Shannon Talley -> Earl Croasmun wrote:
 ST> Hi Earl,

 ~>>> I'm glad to see you changed your position.
 >> No change.

 ST> Originally you dismissed it out of hand, and then you shifted your
 ST> direction.  I'm not sure what I missed....

You are displaying intellectual dishonesty here. Earl has not changed his
position. Your effort to make it look like he has is failing, just live
with it and move on.

 ~>>> You doubt that people who teach at Harvard are educated?
 >> Hmmm.  I say "I don't doubt their education," and you
respond that I do
 >> doubt it?  I'll go with MY answer.

 ST> If I misread your message, then I apologize - it wasn't intentional.

I find that highly unlikely.

 >> Wilper is a physician.  He teaches at the University of Washington.  He
 >> was
 >> for a time on a fellowship at Harvard, not in a faculty position.  I
 >> don't
 >> know
 >> whether or not he has any expertise in statistics.  And, just for the
 >> sake
 >> of
 >> completeness, I doubt that Harvard Medical School has undergrads in its
 >> student body.

 ST> A physician is required to be an educated person - and I know you are aware
 ST> of the amount of school required.  And - you would be suprised how many
 ST> undergrads that Harvard has that go on to Harvard Medical School - Law
 ST> School - Business - etc.  I've spent time on that campus and enjoyed every
 ST> moment.

 >> Fire protection is not a "right" at all.  It is a
government service
 >> which, if it is

 ST> It is a right if it exists in a city charter as such.  There are lots of
 ST> different charters which provide it as a service, and others as a right.

It isn't a right. It is a mutual protection agreement. You pay taxes to
your local government so that you and your neighbors will be protected from
a possible damage from fire on each other's property and to possibly
minimize the damage to your own property if you have a fire. If you lived
in a remote rural area your house could be consumed by fire before any
outside help could arrive. Where did your "right" go?

 >> are not rights at all, but are freedoms.  If I had a
"right" to eat, that
 >> would
 >> entail someone having a responsibility to give me food.

 ST> The right to eat is akin to the right to pursue happiness.  For one to be
 ST> happy, one must eat (it helps to have a daughter in Law school).

Not even close to reality. Tell your daughter she isn't getting the right
education. You have no right to eat. Reliance on the charity of others is
NOT a right. Your right stops just short of my pocket. If I see you hungry,
I might feed you, but not because you have a right to my food. I would do
so only because I want to. You or your survivors could not sue me for
failing to feed you.

 >> Interesting, though, that some of the countries that have largely
 >> government-
 >> run medical care systems actually deny their citizens that more basic
 >> right to
 >> seek medical care in a mutually voluntary exchange between supplier and

 ST> And there are others that provide government medical care and do not
 ST> acutally deny their citizens that more basic right to seek medical care.
 ST> This ain't one of them.

There is not right to basic medical care.

100 years ago doctors didn't even go to college. Many went to fly-by-night
"schools" for a few months or a year. "Basic medical
care" consisted of going to the barber or whoever had an idea how to
bandage your injury.

Now we have people like you trying to tell everyone there is a right to
something that wasn't even available until just a few decades ago.

Ed

-- 
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is
to fill the world with fools." --Herbert Spencer

Blogs: http://edsramblings.wordpress.com  | Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/ed.hulett
http://woodcarvingnsuch.wordpress.com     | Twitter: yaesu
http://edsscrollsawbits.blogspot.com

Linux User# 416016
Linux Machine# 379711

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)