3 ms·
That's not a rebuttal to the parent's argument. For all we know, the homeless residents of Vancouver could be far more numerous (or worse-off) without the safe
by timr 13y ago
That's not a rebuttal to the parent's argument. For all we know, the homeless residents of Vancouver could be far more numerous (or worse-off) without the safety net of universal health care.
- refurb 13y agoThe parent's argument was "A universal health care system would probably fix a lot of this" I rebutted with an example of a country with universal healthcare that still has a large homeless problem. I have no doubt that homeless residents of Vancouver have better access to healthcare. I'm just saying universal healthcare will NOT fix a lot of this.
- timr 13y agoYour comment was not a rebuttal. It was a logical fallacy, and you haven't shown what you think you've shown ("universal healthcare will NOT fix a lot of this"). Canada's healthcare system could be making the situation in Vancouver much better than it otherwise would be. The OP can be correct, even if homelessness is getting worse in Vancouver.
- refurb 13y agoI guess it depends on how you define "a lot of this". I took it to mean homelessness. If I am correct, then it was a rebuttal.
- kevmi 13y agoHi refurb, Thanks for bringing up the point about the homelessness and the health care. Its a solid thought to bring to attention. Sincerely, Guy who does not give a shit if its a rebuttal or not :)