[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.8234[View All]

File: 1607374133054.jpg (93.58 KB, 889x1024, 889:1024, 130743680_1022122736378675….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Saw this picture on social media today with a shit-ton of likes and I'm pretty down with memes and all.

But is this supposed to be humorous?
67 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.8363

>>8360
>Also please note that they are not rules imposed by a private business, it's government rules.
Hmm, where I live, both the government and private businesses have imposed mask requirements.  (Perhaps private businesses imposed mask requirements only because the government forced them to.)

 No.8364

>>8357
I can get that.  But, I'm less concerned with potentials, than I am with justice and rights.
So, for me, it's a risk we have to take.  At least until better detection tech is developed.

 No.8365

>>8360
>But they believe the rules are taking away peoples' liberties and rights, so they obviously don't respect such rules or think people should adhere to them because it's sacrificing their liberty. Their words.
You do realize I can both say "government should not be mandating seatbelts" and "it's a good idea to wear a seat belt", yes?

These are not contradictory.

 No.8368

File: 1608074478244.jpg (75.58 KB, 599x848, 599:848, 1487065282363.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8364
Hmm, I see the mask requirement as pretty analogous to the law against drunk driving that you seemed to be okay with in >>8355.  Someone (of unknown infection status) going maskless indoors in public has a small chance of infecting and killing someone, just like someone driving with a BAC between 0.08% and 0.10%.  Many people in each group don't injure anyone.  In fact, some people are safer drivers at 0.10% BAC than others are completely sober.  So if the government can prohibit driving while mildly intoxicated, due to the unknowable risk of causing an traffic crash, it seems to me that the government should also be able to mandate masks for people of unknown contagiousness.

 No.8369

>>8368
An uninfected person has no chance, though.
That is the difference.

It would be like if we arrested all drivers, because of the possibility of drunk driving.

 No.8371

>>8361

>Saying people have a right to do something doesn't mean they should in the first place.

So... you go out of your way to defend their right to do it, but you don't think they should do it? What a pointless thing to argue.

>Again, you're putting this on my shoes when I'm someone who's against this nonsense.

Well, in my eyes you aren't against it if you champion peoples' right to go maskless and do as they like to assert their liberties. sorry.

>You said you have a job.

Fine, I must have misread it in my haste. I thought you were claiming I supported lockdown because I didn't need to work/had enough money or comfort to not be bothered by it.

>You lack the empathetic capabilities to even imagine those people who are suffering.

I sleep at night knowing people aren't suffering just because I believed in my god given right to go out and socialise all the time during a pandemic. I can't have personal responsibility for a lockdown that wasn't my decision.

>Yeah, instead they're built on blindness and a desire to appear virtuous at the expense of others.

It's not about appearing virtuous, I am not virtuous and the only reason I say what I say is because I want to try to return to normality. Fighting every step of the way your right to cough on people will not do that.

>Did I say that I support that? No.  Of fucking course I didn't.

It's an action tied to a set of beliefs that you're defending. So why wouldn't you support that? Aren't they celebrating their right not to wear a mask or follow the lockdown/distancing rules?

>It's pretty telling you're fine with people robbing and looting stores. But hey, as long as they're following your party line, right?

I mean I don't support that either to be honest.

>And yet you're fine with lockdowns, and think everyone should just bend over because that will fix it faster.

Right okay, so how is fighting it going to fix it faster, then? How is increasing the rates and killing more people a positive fix for this in any scenario in your head?

>>8362

I don't want your kindness or patience. At what point did I ask for any? You can be as hostile to me as you like, I am not bothered. Prioritising cordiality above all else is that same shit that people who spout things about "the tolerant left" do, and I am not here for it. When you're discussing peoples' lives, it shouldn't be treated like friggin debate club, and as though whoever gets too emotionally invested in it automatically loses.

>>8365

Sure you can, but as I said, I don't know a single person who wore a mask until they were literally forced to. So yes, I am going to presume people who argue against masks are those kind of people, obviously, or else why make it an argument to begin with?

