When did I say it was objective? I thought context showed that (and history was also referred to) there has been progress and it is a human one, but really I do not think I was referring to objective things when it is a human idea that we decided that slavery was wrong. Same for denying health care to the poor, and this is according to better people that you and me and most of the civilized world.
What is a fact is that MLK declared said that, what it is a fact is that Amnesty internation said so, what it is a fact is that most of the world decided so, with a mix of economical and moral reasons.
Both reasons BTW are against Bricker and other conservatives here.
And Bone is actually seeking refuge on my reading comperhension when I was actually talking about what MLK and Amnesty International said so. What I understood was that Bone was telling me that what MLK said never took place or the time was never clear.
Well the speech that quote originated took place and the timeline was there, we needed to find it. But it happened, that was a fact regardless of our ignorance.
Saying things like “MLKs statement had no time box as quoted. That means he wasn’t referencing a specific time.” Is a really dumb thing to say after a timeline was offered.
That is indeed seeking to define a very human position. And I already mentioned that the health care issue is not depending on human ideals alone. In fact a lot of the humanistic ideas do not depend on religion or being religious ones.
BTW all that Susanita talk was a methafore for what it is indeed a very human endeavor. As the Medical group I cited said, this is not an objective issue, but it is clear that a lot of conservatives want to obfuscate even the meaning that many human rights groups use.
I did not and do not dispute that MLK made the statement, or something similar. I do not dispute the time that the statement was made, or purported to be made.
The statement you quoted from MLK however, did not refer to any specific time. You say it did, assume it did, etc. That’s why my first statement about it was that context was missing.
John is inferring that the statement is referring only to the US, and only to institutional injustice. That may be the case, but it’s an assumption. You are assuming that MLK was referring to things as they existed at the time he made his statement. Read on it’s face, there is no such time limitation in the statement as quoted - and that’s why I mentioned context. Even if it was as you are assuming, slavery was in existence at the time MLK made his statement, and it is in existence today. Unless you think MLK believes ‘injustice in health’ is more inhumane or inhuman than slavery, the quote is in apropos.
So yeah, something is dumb to say sure. It’s coming from you.
You made an assumption which was challenged and is still being challenged. You seem bad at supporting statements of fact that you make so let be try to be as specific as possible.
(my bold)
Support the following:
That the injustices that were present then are the ones that he was talking about.
Further, are you assuming that slavery was not in existence at the time the statement was made sometime around 1966?
He was talking to a crowd of medical people. The reality here is that you are the one that is ignoring the context.
:rolleyes:
There is still slavery, but the one he was aware of was in the past history, not the struggle he was in.
Speaking of obfuscation the point made then stands anyhow. People and groups better than me fought and continue to fight to make health care a public good and even non religious human rights groups think so.
Why is not enough to take into consideration that he indeed talked about slavery as a past thing? BTW that was not talked about in the quote. Nor in the link that was made early too:
This red herring about slavery is just more obfuscation from you. Seeing how a lot of times many poor people are also minorities and they are denied health care I do not see as hard to think that MLK would still be demanding more progress if he was alive.
AGAIN: you don’t get to define as “progress” your desired end goal.
From a factual, objective standpoint, anyway, free, paid health care is not “progress,” in the sense of a more humane option. It’s simply a different policy choice.
The take home lesson was that it is the desired end goal of most of the people of the earth and most of the good people in the USA.
Yes, but are silly for thinking I was going for an objective point, the quote I made early from the medical group I made said so better that I could, but of course it was better for you to ignore it. It is not my problem that you wanted to fight your misinterpretation. And paid health care is progress, it is still cheaper than the irrational alternative we have (and the current reform is incomplete still) and there is still a lot of changes that need to be done.
What’s this shit? He can’t define it as “progress” but you can define it as not “progress”? You got a political science laboratory, you ran experiments and published your results? So you got the objective fact, and he doesn’t?
In a thread lamenting that the maniacal right is hoping to deny health care to indigents (which side is working toward “death squads” indeed?), our Esquire Bricker has diverted attention to the Reverend Martin Luther King’s alleged misuse of the word “inhumane.” And he’s whining that the “liberals” aren’t joining in to chastise Dr. King.
What a supreme asshole.
I’ll stipulate that Bricker’s 4th-grade debate coach drilled into him the useful trait of using words very precisely. I try to be precise when I’m writing journal articles: proofreading, rewriting, etc. But when ranting and screeding on a board like this, I just hope to avoid the most egregious of typos.
Here’s the latest Bricker garbage that led me to post here:
In another thread I mentioned that FoxNews “usually” changes the party designations of Republiopaths in scandal to “(D).” This was an incautious statement on my part – the word I meant was “often.” It turns out that Wikipedia has a list of 6 instances of FoxNews doing that;
likely they missed others; does anyone think such errors were not deliberate?
The interesting story is Fox’s reprehensibility; with a pattern like that all good-spirited Americans should be envouraging a mass boycott of that network. But what aspect turns on the Brickhead?
Stupid septimus used “usual” instead of the better “often” or “typical”. Bricker would have beat septimus in the 4th-grade debate society! Ha ha ha. Nadder nadder nadder!
What a pretentious constipated twit.
Point us to a specific “silly argument” and we’ll comment. I have no problem with Dr. King’s use of “inhumane.”
“Inhumane”, much more so than words like “usual” or even “typical”, is one prone to different meanings for different people. It’s a word that inherently cannot be perceived as an objective word. You were the star of your 4th-grade debate class and you didn’t even learn about words like that??
Search shows me that I’ve used the word “inhumane” a few times on this Board. To save Brickhead the bother, I’ll quote them, and provide rancid right-wing rebuttals.
BRICKSHIT: What’s inhumane is black felons forcing the police to waste taxpayer-bought bullets. That’s why my friends and I carry guns and pay for our own ammunition. We’re ready to help out!
BRICKSHIT: Maximum pain and torture. That’s the humane way to treat inhumane criminals.
BRICKSHIT: Bravo! “Liberals aren’t very smart”! … From the mouths of inhumane centrists!
BRICKSHIT: The bilking of the stupid was Laissez-Faire Dog-eat-dog capitalism at its finest. Transferring money from the stupid and poor to the smart is the quintessential American dream.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
So Brickshit has shitted all over another thread, insulted that Martin Luther King used the word “inhumane.” Brickshit’s particular opinions about a particular word are more important than healthcare for the masses.
It’s hard to believe this pretentious dolt was once a respected poster here.