/townhall/ - Townhall

>What are your thoughts in general?

My thoughts in general are that insurance is largely a disguised gambling scam that everyone in the US has been tricked into thinking is good or possibly even necessary.  Almost literally any alternative would be better than what we have right now.

>>10636
The Rube Goldberg contraption looking picture kind of says it all, really. I think. The "system" is a complete mess.

>>10638

Yeah, love the graphic, keeping that for future explanations.

>>10636
This.

And it applies to more than just health insurance, too
Insurance rarely ever pays out more than was put into it. It's a scam every step of the way.

>>10639
Glad that you find it helpful!

There are a few key problems.

The first is that people think healthcare is a right.  The shuffling of obligations ends in a situation where the private sector is granted a blank check, and the person who is receiving the "right" ends up footing the bill, directly or indirectly.

There's this notion in the West - of not being allowed to withhold water.  e.g. If someone is dying of thirst in the desert, you're prohibited by law from charging them $100,000 for a bottle of water - even if that bottle of water saves their life.  But this is basically the situation we have in healthcare, where people show up for service, and then after the fact, they (or their insurance, or the government) are charged ridiculous amounts that are completely divorced from the actual costs incurred with zero recourse.  "The farmer said it was a $100,000 bottle of water, and you drank it without knowing how much it cost (or you drank it without asking), so now you're bankrupt" is the norm in healthcare.  "You were unconscious, and the farmer gave you *checks receipts* 15 bottles of water, so you owe $1.5M now" despite consenting to none of it.

The second part of this particular problem is that the obligation carries a demand of labor extraction from someone else.  If you have the *right* to see a doctor, that necessitates a doctor who can see you.  The services, even at a base level, are not just present in the ether; they require at minimum, years of training plus the infrastructure necessary to carry out that service.  This is no more a legitimate "right" than if you see me driving a car, and demand that I give you a ride by virtue of the fact that I own a car.  Even if I have years of specialty training specifically for the purpose of giving people rides, that doesn't mean you have the right to ride in my car, by virtue of the fact that you exist.

The third is that the government offering to pay for you is a literal case of buying votes.  Candidate A offers to pay your medical bills to the tune of X dollars which "costs you nothing" except for the further devaluation of currency plus the burden on people who actually pay taxes?  guess who you have a major incentive to vote for...  but this is the "Me" generation/world/status quo so who cares about actual costs or who they impact.

There is no possible way to reconcile these issues as long as government is reliant on the private sector for a declared "right".  The "best case scenario", which is a terrible scenario, is fully government run healthcare - with months long lines, so-called death panels deciding who lives and dies, and what would be generally regarded as terrible service.  The "worst case scenario" - which I think is better - would be for individuals to stop regarding healthcare as a right, and to stop bankrupting both themselves, their families, and their country, for the selfish purpose of living 24 extra months.

I haven't had health insurance of any kind since 10 years ago.

>>10703
>I haven't had health insurance of any kind since 10 years ago
You and thousands of others are so enlightened. And so I have to pay your ER bills so you don't have to pay your own way.

>>10704
You act as if I'm not also subsidizing your health insurance, which in the event of a catastrophic health issue, likely isn't going to cover all of your arbitrarily high bills anyway.  The only real difference is that I refuse to take part in the dog and pony show.

>>10703
You seem to have a fundamentally unreasonable understanding of human rights.

Essentially all human rights, by their very definition, involve burdens being placed on others.

For example, my human right to life means that I'm not going to burn to death in a fire emergency. That means that somebody has to become a firefighter, which takes resources and time, as well as that fire control vehicles have to be built and maintained properly with the right equipment, which... same. My human right to free speech also means that I've a logical expectation of safety and security such that I don't expect to be assaulted, raped, robbed, and/or killed by some other person offended by my speech. That imposes burdens on society since law enforcement officers must be trained and hired in order to protect me (and my speech, thus). It goes on.

Health care is a commercial product to an extent, but unlike your standard product it has elements that're both non-rival and non-exclusive. Me drinking a nice soda gives nothing positive to the person next to me, and also me drinking it means that nobody else can have it. In contrast, me being protected from having a severe health crisis means that the person next to me doesn't have to worry either about coming to my rescue or coming down with something terrible that I'm spreading. As well, from the broader cultural point of view, I think that increased health among the populace leads to everything from fewer car accidents to greater work productivity to increased donations to charities and more. The rising tide can lift all boats.

