Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Coronavirus and Empirical Fallacies


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020 is here; I still suck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,962 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

(excuse the typos, errors, and jumping from one thing to the next as this was more about just exposing people to broader viewpoints)

China has descended into a veritably Orwellian state of existence. The every move of their citizens is tracked and with the coronavirus more freedoms have been eviscerated. Indeed, one is not permitted to leave their residence if the mandatory tracking detects that you have been in close proximity to anyone infected. Even if one is not infected. This is a remarkably effective strategy at quashing the spread of a virus. And for many the equation ends there. The solution is found. Of course the situation is a bit more complicated than that. 

 

The primary fallacy is that the equation has only one variable. That is which variable is the most effective at reducing deaths at the quickest rate. This is intuitive as humans fear one thing more than any other. They fear death. Thus, for most people the only moral imperative is to reduce deaths at any cost. Never-mind that history has taught us that this strategy tills the soils for a fecund vengeance of tyranny. Benjamin Franklin said that he who sacrifices ESSENTIAL liberty for TEMPORARY safety deserves neither. This has never been more true than it is today. Because while no one can contest the empirical fact that fascist measures of containment are eminently effective the question has never been about which variable can reduce the most amount of deaths in the shortest amount of time. That is because the premise that there is only one variable, death, is false. One cannot deduce from the fact that there are many deaths that it is then a logical conclusion to restrict peoples actions. 

 

I do not wish to purvey a history lesson spanning the ages but let me cite an example of how much more life is than whether one dies or not. "Give me Liberty or give me Death". Would it surprise you that one of the main causes of the utterance of these words was not the specter of death but of taxation without representation? In other words it was an issue of being told what to do and having ones money taken without having any say. People were and are willing to die for that. For less. The complete restriction of movement for an undetermined amount of time is scandalous to say the least. The declaration of independence talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but it does not place one above the other. All are worth fighting for. All are worth keeping and we should never sacrifice one for the other. 

A government will sacrifice your liberty for it's stability any day of the week. 

 

But of course one could also make the argument that it is morally egregious to restrict people's movements and actions when for tens of thousands of people tomorrow is their last. To deprive people of any joyful experience as they near their last day because of your fear is disgusting. Let them take the risk. If they want to go out and about and there are patrons willing to serve then that should be their choice. No government should impede that freedom. The government can nudge and educate through policies and campaigns but to criminalize and to obstruct people from enjoying their lives is unacceptable. Furthermore there is also a strong case to be made that slowing research on aging is costing many hundreds of thousands of lives daily. Far higher than the coronavirus death toll will ever be. Such things cannot be summarily dismissed when the progress that we have seen is real. If people are willing to work on this essential work then they should be permitted to do so.

 

The government is not all knowing. They dismiss any such arguments as less than serious. Because to them stability and control is everything. To those who care about the human toll not just from a life and death perspective but from a quality of life perspective liberty is more than essential. 

 

Liberty is essential. Freedom of movement and freedom to enjoy life when for hundreds of thousands of people it is their last few days is essential. To sacrifice the ability to work and make progress prolongs the suffering of hundreds of millions of people by extending their poverty where there is no economic growth. Starvation, disease, and squalid living conditions are the result of total lock downs. Millions are dying because we are delaying the end of aging. The decision you take for granted as the correct one cause more destruction and suffering than you even care to imagine. 

 

All for what? So that those of you under 50 can feel a little safer than you won't die from a less than 1% chance from the coronavirus? Of course the actions of other people never endangered you either way. The actions that one can take to protect oneself is not contingent upon the actions of others. PPE, isolation, and hygiene are dependent upon oneself. They are not killing you by doing what they want. You are killing yourself. 

 

The story is much more complicated than many would have us think.


