• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Half of beneficiaries of NYC's new healthcare program are illegals


Your clever little image might be apt if the guy in the first frame had posted that it’s immoral for apple to pay their workers so little, AND that anyone who is unwilling to pay higher prices for their iPhone so that such workers can be paid more is the moral equivalent of a slaver that tortured their chattel...
/
/
/
/
gotcha.jpg

EDIT: In all seriousness, that wouldn't make much difference either. Suppose I think that iPhones are indeed too cheap for the labor they exploit. That's a totally separate issue from whether or not I personally have taken steps to correct the problem. If I haven't, and I say I haven't because I'm either a hypocrite or selfish, then...? That just means I'm a hypocrite or I'm selfish. It doesn't invalidate the original point in any way, which doesn't depend upon the behavior of the person making it for justification.
 
Last edited:
First of all, I am not a Christian nor do I pretend to be one only at Christmas time. Secondly, read what I wrote again VERY CAREFULLY. “Having the means” does NOT mean giving everything away, nor would anyone have to if we had universal healthcare. “Having the means” necessarily means that you could afford to pay the tax.

That doesn’t make sense within the context of what you wrote, given that citizens don’t have a choice when it comes to taxes.

What are you talking about? They have a choice in regard to what is taxed and for what reasons they are taxed. That’s what your vote entails.

But then, that also wouldn’t make sense, given that most citizens have no direct control over what members of congress propose, nor do we have direct recourse to impose our desires on representatives during their term.

You have a strange view of democracy. And nice use of the word “direct” as a qualifier.

So tell us, what exactly does voting do then, if not determine policy?

So perhaps you meant to limit your complaint only to members of Congress rather than extending it to all republicans and supporters of republican candidates during any given election?

So, it’s not your fault that you voted for someone who didn’t push for universal health care, even though you want universal health care?

If that’s the case, then it seems you’re passing universal judgment on an extraordinarily small group of people for not raising taxes to the level you believe “people” could pay

That’s a mighty tortured logic you’re trying to deploy there. Here, I’ll dumb it down for you: if you want universal health care, then vote for the people who are promising to implement universal healthcare. If you don’t vote for someone that is promising universal healthcare, then yes, you are in fact culpable in our not having UHC, which in turn does necessarily mean that you are also culpable in the deaths of thousands of people because we don’t have UHC.

You are not absolved of complicity because you wanted UHC but instead voted for someone who was not pushing for UHC and “oh well, I wanted it, but what can you do, we don’t have direct control over such matters so....”

... and that’s all well before we even get into a discussion of how you determine how much taxes citizens can”afford” to pay, even thought they have no actual choice in the matter.

Again I must ask, what do you think is the role of your vote and our government? Are you seriously arguing that voters who happen to be registered Republicans who want UHC just have no choice in the matter?
 
Back
Top Bottom