>>10703
>>10707
Granted, an anarchist hell life for everybody whereby no public services exist and so everybody struggles every single day to survive, most individuals dying before the age of thirty-five... it's certainly possible. Think of the 'Mad Max' franchise. Yes.

In such a world, though, I'd have no actual human rights. Certainly, there'd be no government to oppress me. There'd also be no civilization for me to even engage with others at a basic functioning level either, though. One could quibble that technically I'd still have human rights because technically I could be able to semi-magically enrich myself through individual effort to the extent of living longer than thirty-five, but... come on. Reality exists outside of political philosopher fantasies.

>>10707
That's not how rights work.  Not being burned to death, as an example, is an obligation on the part of others to not put you in a situation where you can reasonably be expected to burn to death.  e.g. fire codes, max occupancy, fire escapes, etc.  If you're just out and about, and all of a sudden you catch fire by some freak accident, no amount of screaming about "rights" will force someone to save you.  Now in the event that they can, great, and we have infrastructure and services set up to put things more in your favor.  You have a right to equal access to services available.  You don't have a right to services absent the services themselves.  And you can't force someone into service on your behalf nowadays, because that's called slavery, and last I checked, slavery's bad m'kay?

Healthcare absolutely has exclusivity and rivarly.  Look at the monopolies of insurance companies over different states as an easy example.  Look at pharmaceutical companies fleecing the public over so-called intellectual property.

How exactly is your heart attack, stroke, cancer, "diabetus", etc., going to spread to the person next to you?  Speaking of which, what makes you think the person next to you should come to your rescue when you suffer the consequences of your own poor health decisions?  Why should society foot the bill for, as an example, the obvious consequences of someone's soda addiction?

Increased health among whom?  If you have to pay more to improve your health (by whatever metric), but your increased productivity doesn't even cover the costs incurred, then how is that a net positive for society as a whole?

>>10708
You're presenting a false dichotomy.

>>10707
I would say you have a fundamentally unreasonable understanding of human rights, as well.

Rights are not "burdens" as you put it. They're simply the standard you could do, alone. What you have 'right' to, without anything else.
The 'burden' placed on others is simply not to violate those rights. What it ultimately restricts is solely actions that would restrict your own rights, in reverse. It forbids the violation of rights.

You do not have a right to life.
You can absolutely burn to death.
Nobody is obligated to help you.
There is no right that guarantees your safety.
That has never been a thing. Nobody even wants that to be a thing. This is exemplified by the existence of places like McDonalds. By cars capable of going more than 80 mph. By numerous sports involving full contact, dangerous heights, or excessive speeds with nothing to save you but a helmet and your own wits.

The idea of a right to life is by its very nature contradictory. It is logically unsound. It falls apart the moment one applies it to more than a single, specific scenario. And even then, I would argue, the notion that your rights're being violated because you decided to pour water on a failed attempt at frying some chicken is absurd on the face of it.

>>10708
The state does not grant your rights.

Rights are in effect, morality.
They determine when it is just to act.
When it is just to act on your behalf.

Incidentally; While you say "reality exists outside of political philosopher fantasies"... I've seen no evidence you've yet provided for the assertion that a lack of government would guarantee only 35 as the average age, there would be no civilization to engage with at basic levels, or that it would require 'semi-magic' to enrich yourself.

This, too, seems to be a "political philosopher fantasy", which is simply accepted because it happens to suit your narrative.

>>10709
>>10711
>>10712
Both of you seem to be coming at this from a hardline political extremist position in which you both fundamentally don't agree with how normal people think about rights, and thus I guess that future discussions will not be helpful for anyone, alas.

I'm not really what to say other than that most who actually think about such things don't come at it from a far right ideological position and thus accept different results outside of that mental straightjacket.

>>10713
You are probably correct that most "normal" people, or more accurately, "average" people, have come to demand reality cater to their whims and gibs free stuff.  And this is why "normal" people are in for a very rude awakening when reality repeatedly hits them like a ton of bricks, over and over, for the remainder of their sad lives.

Nothing about what either Swan or I have said can be construed as "far right" - aside from mere disagreement being defined as extremist.  This is just a disingenuous attempt to poison the well.