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#2
Erowind

Erowind

    Anarchist without an adjective

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,392 posts

The definition of liberty here is flawed. It assumes that engaging in wage slavery and consumer spectacle is liberating. It assumes that governments can't nationalize industry and ration out supplies to prevent hardship like starvation during a real lockdown. The entire premise assumes America has even faced true restriction when it hasn't, no one here has experienced lockdown like in other "free" countries such as Italy. It conflates loss of liberty due to government malfeasance with temporary loss of liberty in crisis. Was mandatory evacuation during WWII to avoid bombings and invasion a step towards totalitarianism? Or when the government forces citizens to flee a catagory 5 hurricane?

 

Is it understood that allowing the virus to run free will end any consumer liberty at all as it ravages the economy? Do the people who throw fits over not being able to gorge their prideful stomachs on chain food slop also go to arms when millions are locked in cages and put to forced labour over non-violent "crimes" of no victim? (drug war.) Do they show the same vigor when the police murder innocents in the streets with no consequence by corrupt courts? Do they care in any substantive way as their government violates the sovereignty of millions? No. They do not. There is found what they mean by "liberty."



#3
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 889 posts

OK, that's what I think. Maybe a bit rude, but nevertheless:

 

There are different culturess and civilizations, each with its own established way of thinking, its own way to solve problems, its own idea of right and wrong, and so on and so forth. When two civilizations are facing the same challenge, they react differently. This is understandable.

 

The more interesting case is when civilization A facing the challenge already solved by civilization B. All the civilization A needs is just copy this solution that is right before their eyes. Easy? No, almost impossible. This requires to abandon the age-old stereotypes, to recognize the superiority of foreigners, to humble yourself and learn... and this all is so humiliating that, sometimes, even death seems preferable.

 

Epidemic of coronavirus is exactly this case. Problem have the good solution, America sees this solution, but nevertheless ready to hide behind hollow and irrelevant phrases of XVIII century thinkers and pay with 1-2 thousand daily deaths only to maintain its eroding feeling of "superiority" and not learn from rival society. Moreover, US screams of vengeance and desire to "punish" China is eventually rooted in this eroding feeling of superiority. China's resounding success and US pathetic failures have demonstrated who is really superior, and this is unbearable. These are the screams of sore loser, nothing more.



#4
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020 is here; I still suck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,962 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

"Mandatory" evacuations in hurricanes are often ignored by people. If they understand the risks I have no qualms with them having the ability to make those decisions. The virus cannot "run free". The only things that can affect the spread of the virus are peoples behavior. If one is afraid of the virus then follow and heed the advice of self quarantine, wear PPE, but do not make the people who are willing to risk infection into criminals for doing so. 

 

And of course there is also the compelling argument that many more will die if these sorts of massive lockdowns continue. 

 

@Erowind


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#5
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020 is here; I still suck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,962 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

OK, that's what I think. Maybe a bit rude, but nevertheless:

 

There are different culturess and civilizations, each with its own established way of thinking, its own way to solve problems, its own idea of right and wrong, and so on and so forth. When two civilizations are facing the same challenge, they react differently. This is understandable.

 

The more interesting case is when civilization A facing the challenge already solved by civilization B. All the civilization A needs is just copy this solution that is right before their eyes. Easy? No, almost impossible. This requires to abandon the age-old stereotypes, to recognize the superiority of foreigners, to humble yourself and learn... and this all is so humiliating that, sometimes, even death seems preferable.

 

Epidemic of coronavirus is exactly this case. Problem have the good solution, America sees this solution, but nevertheless ready to hide behind hollow and irrelevant phrases of XVIII century thinkers and pay with 1-2 thousand daily deaths only to maintain its eroding feeling of "superiority" and not learn from rival society. Moreover, US screams of vengeance and desire to "punish" China is eventually rooted in this eroding feeling of superiority. China's resounding success and US pathetic failures have demonstrated who is really superior, and this is unbearable. These are the screams of sore loser, nothing more.