>>8363

It started as an optional thing (which nowhere here really followed), but every couple weeks since lockdown ended in July cases rose and rose because everyone went nuts roaming around in big groups of people, so slowly but surely it went from optional, to mandatory for staff, to mandatory for everyone coming in or out of the building. Now we're back where we were in March, all because people couldn't act responsibly.

 No.8373

>>8369
>An uninfected person has no chance, though.
Right, but the problem is that people don't know whether they are uninfected, unless they're immune from a previous infection or they've been isolating.  So people should assume that there is a non-zero probability that they're infected.

 No.8374

>>8371
>So yes, I am going to presume people who argue against masks are those kind of people
That might be a bad assumption, especially if you're arguing with someone who potentially opposes seatbelt mandates as a matter of principle.  Better to ask than to assume.

 No.8376

>>8371
>So... you go out of your way to defend their right to do it, but you don't think they should do it? What a pointless thing to argue.
To you.
I believe in liberty.

>Well, in my eyes you aren't against it if you champion peoples' right to go maskless and do as they like to assert their liberties. sorry.
Well then you're just a blind partisan uninterested in nuances, only if people tow the party line.

As a consequence, I don't really give a damn what you think.  It doesn't accurately represent reality.

>I can't have personal responsibility for a lockdown that wasn't my decision.
I didn't expect you to.  That doesn't change the fact that you're incapable of understanding their positions, thus demonstrating a clear lack of empathy.

>I am not virtuous and the only reason I say what I say is because I want to try to return to normality. Fighting every step of the way your right to cough on people will not do that.
Sucking the bootheel of a government that never cared about your safety doesn't do that either.

>It's an action tied to a set of beliefs that you're defending. So why wouldn't you support that? Aren't they celebrating their right not to wear a mask or follow the lockdown/distancing rules?
You presume my beliefs without evidently knowing them, then you pin a bad thing on me for them.

Fine;
By your logic, you're fine with pedophiles running in the street, fondling kids, because as you show, we can just say "OH UR BAD SO U MUSY ALSO LIKE BAD THING".

I think it's a stupid way to think myself, but hey, if it's your logic, fine.

Your shitty assumptions are just getting tiring at this point.  You can't seem to attack me for anything I actually believe, so instead you fabricate things.
Its getting boring.  From now on, I'm just going to say "I don't care what a pedophile thinks" when you do it. Deal?

>I mean I don't support that either to be honest.
Yeah, no shit, that was the point.
What, are you so used to this style of argument you think it's the default state?

>Right okay, so how is fighting it going to fix it faster, then? How is increasing the rates and killing more people a positive fix for this in any scenario in your head?
By ending the unjust and illegitimate violation of rights on people?
It's rather obvious.

 No.8378

>>8371
>I don't want your kindness or patience. At what point did I ask for any? 
I didn't suggest you did.  Again you put words in my mouth.
I am tired of offering it to people like yourself, so I don't.
I give an eye for an eye.

>Prioritising cordiality above all else is that same shit that people who spout things about "the tolerant left" do, and I am not here for it. 
Well that's extremely telling of you.
At least you're honest with it. Most aren't.

>When you're discussing peoples' lives, it shouldn't be treated like friggin debate club, and as though whoever gets too emotionally invested in it automatically loses.
Not my stance. Simply that you shouldn't behave like an asshole.
I've tried just explaining that countless times, but people like you never listen.
So, fine. If you want to be an asshole, expect to be treated like one.

>So yes, I am going to presume people who argue against masks are those kind of people, obviously, or else why make it an argument to begin with?
So in other words, you're going to behave like a prejudiced prick, regardless of what people say, and are going to hassle them purely based on your own bigotry.

Yeah, not a good look.

 No.8379

>>8376

>You presume my beliefs without evidently knowing them, then you pin a bad thing on me for them.