>>10716
I'm just saying that if you come into things with a specific narrative and ideology that's far removed from most people, such as myself, that discussion is rather pointless. And it is. Alas.

Most people would be horrified if they saw a businessperson walking on a sidewalk alongside a child burning to death in a car, say, who says "Not my problem".

But the this is a matter of ethics, not really either logic or politics, and there's nothing I can do if I just happen to come at life from a moral idealistic ethics while others do so from a moral relativist ethics. We are just completely different and completely opposed, at a basic worldview level, and nothing will likely change that. Alas.

>>10717
Well, let's break down your position...  "X is a right because I say it is."  ok...  and how are you going to be granted this right?  "Someone else must undergo training necessary, perform the tasks required for me, and do so at no cost to myself / someone else must pay for it."  ok...  and what if they can't/won't/don't?  "That's not my problem.  BTW you're 'far right' for pointing out that my position makes no sense."
/shrug

>>10718
No, 'X is a right' because of hundreds of years of both ethical philosophy growing out of different traditions (Christian, Jewish, Neoplatonist, et cetera) coupled with wide democratic consensus of the people assert that it's a right.

Which is the same for all rights: right to life, right to health care, right to free speech, right to religious liberty, and so on.

And every single right involves duties and obligations on others. That's just how it works. In terms of philosophy.

My freedom of religion means that I can harm other people by telling them that their beliefs are false, even to where they feel really offended, and they're not allowed to hurt me physically or otherwise act against me as a response: should they do so, law enforcement exists to protect me. And it goes on. As has been demonstrated over and over again.

If you have a moral relativist ideology that goes against the mass consensus going back centuries, then go ahead. Mass consensus can certainly be wrong. But you need to at least have the intellectual honesty to understand what you're up against and why. And to know that your worldview gap between you and everybody else will make everybody else inherently opposed to your ethical system.

>>10719
"I have a right to a free Tesla roadster." and if enough people demand it via democratic consensus, then it must be a legitimate right.
or, "I have a right to free internet" and if enough people demand it via democratic consensus, then someone else must provide me with the infrastructure and connectivity to make it a reality.
see, this isn't how rights work

No, not duties and obligations.  "person A not hurting person B for stating their opinions" is not a duty or an obligation, it is a restriction on their action.  In contrast, an obligation would be more akin to forcing someone to listen to your free speech.  You don't have the right to demand action from others - your rights amount to restricting the actions of others towards you.

>>10720
Once again: rights because rights after hundreds of years of both ethical philosophy growing out of different traditions (Christian, Jewish, Neoplatonist, et cetera) coupled with wide democratic consensus of the people assert that it's a right.

Once again: every single right involves duties and obligations on others. That's just how it works. In terms of philosophy.

I understand that you don't like this, but you not liking something doesn't change reality.

There's nothing about me being born that inherently gives me the right to free speech or the right to health care. These only exist because of arguments made about inherent ethics that most people agree to because most people are moral idealists who think that people should be 'born inherently free' and are 'born inherently good'. I could live in a civilization where I was seen 'born inherently unfree' and 'born inherently bad' to which I don't have any rights at all. That I don't live in that world is because of moral beliefs.

>>10721
That's just not reality, and copy-pasting yourself won't make it so.  Healthcare, for instance, hasn't been - even in your make believe fantasy world - a human right for more than a century (and in reality, it still isn't).  Neither have food.  or shelter.  or police.  or fire mitigation services.  This is just wishful thinking.  Not that wishful thinking is bad, but making it the basis of your demands on others is laughable.

and you're essentially advocating for slavery to will your fantasy into existence.

>>10722
I don't care that you don't live in reality. I live in reality. In reality, facts are facts.

When it comes to health care being a human right, it goes back in philosophy to even before my grandparents were born in terms of international law, and I can provide many citations as such over the development of international law from centuries ago to now.

In health terms, I'd like to specifically point out that the WHO Constitution envisages "the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being" and that was all the way back during the aftermath of the Second World War: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-rights-and-health

When it comes to a right for life, this even goes back to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, remember?

> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

Also, I'm making no demands. You are. I'm the one standing on the will of the people and hundreds of years of tradition. You're the person making a claim akin to "smoking doesn't cause lung cancer" or "the Earth is flat" because basically you just personally feel that way.