My post was not about the supremacy of cultures. Rather it was supposed to be an address to the philosophical concept of self determination. To what extent are we willing to let governments decide our course of action even when we know that governments are often wrong? As i personally believe they are in this case. China with it's authoritarian might easily quashes this virus. Americans will never accept this level of control over their lives. Do not misinterpret this as stupidity. Anyone with half a brain will follow the guidelines to stay safe. The only point here is that government should at most give guidance and institute policies that discourage the profligate discarding of common sense principles. Most will pay heed and those who do not should have the right not to.

 

In other words having a dictatorial government that tells you what and what not to do and enforces it through force may be optimal in situations like these. However, that completely misses the point. The historical cases I alluded to say as much. 

 

Edit: I think you also missed the idea that the avoidance of death is not the only moral imperative. Although many people view it this way.


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#6
kjaggard

kjaggard

    Artificer

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,114 posts
  • Locationwhere fanciful imaginings and hard won knowledge meet to genesis the future.

"Mandatory" evacuations in hurricanes are often ignored by people. If they understand the risks I have no qualms with them having the ability to make those decisions. The virus cannot "run free". The only things that can affect the spread of the virus are peoples behavior. If one is afraid of the virus then follow and heed the advice of self quarantine, wear PPE, but do not make the people who are willing to risk infection into criminals for doing so. 

 

And of course there is also the compelling argument that many more will die if these sorts of massive lockdowns continue. 

 

@Erowind

that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

 

contagion is not even remotely the same sort of thing as hurricanes. Hurricanes don't get worse with more people interacting.

 

Human Coronaviruses require human carriers to spread. The more people moving about the more chance of exchange and spread. It's not a case of a person protecting themselves from spread, or being afraid of it. It's an awareness that you are literally polluting your community with a deadly agent by not minimising your exposure to and and exposing others to the pollutant.

 

I seriously cannot fathom how this is so hard for some to understand. It's like going to a hotspring with hundreds of pools and suddenly somebody gets into one of the pools that has infectious Diarrhea leaking a brown cloud around them. Do you frikkin argue that you were in that pool first and you shouldn't have to leave it? Do you demand they leave even though it's now in the same water you are sitting it and imagine that solves the problem. Do you and the rest of the people in that pool get out and go to other pools because you want to continue enjoying the pools but just not the contaminated one, thus bringing the contaminate with you to the other pools?

 

Here's a wacky idea, everybody out of all the fucking pools, go watch a movie or some shit, and let the pools be decontaminated and make sure that infection isn't spreading anymore before you let anyone back in the fucking pool. If everybody had just done that it would have been about as much time as winter break for most Colleges. Three frikkin weeks, stay home, play games, eat junk food, sleep in. But, Noooo. "you can't tell me what to do."

 

Gods, how are so many people so confused by this?


Live content within small means. Seek elegance rather than luxury, Grace over fashion and wealth over riches.
Listen to clouds and mountains, children and sages. Act bravely, think boldly.
Await occasions, never make haste. Find wonder and awe, by experiencing the everyday.

#7
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020 is here; I still suck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,962 posts
  • LocationGeorgia
You got it right! The problem here is not the solution and no one has been debating that. The problem is that we wish to make it a crime to not need the warnings when one understands the risk. The issue is that there are legitimate concerns about restricting the ability to do anything for the hundreds of thousands of people who will die not in 3 weeks but tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Would you like to spend you last few days forced to stay cooped up or doing whatever you'd like? Either way very few people know if they are to die tomorrow or the day after tomorrow but the fact remains that thousands do. And not because of corona. Then there is also the issue that delaying research into aging is killing more people than the cornavirus ever would. If this has set us back 3 months those are millions upon millions of people dead who would otherwise have potentially been saved. If scientists wished to continue working on that they should be allowed.

Your analogy of diarrhea is cute but misses the point. To you sitting in that pool may seem insignificant. To others it may be worth dying for. Let them die. Don't put them in jail because they want to sit in your diarrhea. Don't make them criminals when their sitting in diarrhea won't prevent you from getting out.