It's not presuming your beliefs, you are saying end the government restrictions. One of the government restrictions is mandatory mask wearing. What am I missing here?

>Well then you're just a blind partisan uninterested in nuances, only if people tow the party line.

Sure I guess

>What, are you so used to this style of argument you think it's the default state?

Yeah pretty much

>By ending the unjust and illegitimate violation of rights on people?

People have the right to live longer too. What about their right?

>Not my stance. Simply that you shouldn't behave like an asshole.

Just because you can state your view more calmly, it doesn't make it less asshole-y to believe things like "these people were going to die in ten years anyway." I don't get what you want from me, you want me to concede and be like "well, I disagree with nearly everything you've said, but that's alright" or something?

>So in other words, you're going to behave like a prejudiced prick

No different than people behaving like ignorant pricks for refusing to follow any precautions to protect people, in my eyes.

 No.8381

>>8379
That supporting the right to not wear a seatbelt doesn't mean it's a good idea.  As I had already said.

>Yeah pretty much
Well that's sad, then and I'd suggest you're hanging out with bad people.

>People have the right to live longer too. What about their right?
No
They do not.
I keep having to explain this to you.

You do not have the right to live a long life. You may well die tomorrow, through no fault of your own or anyone else.
That's no violation of your rights.
Rights aren't some utopian ideal of a perfect world.  They're based in reality. That's why you never hear anyone say you're guaranteed happiness,  only the pursuit of it.
Not everyone gets happiness.  That's okay.  That's not a violation of your rights.

>Just because you can state your view more calmly, it doesn't make it less asshole-y to believe things like "these people were going to die in ten years anyway."
Likewise, it doesn't make it any less assholey to believe "you should be homeless and starving on the street in order to get grandma another two years".

>I don't get what you want from me, you want me to concede and be like "well, I disagree with nearly everything you've said, but that's alright" or something?
No, mainly I was trying to explain what I was doing there.
I hope you will look on this with some introspection and say "Hey, maybe i shouldn't assume people who politically disagree with me are literally the devil, instead of just misinformed genuine people who honestly believe what they're telling me".

>No different than people behaving like ignorant pricks for refusing to follow any precautions to protect people, in my eyes.
I disagree.  I consider bigotry worse than ignorance.

 No.8383

>>8381

So nobody has the right to happiness? How does one earn happiness? What makes them deserving of it more than another? Off topic though I suppose. That's just weird to me. But fair enough, if you don't think it's a bit unfair to infect someone just because that person is in a minority, then I won't be able to change that.

>Likewise, it doesn't make it any less assholey to believe "you should be homeless and starving on the street in order to get grandma another two years"

The fact that you equate following simple guidelines with being forced into being homeless is really really weird to me. Why such an extreme reaction to a simple request of courtesy?

>I hope you will look on this with some introspection and say "Hey, maybe i shouldn't assume people who politically disagree with me are literally the devil, instead of just misinformed genuine people who honestly believe what they're telling me".

Considering that most of the people I disagree with politically are right-leaners who believe I should be killed, that's probably not going to happen tbh

>I disagree.

Then disagree.

 No.8384

>>8383
What exactly do you mean by "X has the right to happiness"?  E.g., what responsibilities does it impose on other people?

 No.8385

>>8384

I'm just saying that it sounds pretty sociopathic to be like "look, you don't have a right to be happy and that's just The Way It Is"

 No.8386

>>8385
I think you and Colorful Antelope might be experiencing a failure in communication due to using different meanings of "right to happiness".

 No.8387

>>8383
>So nobody has the right to happiness
Of course not! How could that ever work? Who among us even knows reliable happiness anyway? What we think will make us happy won't always.

>? How does one earn happiness? 
Who knows! That's up to you.

>What makes them deserving of it more than another? 
Who deserves it to begin with?
Who can be said to have the same kind, the same source, as another?

It isn't binary as you appear to think.  