Living in an advanced civilization in which everybody has a bare minimum of human rights involves duties and obligations for everyone, by definition, and that obviously includes me. Which, as a moral idealist, I'm more than fine with. I want to be confined in terms of my ethical choices so that I'm not able to willy-willy harm others because I want others to be so confined in order to prevent my own harm too. Is that really so hard a concept?

>>10723
and just like the WHO, I too can declare Teaslas an aspirational human right - that doesn't make it so.

And since you've lost the argument, now you're moving the goalpost back to reference things that no one's disagreeing with you about.

Let's take shelter as an obvious example, because I'm certain you think that shelter is a human right given your stance on healthcare.  So, since shelter is a human right, and since rights "every single right involves duties and obligations on others" you can then knock on my door and say "shelter is a right.  I demand you let me into your home"  and then the next homeless person does the same thing.  and then another.  and then another.  oh wait, that's not how it works at all, is it?  because your would-be "right" to shelter has zero basis for making "demands" or placing "obligations" on me.  The same for food.  "I'm hungry.  give me some food."  how about no?

Oh, but then we can expand the scope.  Maybe we now pretend that the duties/obligations are on society.  Ok.  So you want food, and it's your "right", so you go to the head of the community housing association and say "I'm hungry.  gibs food because it's my right."  and then they laugh you out of the building.  So much for your the duties and obligations on others.

So then you go the mayor and say "this society must pay for my food, and my shelter, and my healthcare, and internet, and buy me a Tesla roadster, because these are my rights" and if that mayor has any sense, he'll put you on a bus to California and be done with you - because you have no right to demand these things from others, regardless of scope.

If the individual, or the community, or the city, or the state, or the country, want to gibs you free stuff - great - that doesn't make it a right.

>>10724
The fact that human rights exist doesn't mean that everybody becomes slaves to the government, it means that nobody acts like a sociopath and has to contribute to allowing basic civilization to function. Paying taxes. Obeying the law. And so on.

I understand that your hardcore political extremist ideology makes you unable to tell the difference between "I have human rights" and "I want free stuff".

Like most people, I understand how those aren't the same.

Really not sure if the conversation is worth still having if you're in such a mental straightjacket to which you can't even begin to understand people not in your bubble.

Basically, I feel like people shouldn't live hellish lives of horrific suffering before they die young. I know that that's too much to ask for people with your ethical compass. But I still think what I think. And I'd say that almost everybody has a sense of basic humanity to where they shouldn't make other people live hellish lives before dying young.

P.S. You're an atheist, right? And your views on rights come from that? Just wondering.

>>10725
placing duties and obligations on others is a literal demand for their labor.  and since this right doesn't involve choice, reciprocity, or payment, that's called slavery.

Paying taxes and obeying the law are not rights.

>>10726
You're simply wrong.

>>10727
Don't bother telling me how my arguments are flawed, just declare yourself correct and claim victory.  and then ignore where I completely ripped apart your positions because it's inconvenient.  That's how you win debates.

>>10728
You're not actually making arguments. You're just existing in a fantasy world based on your political extremist ideology.

Almost everybody would be able to understand that me and my neighbor both having human rights and both having moral obligations to each other doesn't count as "slavery" because it would be truly bonkers to pretend as if I could be his/her/their slave while they're also my slave. It's also nuts to pretend like I'm of a higher status than them what literally what's exactly being proposed is absolute equality: they have the exact parallel duties to me as I to them. Because we're both born inherently free, inherently good, and inherently equal, or so the ethics go.

Also, this isn't a "debate". You have your moral relativist ethics and me my moral idealistic ethics. Neither of us can ever change each other's stances, so there's no point in trying. That's that.

I'm almost exactly sure that you're an atheist, to be frank, and coming at this from a strictly monolithic atheist perspective while I don't is going to color everything and probably make discussion pointless.

>>10729
Anyone who disagrees with you is an extremist by definition.

"Almost everyone" is just an appeal, a logical fallacy.  State the actual logic underpinning how you justify making demands of others to perform actions to facilitate your so-called rights.
You right to healthcare, as an example, doesn't require your neighbor's labor.  But it does require the labor of, at minimum, dozens of other people necessary to carry out the work being demanded.