You also completely missed the point about the hurricane. I didn't even bring the hurricane up lmao I was just pointing out that some people stay through the hurricanes and don't leave. And that's fine that is their choice. Of course a virus spreads through human to human contact but that's exactly why it is contingent upon yourself and your actions, your behavior in other words, to protect yourself from it and contain it. Polluting our communities with a deadly agent is what we do everyday. Yet nobody gets jailed for it. Influenza kills younger people at a higher rate than the coronavirus does. Yet no one criminalizes their actions. Driving releases pollution that causes millions of premature deaths a year. Yet it is not a crime to drive.

What I have been suggesting is not radical. It is to not overreact and to realize that this virus is not the end of the world. That we should not sacrifice all liberties such as the ability to work and live because others are afraid. Many may belittle and make light of the word "liberty" and "freedom" but that which you scorn is what many have died for before. Many will die again for it.

I don't understand what's particularly difficult to understand either.
The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#8
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020 is here; I still suck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,962 posts
  • LocationGeorgia
Let me attempt to formalize this a bit more:

Fact 1: Coronavirus kills people mainly older than 50 with rates approaching 17% for the most vulnerable.

Fact 2: You can protect yourself by wearing PPE, distancing yourself, and washing your hands. None of this is contingent upon the acta of other people. Even if it were they are increasing your risk of death by a small amount on average. Like driving a vehicle if you're not particularly old.

If the chances of your death were over 50% , let's say, and their shopping or working posed a direct threat, then it might make sense to forcibly restrict those who are obdurate. Otherwise one cannot deduce from those facts that people's liberties, however petty they are to you, should be restricted.

The fact that viral transmission increases risk of death does not immediately translate into coercive action. We do not act this way for any other thing that increases risk of death and there are many. Older people should be more cautious and there should be services that cater to them so that they can isolate as have arisen today.

These do not seem radical ideas to me.

Edit: in fact we know of many things which increase risk of death more than the coronavirus. We do not jail people for consuming sugary drinks, being obese, smoking, or any other thing which we know causes death. And at higher rates than covid 19. We do not force people to scan their phones to keep them in constant surveillance so that we can protect them from themselves. The picture is not black and white and people should stop painting it as such.

Edit 2: of course one can say that such things are not transmissible but that would be false. The greatest predictor of obesity and a bad diet are family eating habits. These things do spread.
The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#9
Omosoap

Omosoap

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 211 posts

I will argue with you here about the obesity thing. I'm the only one in my family who is obese, and in fact, my genetics say I should be average weight. My family did not have bad eating habits either. Also, my partner lives with me and they are also not obese. I am aware some families have obesity that goes through the family lines, but mine does not. Also, obesity is not contagious. What happens is that most families where obesity is common also have genetic predispositions to obesity (and bad eating habits, like you mentioned, sometimes). I would also argue that I have observed time and time again that those with mental illness that get pills for treatment often become obese. Certain medicines for mental illness mess with insulin and appetite among other things, I have a feeling that if one looked at medicines they took at any time, and/or gut bacteria, they might find the answer lying there (minus accounting for genetic predisposition, family eating habits, and thyroid issues). Diet is definitely a factor, but it's not the only factor in obesity. There are many complex things at work. Also, there is the phenomena of a small proportion of obese people intentionally staying obese because of childhood (or beyond) sexual abuse/other kinds of abuse (especially among women). It is quite a relief for these women to not have to have guy's attention (for the most part), and to be largely ignored except for disgusted glances. I must admit for me, while I don't feel good about my body and my weight, I do feel relieved that I get much less attention while I'm this fat myself. I get some still, but it's way less, which is so nice. I used to get way more than I wanted when I was young. That's all I personally wanted to say.

Source for the sexual abuse thing (there are more official studies referencing this as well): https://www.syracuse..._to_obesit.html

One of the official studies on this: https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC2941402/

A study on Psychiatric treatment and weight gain: https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3031940/

Personally, I have observed meetings of people affected by mental health, where lots of food is brought in and munched on, and many have weight issues. I don't think this is uncommon. 

