If you have to intentionally misconstrue one’s argument to make your own, then you don’t have one. You have a logical fallacy.
One can agree simultaneously that healthcare is not a human right, as it implies that someone is entitled to the labor of doctors and their fellow citizens, while also believing we should have universal healthcare. Nuances exist.
Just like the right to a speedy trial implies someone is entitled to the labor of lawyers and their fellow citizens as jurors, and therefore lawyers and jurors are slaves? GTFOH with your "but muh fallacy!!!". Healthcare being a human right doesn't turn doctors into slaves. If they really hate being paid money so much and their hippocratic oath or whatever then they have the freedom to pursue a different career field - not slavery.
Lawyers working cases under the 6th amendment are people who applied to work at public defenders offices. A lawyer from a giant firm is not working public defense unless they want to. Per ABA Model Rule 6.1, a lawyer cannot be required under law to represent anybody.
You’re 2/2 on logical fallacies considering you’ve strawmanned another argument. The crying about being called out for poor arguments is hilarious.
That’s cool dude. I’m pretty sure I still said one can agree that healthcare is not a human right while also acknowledging that universal healthcare is the most beneficial thing for a country. You don’t read well.
1
u/username_tooken Jan 31 '25
LOL “We can’t have universal healthcare because it would be sLaVErY!!!” That’s a new one. An incredibly dumb argument, but a novel one nonetheless.