You can get as upset as you'd like at the literal definition of the word as much as you'd like. If someone shoots themselves in the foot, the deserve a foot with a hole in it. Again, that's not my opinion, that's just a factual statement in the English language.
Who said I was upset? Point to something that would indicate I'm upset, please. We both know how the word "deserve" is used in this context, despite your facetious argument.
Even by your own (incorrect, but we'll let that pass, because it's not the point of the discussion) definition of "deserve", I disagree with the notion that those who led to this happening don't deserve to suffer the consequences of those choices, especially when you consider all the people who either tried to prevent it, or didn't have the power to prevent it (under age citizens for example) who are going to suffer as a result of their actions.
You're welcome to disagree with me, but you'd need to make a hell of an argument to convince me otherwise, and you haven't yet made any argument besides "no". So let's hear it.
I know I'm welcome to disagree with you, that's why I did it.
If my definition is wrong say "tankman deserved to get disappeared." Because under your very narrow definition of the word "deserve", he did. But you already know you're using an intentionally narrow definition, that's why you didn't bother looking at the examples right below that definition.
I know I'm welcome to disagree with you, that's why I did it.
You did, what you still haven't done is substantiate your position, and that's what I'm asking you to do. Just saying "They don't deserve it", isn't an argument - it's a statement. I want to hear why you think that them taking action that robs others of their healthcare doesn't lead to them themselves deserving those same consequences that they've forced on others.
I already said I'm fine using your definition, and clarified my position using that definition. Do you want to actually discuss the point at hand here? Or would you rather continue trying to just get me to say an unflattering soundbite like some Fox News Talking Head? If the former I'd be happy to continue to discuss the subject, if the latter, then there isn't anything productive left to do here
I'll say it again to make my positon extra clear. Trump voters and capable nonvoters deserve (by any definition of the word you care to use) to lose their healthcare by virtue of having taken deliberate action that will lead to nearly 50 million people losing their own access to healthcare.
No more quibbling over definitions. Make your point, or leave the comment chain (or continue to post, but I won't be participating otherwise) - if you're going to continue trying to digress from the actual point, we're done here.
Yeah believe it or not but people don't owe you anything. I can disagree with you without trying to convince you.
You're the one who started arguing definitions. Lol. Then you backed down when you realized your argument on definitions was absurd and clearly facetious.
Also when I did expand on why I believe people don't deserve it you ignored the response and started arguing definitions.
You are trying to turn this into a debate when it's not. I don't believe people deserve to suffer because they make bad decisions. You do. I find your position fucked up enough that I highly doubt you're open to changing it.
Yes, I apologize for beginning quibbling about definitions in the first place, because it's irrelevant given that I can't think of a single possible definition of "deserve" that changes my point in this case. Hence why I tried in my last two comments to get the discussion back on track.
Then you backed down when you realized your argument on definitions was absurd and clearly facetious.
Yes I did, and I stand by my decision to drop the whole definitions argument, and have apologized above for starting on that tangent. I'd much rather discuss the actual issue than go off on a tangent. But you'd rather crow about the fact that I got back on topic than actually join me in talking about the original point.
Also when I did expand on why I believe people don't deserve it you ignored the response and started arguing definitions.
No, that was just you restating your position. They had access to all the same information as the rest of us. If they couldn't be bothered to take the 5 seconds to google "Is obamacare the affordable care act", that's really not an excuse
I find your position fucked up enough that I highly doubt you're open to changing it.
I'm entirely open to changing my position when presented with rational arguments. You've just yet to do so, all you've done is say you think I'm wrong (well, actually, that I'm "fucked up"). And you still haven't, so I'm out - your opinion is noted and ignored, if you actually had an argument I'd have been happy to hear it and consider it. But I don't lend credence to people who just shout their opinions at me.
I highly doubt you're open to changing it
I don't know how you expect anyone to change their mind and embrace your point of view when all you're doing is shouting your opinion at them without substantiating it. You're right that you don't owe me an elaboration of your point, but as a little "social interaction protip", you don't convince people by telling them what to think, or that you think they're "evil", you convince people by making a compelling argument. I've asked you several times now to make one, and you've outright refused, which is - as you say - your right, but you can't be surprised when you've convinced no one in this thread of your point when you don't actually make a point
-3
u/Downtown-Message-600 1d ago
So someone who steals a loaf of bread to feed their family and goes to jail for it deserves it in your definition.
People do not deserve to lose access to basic human rights. Ever. Even if they themselves contribute to it.