of republicans supported it, no democrats supported it.
18th ammendment all republicans supported it, no democrats supported it.

Dont start spewing shit about "northern democrates" everyone knows its not true.

I'll answer anything, and I'm up for a chat. pm me
My Blog
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold, is for people of good conscience to remain silent." -Thomas Jefferson
"If you got it flaunt it ;p"-Alex1s
Likes: (1)
Murk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2018, 11:24 AM   #53
ShineintheDark
Awesome Poster
 
Name: Magnus
Join Date: April 11, 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Gender: Male
Default Re: Discussion on rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Murk View Post
The republicanparty was founded on opposing the tyranny of the president at the time, Andrew Jackson, one of the founders of the democrat party. Andrew owned 51 slave at the time of his death, and is believed to have owned over 300 during his life.

The African-American civil rights movement, to give black people equal rights, was started by and fought by Republicans.

13 ammendment was pushed by all of the republicans, and highly resisted by democrats, with only about 23% of them supporting it.
14th ammendment 94% of republicans supported it, no democrats supported it.
18th ammendment all republicans supported it, no democrats supported it.
And yet the tables began to switch in the 60s under Kennedy and Johnson, whose administrations saw black people given extended rights in voting and housing among others whilst the Republicans began championing Southern states, steadily beginning their opposition to such laws. In all those cases the republicans backed those bills but that was not the case for long, pretty much switching places with the democrats by around the 80s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murk View Post
Dont start spewing shit about "northern democrates" everyone knows its not true.
The North/South divide is real and has influences US politics for centuries. Northern politicians tended to support civil rights bills, southern ones tended to oppose them. This was true in the democrats who championed southern states during the civil war and reconstruction eras but also in southern republicans who also did not support many civil rights laws at the time. This was less a party issue as a voter base issue: white southern voters would never back pro-black legislation. Therefore, when the Republicans began their push to take the south from the democrats in the 50s and 60s (the Southern strategy), they took over the conservative white base whilst the democrats increased their hold in liberal, northern areas. Parties can and have greatly changed their values and ideals based on their voter bases so your tirade over what the parties stood for in the 1800s cannot really be used in a discussion about modern politics.
ShineintheDark is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright©2000 - 2018
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, VirtualTeen.org