You have a right to 'food'.  Great - someone has to grow it, process it, pack it, ship it, and get it to you, at minimum (and that's if we ignore costs entirely).  And what if any step in that process fails?  So much for your rights!
Healthcare - the topic of this thread.  Someone has to be trained, have access to the necessary infrastructure and medicines, equipment, etc.  And then we have to consider getting you to the necessary location to even possibly benefit from this process.  And if any step in that process fails?  So much for your rights!

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between "right" and "service".

>>10730
Explain to me how a large group of people all with the same status all collaborating with each other to make sure that none of them is harmed is "slavery", then?

All human rights (freedom of speech, right to health care, freedom of religion, right to shelter, and so on) involve duties and obligations both to other people and to society at large. That's how human rights work. That's how it's worked for centuries. That's how it is.

To be honest, you seem to not know any of the basic economic and/or philosophical terms that you throw around at all, thus making any communication at all difficult to where I'm not sure if I should bother.

>>10731
Sure, because my position is sound, even if you're just using this to deflect from the evisceration.

Because unlike a service, a human right is something guaranteed that society has seen fit to grant you at its own expense.  Note that I'm not even using my own preferred definition (which is also the one Swan used), but instead I'm using the definition required to make any sense of the demands being made in the name of "rights".  That is, if healthcare is a "human right" - then society guarantees your access to it regardless of any other considerations.  This places a necessary demand on the services required to carry out the "right".  And absent said services, you now have a problem - because society has made a guarantee of something that doesn't exist.  In which case, you either have to acknowledge that this "right" isn't actually a right at all, or you have to force fulfillment by other means.  And the logical and most obvious means of doing that, is slavery.

Hence why I'm telling you these things aren't rights.  They are services provided when possible.

>>10732
There's a pretty gigantic gulf between "you're guaranteed to have a certain human right in which others are required to have duties and obligations on themselves, with them not only not harming you but also working to contribute to civilization exactly as you do" and "forcing you to have unfair benefits from other people that mean that they sacrifice" as well as between both of those principles and "slavery" that you seem to be totally unwilling to understand.

I suppose it's "slavery" for me to want my local synagogue to not be attacked by terrorists because of the burdens that places on my neighbors to pay taxes to fund police officer salaries as well, I guess? Eh. So much for "freedom of religion".

To be honest, your ideological blindness is such to where this conversation is actively frustrating and wasting of my time (and probably yours, as well, in both instances).

I'll let you have the last word. Feel free to vent more ideological bile.

>>10733
Again, you're conflating issues.  "I demand a police presence because it's my right."  and "I demand that you not assault me for speaking my mind because it's my right." are two completely different things with different (or no) obligations.  At minimum, one requires the active participation of an individual; whereas the other does not.  Guaranteeing something that requires the active participation of an individual who is not yourself is where you run into problems.

You're having extreme difficulty with very simple concepts here.  I'm not surprised you're talking yourself in circles.

Note that this entire disagreement can be easily resolved if we say "healthcare is a service that we can all agree everyone should ideally have access to" instead of "healthcare is a human right" but Leftist ideology precludes this possibility.

>>10734
Okay, I just have to chime in again.

You're getting it backwards.

Just about everybody accepts health care as a human right, whether they're left, right, or center. It's the majority, consensus viewpoint. Opposition to this viewpoint is a result of having a particular right-wing extremist ideology that places you outside of mainstream thought, even in terms of regular right-wing people think.

{I see this fallacy a lot: where right-wing extremists take what regular people think, whether left, right, or center, and pretend that it's only a special matter of "leftist ideology" or whatever, and it's always incredibly annoying. It pops up a lot in terms of discrimination and bigotry i.e. "Only a leftist thinks that racism still actually exists and is a bad problem" and "Only a leftist claims that there's nothing wrong with being transgender" more than with other issues, but wherever the fallacy is used, it's still a problem.}

I can say again that "All human rights (freedom of speech, right to health care, freedom of religion, right to shelter, and so on) involve duties and obligations both to other people and to society at large. That's how human rights work. That's how it's worked for centuries. That's how it is." but you don't seem mentally capable able to accept this reality, so... whatever, I guess.

Alright, now feel free to make the last word.