 

The other stuff, I'm just observing what the studies say about the disease and such, especially in my state. I was personally concerned about the virus due to Italy and Brazil, having major issues with funeral homes overflowing and/or hospitals being overwhelmed. In my state, that's what they told us, it was to keep the hospitals under capacity, so we didn't have them collapsing. I wear a mask and things, ever since the governor advised it, and I'm pretty introverted, but I don't get hostile for people not wearing masks. I already had my health scare, so I'm peaceful now. I am very concerned for my coworkers though, as some have immune issues, or family members with immune issues. That's why I try to be careful. But, I accept that now, it's spread so far, it probably will just spread until everyone's either had it or died from it. My concern is mutation, especially with that weird thing affecting children. But, for now, it is not mutating worse than it is currently. In my state, according to the latest studies, it's infected less than 3 percent of the population so far, nearly 50 percent show no symptoms, and about 0.6 percent of cases so far end in death, which is actually 6 times higher than for the flu. 



#10
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 889 posts

My post was not about the supremacy of cultures.

 

Of course it was. Your whole startpost, being reduced to one phrase was about this: "Chinese approach may seem better, but our approach, which led us to such disappointing results, is still essentially and philosophically correct, here are the quotes of our great thinkers and glorious examples from our history confirming this."

 

Rather it was supposed to be an address to the philosophical concept of self determination.

 

Again, this is your, culturally-specific way of thinking. Where average Westerner sees the self-determination and "inalienable right" to walk free and infect other people during epidemic, the average Far Easterner sees the social duty and responsibility, so he will obey the authorities without feeling of humiliation and internal protest.

 

And why only compare USA with China? Why not compare USA with South Korea? Or even USA with Vietnam? Whose approach is better? For me, neither Westerner nor Far Easterner, this question is purely rhetorical, the reality speaks for itself.

 

Do not misinterpret this as stupidity.

 

I do not. This has nothing to do with someone's individual stupidity, this is much deeper... but here I start to repeat myself.

 

I think you also missed the idea that the avoidance of death is not the only moral imperative.

 

Well, each of us misses something important. The epidemic is not about "self determination" vs "avoidance of death", this is rather about changing your behavior to avoid others deaths! Rephrasing your Franklin: "He who doesn't sacrifices his own temporary liberty for other people's essential safety deserves nothing."



#11
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,050 posts

Benjamin Franklin said that he who sacrifices ESSENTIAL liberty for TEMPORARY safety deserves neither.

 

Yes, but there is the rub, isn't it.  Exactly what is "essential liberty."  Is freedom from wearing personal protective equipment, such as masks, an "essential" liberty?  

 

Staying in quarantine for 14 or so days?

 

Sheltering in place?

 

Freedom from taking a vaccine that is proven effective and relatively safe?
 

I think of the old joke that your freedom to flay your arms wildly about in the air ends where my nose begins.  Perhaps that is not a good analogy for the present situation. Still, the metaphor keeps occurring to me.

 

Because while no one can contest the empirical fact that fascist measures of containment are eminently effective the question has never been about which variable can reduce the most amount of deaths in the shortest amount of time. That is because the premise that there is only one variable, death, is false. One cannot deduce from the fact that there are many deaths that it is then a logical conclusion to restrict peoples actions

 

Well, the use of the word fascist is open to debate. Again, is it really fascist to issue  quarantine orders?

 

Shelter in place orders?

 

Requirements to take a vaccine, or at least allow one's children to be vaccinated?

 

Yes, such measures do invoke the authority of government.  Still, does invoking the authority of government automatically equal fascism?

 

Put another way, most libertarians would agree that organizing a government for the sake of self-defense is legitimate.  Only anarchists question that premise.  So, aren't measures adopted to protect the public health also a form of self-defense? 

 

Or must we choose between anarchy and fascism, with no third way even considered as being possible?

