What I am pushing is a demand that you don’t get to define the parameters of “inhumane,” and thereby win the argument by helpfully defining my preferred outcome as inhumane.
Yes, I agree it took us 10,000 years to drop slavery. So what? Suppose I argue that we still don’t grant legal rights to cattle, despite it being inhumane to slaughter them for food. Am I right, simply because I have defined the opposing position as inhumane?
Well, it** is**. So far what I see is that you are attempting to define it in a very ignorant way, so there is still a lot that you need to learn.
I don’t need to suppose, I only need to reject your reduction to absurdity argument.
The point [del]Susanita[/del] 
is that you did go there, to seek refuge in more uncivilized ages. In recent years virtually all developed nations have arrived to the conclusion that this is a human thing to do (and not to mention: more economical for those nations.)
Wow, did you miss the point illustrated by Mafalda’s friend.
She wanted a traditional life, traditional marriage, traditional husband, traditional kids. But you declare that her view is “worse,” and Mafalda’s desire for a career is “better.” I am asking why you (or Mafalda) gets to define those outcomes. Certainly feminism is supposed to be about choices – not about declaring Susanita’s desires wrong or worse. But you arrogate to yourself the sole arbitration of what is RIGHT, or HUMANE. Why do you get to decide this?
It is, because it is?
Again: no, you don’t get to simply declare victory.
sorry, but this is not so. Many developed nations subsidize health care, yes; where did you get the idea that this means they decided it was “humane,” as opposed to simply being economical?
Did you get that from a comics review?
In fact I got what I was talking about from one strip where Susanita told Mafalda that she always looked at what very bad people was doing to others so she would feel good. I was not talking about “traditional marriage, traditional husband, traditional kids.”
I was talking about what it was shown in an specific occasion (that she never took that back BTW) The point of Mafalda (Or the great Cartoonist Quino that was the creator)was:
“That is not good Susanita, you have to compare to others that are better than you, not with the ones that are worse”
I’m paraphrasing here, but what the character you are claiming to be upset about (really? With that you are trying to make a “winning argument”?) told to Mafalda in the playground was:
“C’mon, who would do that dirty move* to oneself!”
(about looking to the best behaved people to improve)
And the moral of the strip is very clear, Susanita was the one with the dumb ideas, some people really have their moral compass broken, but not in all subjects. On the matter at hand the point stands, it was really a dumb move for you to look at the past when in more modern times the standards of what we consider to be proper human endeavors did and are changing.
No, I got it from my wife’s Mafalda calendar.
Is pate de fois gras “inhumane?”
Ingooseane.
Is skinning live puppies humane?
CMC fnord!
I’m not the one asserting the authority to declare things inhumane.
In my OPINION the answer depends on what reason exists for the skinning. But I don’t say that I have the power to define what is inhumane. I have an opinion; I cannot declare it to be true in a debate.
Looking at what most human rights fighters in the world and in the USA said it is not just me wo can confidently say that you can only claim a temporary advantage, you already lost everywere and will lose in the USA too.
The nice thing about this “fight” we are having is that we are all going to win, even guys like you. After all one of the leaders of the opposition in Switzerland that was one of the holdovers against reforming health care even agrees now after seeing several years of a system that is the closest one to Obamacare as a good and that he was wrong for opposing it in the past.
The point is that this issue has more than just an economical component, and even there you already lost.
(You can stop watching after #7)
In the video Hans Rosling points at the 15% of the USA GDP used in our health care. Currently we are approaching more than 17%. Logic tells me that even for the wealthy a lot of opportunities are lost in the 8% or so that is the difference in expense that there is between nations with and without universal health access.
tanstaafl
Still the same reply goes to you; and here there is a similar move from you to avoid the point like Susanita.
Same arguments to absurdity coming from you noted too.
And that is not what Hans Rosling is not talking about, but thank you for showing all that you are not paying attention.
And speaking of TANSTAAFL what the ones that do propose and got health care around the world found is that the “lunch” the US having is priced too high and does not help all.
People like you do not care that we all are being taken for a ride by powerful interests that would like to keep you wasting all that money.
There has to be some missing context here - I find it difficult to believe that MLK Jr. believed that injustice in health care was more shocking than slavery.
Mmm, there seems to be a lot of trouble with time and timelines.
Slavery was not there when MLK Jr. was marching around. So the injustices that were present then (and that one still is here BTW) are the ones that he was talking about.
Had some caviar once. It was kinda pleasant to reflect on the people who inflict such suffering on themselves just to prove they have more money than good sense.
There is no context. The quote is hearsay, by one person, with no other source to back him up.
Not really, the writer of the piece you quote tought so, but then reported that a description and first hand account do exist:
As I said, hearsay, with no other source to back it up.
Not as you want to make it sound as we got the context (that you claimed that there was not) and a person that was present then.