>>10713
>a hardline political extremist position
Well that seems an exceptionally rigged way of looking at it.
I'm coming from numerous pieces of text and philosophy on this subject.
I don't think it's reasonable to label people 'extremists' for it.

Besides; As already pointed out, your concept is fundamentally logically flawed.
That certainly seems a more 'extremist' position to me.
I certainly refuse to accept you as the arbiter of what is "normal". No, you are quite wrong, "normal" people are not idiots who cannot think logically for more than a moment. They are perfectly capable of understanding something as basic as their life, something they actively can put in danger as they please whenever they wish, is a "right".

You give no arguments, and insist you've "thought" about this.
You have a demonstrably inconsistent and illogical belief, and yet insist we've a "mental straitjacket".
You insist basic foundational philosophy on the concept of rights is "far right".

Bluntly put, you seem to be a dishonest person, incapable of a genuine argument.
At best, you engage cowardly, running away from contradictory reason.
Though quite frankly, given your incredibly hostile assertions, it seems more that it's a consequence of a presumption on your part that anyone who disagrees with you is simply the enemy, and therefor can be dismissed on the face of it with disingenuous insults.

>>10738
I find your psychological projection telling, to be honest, but that's what I've expected from the hardline right-wing for ages, so I guess that's not new.

Suffice to say, I guess, that I've simply a set of moral standards that're fundamentally different than your own, and what you see as positive I and most regular people see as abhorrent.

There probably is no actual "debate" that can be had as such, since your blacks are my whites and so on ethically, alas.

I very much hope in the future that I avoid encountering individuals such as yourself and the other poster in person given that I likely will need help from fellow human beings in different circumstances later on, and I pray that I'll instead encounter those with different moralities.

>>10739
I'm not fucking "hard line right wing", you genuine asshole.

Most normal people do not see the concept of rights as understood literally in the foundational philosophy of this nation as "abhorrent".
You don't get to decide who is and is not representative of normality.
That's simply your own hubris. No wonder you seem intent to attack, instead of argue.

I suppose you're correct that my "blacks" are your "whites", ethically, given I would never engage in such scummy practices as you show here, and in >>10717 for that matter.

News flash for you: Nobody ever fucking said someone leaving a child to burn alive in a car isn't a fucking scumbag.
That's you being a dishonest jerk, jamming words into people's mouth.

>>10740
Look, if you want to be an asshole, go ahead. I know that as a right-wing hardliner you can't help it. So, go ahead, vent out your hatred and your stupidity. You're just like that, inherently, and nobody else can stop that.

>>10717
>I'm just saying that if you come into things with a specific narrative and ideology that's far removed from most people, such as myself, that discussion is rather pointless. And it is. Alas.
And you haven't?

That is the nature of these discussions.
At least we are able to engage in honest dialogue, argue the points and refute the claims presented.

You simply run away. How is that 'better'? How does that make us 'extremists', whereas you are somehow the arbiter of the common understanding, fighting against the "far right" as though the basic tenants of rights this country was literally founded on is suddenly "far right".

>Most people would be horrified if they saw a businessperson walking on a sidewalk alongside a child burning to death in a car, say, who says "Not my problem".
As already mentioned; This didn't ever get said by anyone here, save you.
This is your idea, solely.
Pinning it to us as though we've made any arguement for it, plainly put, is a lie.

>But the this is a matter of ethics, not really either logic or politics, and there's nothing I can do if I just happen to come at life from a moral idealistic ethics while others do so from a moral relativist ethics.
It's not "moral relativist".
It certainly could be called "idealistic".

You wouldn't know, because you refuse to actually engage with what's being said.

>>10741
Riiight, I'M the asshole, not the guy actively lying about people and insisting they believe shit they don't.

Is that how it works? We just insist it, and then it's true? In that case, I would've thought you'd get a court order to keep you from the internet, given your child-diddling.

>>10742
Is there a point or are you just trolling now?

Why do I even ask?

*sighs loudly*

>>10743
Someday you'll realize that you're not God. Someday.

>>10744
I'm not "trolling".
You're just an asshole who refuses to engage with things we've said.

You've just made shit up, and insisted it's true.
If you're looking for an asshole, look in the mirror. Most people don't have to engage in the scummy behavior you do, dickhead.

>>10745
Who fucking said I was a god?
What, you're going to start lying again?