 

Would it surprise you that one of the main causes of the utterance of these words was not the specter of death but of taxation without representation? In other words it was an issue of being told what to do and having ones money taken without having any say. People were and are willing to die for that. For less. The complete restriction of movement for an undetermined amount of time is scandalous to say the least. The declaration of independence talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but it does not place one above the other. All are worth fighting for. All are worth keeping and we should never sacrifice one for the other

 

No, I think I can honestly say that I understood that the concept of no taxation without representation was a motivating cause for the founding fathers and the rebels who supported them.

 

Failing to constrain movement and thus not protect the public heath would be even more scandalous.  

 

So, then by the logic of your own statement we should not sacrifice life for liberty.  Logical, in that liberty does no good for and individual who is dead.  Yet, the rebels were willing to use deadly force to protect against taxation without representation.  

 

What about taxation with representation?  What was there stance on that?

 

By logical inference, for most that would have addressed an important grievance and might have even avoided the whole war.

 

Well, to me, things like using appropriate protective equipment, being quarantined under certain situations, being subject to shelter in place orders, and allowing children to be vaccinated is a form of taxation.  I may not like these taxing restrictions, but when reasonably imposed for purposes of public health, they make sense to me.

 

Moreover, I am fortunate enough to live in a democracy, so I do have elected leaders to who I can register complaints, offer constructive suggestions, etc.  So I am taxed, but not without representation.

 

A government will sacrifice your liberty for it's stability any day of the week. 

 

Perhaps, perhaps not.

 

Furthermore there is also a strong case to be made that slowing research on aging is costing many hundreds of thousands of lives daily. Far higher than the coronavirus death toll will ever be

 

 

Well, first of all, I am not sure that anybody is advocating slowing research on aging.  Second, focusing resources on addressing the coronavirus threat may actually yield insights into human biology that will be useful in addressing health problems associated with aging.  So, I am not quite sure what the point is that you are trying to make here.

 

To sacrifice the ability to work and make progress prolongs the suffering of hundreds of millions of people by extending their poverty where there is no economic growth. Starvation, disease, and squalid living conditions are the result of total lock downs. Millions are dying because we are delaying the end of aging. 

 

Well, there are an awful lot of assumptions being made in these sentences with no proof or evidence offered in support. Further economic growth is not the only way of addressing poverty.  Redistribution of existing wealth can also address that issue.  Moreover, such redistribution can be through either (or both)  voluntary actions  such as donations to charities, as well as through government tax and welfare policies.

 

Again, who is advocating that we stop work on "delaying the end of aging"?

 

I am not saying that is not happening, just that some illustrative examples may be order.  Otherwise, the phrase becomes a platitude that serves only to confuse the issues at hand.

 

The decision you take for granted as the correct one cause more destruction and suffering than you even care to imagine. 

 

Well now, that is kind of the nature of making tough decisions, isn't it?

 

Another good reason why those who are impacted by government policies should have some form of representation in the process by which those policies are made.  

 

All for what? So that those of you under 50 can feel a little safer than you won't die from a less than 1% chance from the coronavirus? Of course the actions of other people never endangered you either way. The actions that one can take to protect oneself is not contingent upon the actions of others. PPE, isolation, and hygiene are dependent upon oneself. They are not killing you by doing what they want. You are killing yourself. 

 

Well, I am not under 50, so I guess this paragraph does not really apply to me.  Still, failing to protect yourself can endanger others. Take wearing a mask.  In a situation in which two people encounter each other, one of which is infected, masks are far more effective at avoiding the spread of the virus if both people wear masks than if just one of the two persons wears a mask. 

