“Of all the forms of inequality…” There is no timebox around that statement. Also, slavery was and still is in existence - it’s just called human trafficking now. It seems rather silly anyways. You can declare by fiat your definitions of what is or is not humane, what all societies must provide, etc. In the end it’s all blather really because your opinion on what is or is not humane carries no weight. I hereby define your argument to be “a losing argument” because it is. Splendid.
And here are more cites found by the PNHP, it seems that Terr did it better but still did not see what that researcher missed in 2013, but this was noticed in October 2014:
Sorry but your argument is dumb. Besides the timeline was March 25, 1966.
I already pointed that the arguments here are not just coming from me, indeed a poster in a message board carries no weight is one of my mottoes. Therefore one has to look at others that are more capable than me did say.
So it is not my problem when I and others can notice that you had no support for the empty rhetoric you posted here.
Your argument is dumb. It’s a losing argument dontchaknow.
You have nothing, I have as support civil right leaders, human world right organizations telling you the same. You only showed ignorance by not even knowing when MLK J was active and what was the likely reason for what he said.
For the moment, I’m arguing only that you cannot simply define the lack of free health care as “inhumane.”
Your reading comprehension fails you. MLKs statement had no time box as quoted. That means he wasn’t referencing a specific time. You imparted a time reference where there was none. It has nothing to do with when he was active. Yup you still have a Losing Argument. See - it’s easy when you make up definitions!
And this is what continues to frustrate me. GIGObuster’s almost total lack of ability to offer coherent argument is one thing – but no other liberal comes along even to say, “Hey, G, I agree with your conclusions completely, and I even agree it’s inhumane not to provide health care, but your argument is flawed – ‘inhumane’ is a matter of opinion, not objective fact.”
I don’t agree that “inhumane,” has a objective definition that can be uncontroversially applied to the question of governments providing free health care to their citizenry. It’s certainly true that organizations like Amnesty International, who favor the outcome, are willing to declare it true, but the mere fact that advocacy organizations favor free health care does not make their opinion on the lack of free health care being “inhumane,” a correct one.
In an objective debate, it’s simply not correct to assert this claim, any more than it would be for me to assert its opposite.
Abortion is inhumane.
“Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.” – Mother Teresa, 1994
"When we consider that women are treated as property it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” – Elizabeth Cady Stanton, 1880
"“*t seems to me as clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime.”
― Mahatma Gandhi, 1938
So, what have I proved?
Nothing, of course. Because while it’s my opinion that abortion is inhumane, it’s not a matter of objective fact. I cannot enter a debate and claim otherwise.
Y’all are missing the most important part:
If the word Dr. King used was actually “inhuman,” we have a whole new term to quibble and argue over!
Hey, GIGObuster, I agree with your conclusions for the most part, and I agree it’s inhumane–and inhuman–not to provide health care, but your argument is flawed;‘inhumane’ is a matter of opinion, not objective fact.
Please note, Bricker, that because I have not criticized GIGO does not mean I agree with him. Please also note that few “liberals” have posted on the topic at all in the past while, so it’s not like we’re over here cheering him on. It shouldn’t frustrate you that hordes of liberals are not racing to your support.
I hate to argue about what the meaning of “is” is, but he did say “is” not “was”, so I think the most parsimonious explanation is that he was talking about the present (the time he said what he said, assuming he did say it).
But even still, I’m hard pressed to agree with him since I can imagine much more inhumane things than inequality of healthcare. Torture, for one. Lynching, too.
Beyond that, MLK’s comments were made in the context of a time when black people couldn’t be seen at most doctor’s offices in the South. I’m not sure it’s reasonable to conclude that he was talking about inequality caused by economic factors rather than de jure or de facto segregation.
The CRA required equal access to hospitals but not to all facilities providing non-emergency care.
Apropos of nothing, the (very rednecked) senior partner at our office, who grew up in Apopka, mentioned in a tone of quiet horror recently that his childhood physician’s office had separate black and white waiting rooms and even separate entrances to the building.
For varying definitions of slavery, there is still slavery in the world today - and when MLK was alive.
[ol]
[li]“Of all the forms of inequality, X is the worst”[/li][li]“Of all the forms of inequality that exist right now, X is the worst”[/li][/ol]
These statements have different meanings beyond rhetorical flare.
I think we can also assume the he was talking about institutional injustices, and in the US in particular. Well, maybe not that last part, but whatever he meant, I can’t parse it in a way that makes much sense.
A possibly misquoted and/or misremembered line, entirely devoid of context? And you can’t parse it? Imagine!
(Obviously the point is that racial and socioeconomic inequality in health care is a fucking bad thing. Can we at least all get on board with that?)
.
(Post shortened at the request of hamsters.)
It would be helpful in pursuing the all-important issue of the precise meaning of the word “inhumane” if the Counselor could offer us some moral choices and criteria that are solidly founded in objective fact.
Well, yeah, but what I actually meant was that I can’t imagine adding a context that would make that quote sensible. But, you’re right, we don’t really have much to go on.
Not quite. The rich are always going to have better healthcare unless you forbid them to spend their money on better hospitals or forbid anyone from being rich. Rather, we should set a minimum standard that we, as a society, think is acceptable. We don’t accept that people should die in the streets in the US, although I’m not necessarily saying that is where the bar should be set.
“In this country, on an institutional basis, for things that exist right now, of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and inhumane” - just doesn’t have the same punch, right?
This is of course, for varying definitions of ‘inhumane’ and ‘injustice in health’ whatever the fuck that means.
MLK was awesome. Truly. This does not mean he shit gold and was powered by unicorn farts. His opinion on ‘injustice in health’ or what is inhumane were subject to the same limitations then as anyone else’s are today.
Would an authoritative pronouncement from the Queen of Romania be more serviceable?