I never claimed to be arbiter of truth, or anything like that.
You're the one who made assertions, and insisted I believe shit I don't.

Fuck you.

>>10746
Incidentally, are you going to do this to every single /townhall/ chat that you come about?

Just be a complete dick without any reason to?

Just because you hate others?

>>10747
>"Fuck you".

Yes, there's that Christian right-wing love again.

How loving. How right-wing. How Christian.

*takes it in*

What a non-surprise.

>>10748
I've engaged with many a thread on /townhall/ without issue.
So I certainly don't.
Plenty of folk here aren't absolute scumbags. Shocker.

Besides; Haven't you literally been banned multiple times for this exact type of thing?
Insulting people,  giving them a bunch of shitty labels, lying about their arguments, and then being shocked when they reply with hostility?

>>10750
May I genuinely ask why you even come here if all you want to do is be an asshole to people?

Why not go to 4chan or elsewhere?

>>10751
I literally don't.
I've again, engaged with plenty of threads where people aren't scumbags who have to say "UR FAR RIGHT EXTREMIST" or actively lie about my beliefs.

Most the time, we get good discussion. It's no problem.
Sometimes, your ban expires, and you do this shit again.

>>10752
I'm kind of well beyond bored with your trolling behavior at this point, to be honest.

Is there any creative insult or detailed violent thing that you'd like to post about me at this point?

Or is there just more of the same from you now?

Again, I'm quite beyond tired of you, so I guess this will really be my last post in this thread that I started but I guess you just had to destroy (lucky you)... so, go ahead... vent your right-wing hatred! Spam away! Troll away!

>>10749
>lie about people
>claim they want to watch children burn alive
>insist they're far right extremists
>be surprised when they're unhappy

Ever hear of basic fucking empathy?
Or is that reserved for people who agree with you?

>>10754
Ever hear of basic fucking empathy on your side? Since you'll never, ever give that to other posters ever?

Alright, now I'm really done. Spam away. Troll away. Make violent posts and spread insults away.

>>10753
>detailed violent thing
That's literally you, if you're the same guy I think you are.
I've literally not ever given a single 'violent thing' to you or anyone else.
You're the one who seemed to think such things, memory serves, of the 'right wing'. To the point of thinking you ought preemptively kill them,as I recall.

You speak of "right wing hatred" when I'm literally here arguing universal rights for everyone.
You're the one who has to jump the gun and start labeling people. You're the one calling others extremists. You're the one saying they want to watch babies burn.

>>10755
I literally do.
I've empathy for numerous others here, I've certainly shown.
I just don't have empathy for those who engage in cruelty to me.
Shocker.

Again;
>lie about people
>claim they want to watch children burn alive
>insist they're far right extremists
>be surprised when they're unhappy

>>10737
>Just about everybody accepts
is an appeal to the majority, a logical fallacy (if we even accept it as true), and doesn't change the core concepts being discussed or their relationships in the real world.  Something doesn't become a "right" the moment 51% of people say it is, otherwise me and my buddies want our free Tesla roadsters, because 51% of us demand it.

>That's how human rights work. That's how it's worked for centuries. That's how it is."
You saying "that's just how it is bruh" doesn't make it so.  And you're conflating vastly different issues to make blanket statements don't help your case.  And here you make yet another logical fallacy, an appeal to (what is purportedly) tradition, even though it is just that - a claim.  Your arguments are built on sand here.

"Freedom of speech exists and is a right, therefore everything I claim is a right becomes an equally valid right for the same reasons."  No, that's not how it works.

>>10757
I don't think Python even knows what a true "far right" argument would look like.  It might be something like "healthcare is a right for me and people who look like me, but not people who look like you."  Or if we're talking strictly economics, then "Healthcare is 100% for those who can pay for it."  (But let's be honest, this person thinks we're racists by default somehow so that rules out this version.)

My position on this issue is about as centrist as you can possibly be.  But by not drinking the Kool-Aid, instantly that makes one far right.

>>10760
Pretty much. By 'far right' standards, I'm a communist for thinking state-provided heatlhcare is a good idea we can afford, that'll help significantly.
I don't think it's a 'right', sure, but that doesn't stop a whole lot of nice things.
But of course, they didn't even bother seeking that stance. Just figured on assuming it.