 

Or take the case where somebody becomes seriously ill due to failures of personal hygiene or failure to practice social distancing.  If enough people come down with a serious case of the virus all at the same time, then local hospital facilities can quickly become overrun.  Chances of dying can escalate beyond that 1% due to inadequate health care, especially for those over 50 or with other preexisting conditions that make them more vulnerable.  Contributing to clogging the health care system due to one's own negligence becomes a bit like flaying your arms  wildly about in the air without regards to the location of other people's noses.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#12
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020 is here; I still suck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,962 posts
  • LocationGeorgia
Too much to respond to. I at least accomplished my goal of exposing others to an alternative way of looking at things
The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#13
SastangFever

SastangFever

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Locationhere

Let me attempt to formalize this a bit more:

Fact 1: Coronavirus kills people mainly older than 50 with rates approaching 17% for the most vulnerable.

Fact 2: You can protect yourself by wearing PPE, distancing yourself, and washing your hands. None of this is contingent upon the acta of other people. Even if it were they are increasing your risk of death by a small amount on average. Like driving a vehicle if you're not particularly old.

If the chances of your death were over 50% , let's say, and their shopping or working posed a direct threat, then it might make sense to forcibly restrict those who are obdurate. Otherwise one cannot deduce from those facts that people's liberties, however petty they are to you, should be restricted.

The fact that viral transmission increases risk of death does not immediately translate into coercive action. We do not act this way for any other thing that increases risk of death and there are many. Older people should be more cautious and there should be services that cater to them so that they can isolate as have arisen today.

These do not seem radical ideas to me.

Edit: in fact we know of many things which increase risk of death more than the coronavirus. We do not jail people for consuming sugary drinks, being obese, smoking, or any other thing which we know causes death. And at higher rates than covid 19. We do not force people to scan their phones to keep them in constant surveillance so that we can protect them from themselves. The picture is not black and white and people should stop painting it as such.

Edit 2: of course one can say that such things are not transmissible but that would be false. The greatest predictor of obesity and a bad diet are family eating habits. These things do spread.


Do you want to go to the club or bar or something? I wanna go to the bar too but i am content with drink8ng at home.

#14
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,050 posts

Too much to respond to. I at least accomplished my goal of exposing others to an alternative way of looking at things

 

Yes, your post was very thought provoking.  ;)  :cool:  :bye:


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#15
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020 is here; I still suck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,962 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

 

Let me attempt to formalize this a bit more:

Fact 1: Coronavirus kills people mainly older than 50 with rates approaching 17% for the most vulnerable.

Fact 2: You can protect yourself by wearing PPE, distancing yourself, and washing your hands. None of this is contingent upon the acta of other people. Even if it were they are increasing your risk of death by a small amount on average. Like driving a vehicle if you're not particularly old.

If the chances of your death were over 50% , let's say, and their shopping or working posed a direct threat, then it might make sense to forcibly restrict those who are obdurate. Otherwise one cannot deduce from those facts that people's liberties, however petty they are to you, should be restricted.

The fact that viral transmission increases risk of death does not immediately translate into coercive action. We do not act this way for any other thing that increases risk of death and there are many. Older people should be more cautious and there should be services that cater to them so that they can isolate as have arisen today.

These do not seem radical ideas to me.

Edit: in fact we know of many things which increase risk of death more than the coronavirus. We do not jail people for consuming sugary drinks, being obese, smoking, or any other thing which we know causes death. And at higher rates than covid 19. We do not force people to scan their phones to keep them in constant surveillance so that we can protect them from themselves. The picture is not black and white and people should stop painting it as such.

Edit 2: of course one can say that such things are not transmissible but that would be false. The greatest predictor of obesity and a bad diet are family eating habits. These things do spread.


Do you want to go to the club or bar or something? I wanna go to the bar too but i am content with drink8ng at home.

 

Are you asking me out on a date? If so the answer is yes.


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#16
SastangFever

SastangFever

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Locationhere

Let me attempt to formalize this a bit more:

Fact 1: Coronavirus kills people mainly older than 50 with rates approaching 17% for the most vulnerable.

Fact 2: You can protect yourself by wearing PPE, distancing yourself, and washing your hands. None of this is contingent upon the acta of other people. Even if it were they are increasing your risk of death by a small amount on average. Like driving a vehicle if you're not particularly old.

If the chances of your death were over 50% , let's say, and their shopping or working posed a direct threat, then it might make sense to forcibly restrict those who are obdurate. Otherwise one cannot deduce from those facts that people's liberties, however petty they are to you, should be restricted.

The fact that viral transmission increases risk of death does not immediately translate into coercive action. We do not act this way for any other thing that increases risk of death and there are many. Older people should be more cautious and there should be services that cater to them so that they can isolate as have arisen today.

These do not seem radical ideas to me.

Edit: in fact we know of many things which increase risk of death more than the coronavirus. We do not jail people for consuming sugary drinks, being obese, smoking, or any other thing which we know causes death. And at higher rates than covid 19. We do not force people to scan their phones to keep them in constant surveillance so that we can protect them from themselves. The picture is not black and white and people should stop painting it as such.

Edit 2: of course one can say that such things are not transmissible but that would be false. The greatest predictor of obesity and a bad diet are family eating habits. These things do spread.


Do you want to go to the club or bar or something? I wanna go to the bar too but i am content with drink8ng at home.
Are you asking me out on a date? If so the answer is yes.

You wrote all of this because you cant go to the club. Its ok bro. You can go be a apex predator next year.

Im not gay but im flattered.

#17
Cyber_Rebel

Cyber_Rebel

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • LocationNew York

The various worker uprisings, Red Scares, McCarthyism, and Civil Rights eras were far more overtly against people's "freedom" than this basic quarantine ever could be.  It genuinely astounds me that asking people to stay home and watch T.V. the internet, or social distance and wear mask is equated to actual tyranny that has occurred in human history. 

 

The premise of the argument is wholly off, because it's making the assumption that your so called precious "liberties" are being taken away for little to no reason at all, when in reality it's to safeguard public safety and those people who are most at risk from the contagion. The virus has been mutating and is even dangerous to children. We should prioritize ignorance and risk unnecessary death with a disease that we're still learning about? Nevermind easing lockdown restrictions and allowing the freedom crowd to do whatever they please possibly means reinfecting areas or countries who have managed to lower the curve and control the contagion. This means, these places will end up blocking said citizens and imposing travel restrictions longer than what might have been necessary had they simply listened to damn protocol.

 

This means, your precious economy suffers for much longer than originally intended, all because you think your liberties are more important in the short run than another person's longterm safety. Where the hell was all this faux outrage when it came to the Patriot Act, NSA spying, illegal wars, and basically no corporate oversight? Oh, that's right, this only extends to the rights of guns and the unique American privilege to die for the rich.

 

Enjoy 3000+ deaths a day then.



#18
SastangFever

SastangFever

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Locationhere

The various worker uprisings, Red Scares, McCarthyism, and Civil Rights eras were far more overtly against people's "freedom" than this basic quarantine ever could be. It genuinely astounds me that asking people to stay home and watch T.V. the internet, or social distance and wear mask is equated to actual tyranny that has occurred in human history.

The premise of the argument is wholly off, because it's making the assumption that your so called precious "liberties" are being taken away for little to no reason at all, when in reality it's to safeguard public safety and those people who are most at risk from the contagion. The virus has been mutating and is even dangerous to children. We should prioritize ignorance and risk unnecessary death with a disease that we're still learning about? Nevermind easing lockdown restrictions and allowing the freedom crowd to do whatever they please possibly means reinfecting areas or countries who have managed to lower the curve and control the contagion. This means, these places will end up blocking said citizens and imposing travel restrictions longer than what might have been necessary had they simply listened to damn protocol.

This means, your precious economy suffers for much longer than originally intended, all because you think your liberties are more important in the short run than another person's longterm safety. Where the hell was all this faux outrage when it came to the Patriot Act, NSA spying, illegal wars, and basically no corporate oversight? Oh, that's right, this only extends to the rights of guns and the unique American privilege to die for the rich.

Enjoy 3000+ deaths a day then.


Hes bummed out that old peoplr wont die for him so he can go visit the nightclub




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users