>But fair enough, if you don't think it's a bit unfair to infect someone just because that person is in a minority, then I won't be able to change that.
I'm not in favor of intentionally infecting anyone, regardless of their status of population percentages.

>The fact that you equate following simple guidelines with being forced into being homeless is really really weird to me. 
Again, that is because you refuse to engage with what else is happening.

There's not just "stay at home during Christmas".

>Why such an extreme reaction to a simple request of courtesy?
Government authority is derived from the barrel of a gun, regardless of what you want to pretend like it is.
It's not just a request.

>Considering that most of the people I disagree with politically are right-leaners who believe I should be killed, that's probably not going to happen tbh
I'm skeptical given your conduct in this thread thus far you are capable of representing their positing honestly, or for that matter not applying that position undeservedly to others who do not hold such a view.

 No.8388

>>8385
Do you think "rights" equal "are allowed to have"?
That's not how rights work.

You do not have a right to food.
You do not have a right to shelter.
You do not have a right to a gun.
You do not have a right to a car

Rights don't give you free stuff.
You have the right to own these things.  You have the right to BE happy. That doesn't mean you get them.

 No.8389

>>8387

>I'm not in favor of intentionally infecting anyone, regardless of their status of population percentages.

But you're in favor of unintentionally infecting them by people roaming around unimpeded.

>There's not just "stay at home during Christmas".

Never said it was just that, but I still don't think "lose everything you have" and "wear a mask" are interwoven.

>It's not just a request.

Because if it was just a request, most people wouldn't bother. Our government here tried the "request" angle already, and our cases only continued to rise.

>I'm skeptical given your conduct in this thread thus far you are capable of representing their positing honestly

Then be skeptical.

 No.8390

>>8389
I am in favor of people having the right to choose for themselves what risks to take.

>Never said it was just that, but I still don't think "lose everything you have" and "wear a mask" are interwoven.
Nor do I.
Good thing it isn't just that.

>Because if it was just a request, most people wouldn't bother. Our government here tried the "request" angle already, and our cases only continued to rise.
So what's your point?
My reaction is to the mandates, not some request made before it.
That's irrelevant.

 No.8391

>>8390

>I am in favor of people having the right to choose for themselves what risks to take.

But the risks they take put those consequences onto others, not just themselves... I feel like this is going in circles

My point is it's a bit rich to say "but it's not a request" when it being a request clearly isn't an option people could be trusted with.

 No.8392

>>8391
>My point is it's a bit rich to say "but it's not a request" when it being a request clearly isn't an option people could be trusted with.
Irrelevant.
I don't care if people can be trusted or not.
That doesn't come in to it.

It's never acceptable to violate people's rights

 No.8394

>>8392

Then by all means, continue to wipe out more humans instead

 No.8395

>>8394
I mean, it's not like abandoning human rights have lead to under greatest tragedies throughout human history, right?
Who cares if we toss a few of those away.  It's all for a good cause.  Not like that's what they always say

 No.8396

>>8395

why don't you just consider those lives lost as just another part of the minority, since you like to be so pragmatic about it. They probably would have died anyway

 No.8410

File: 1608230312525.jpg (201.79 KB, 1500x1500, 1:1, 6d3f922b79e26c6d2b88275a78….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8234
>minding your own dam biz is good for your teeth

Took me a minute to work out its cuz of knuckle sandwiches.

And your superspreader event next door IS my dam business you scurvy plague rats.

 No.8412

It's really bizarre to me that the presence or not of a disease is such a partisan topic.

 No.8420

>>8396
Because I'm opposed to the violation of anyone's rights, regardless of if it's one person, or a thousand.

I'm sure you could build a utopian society off the back of a slave underclass.  One slave could work to feed ten.
Wouldn't be right. Nobody should be enslaved for the sake of another.

 No.8438

>>8412
I am not convinced there is many, or really even any, people who believe the virus doesn't exist at all. The common argument seems to be that it's far less dangerous than people think.
Which seems to be true come at least as far as the data I have seen. The death rates are not all that shocking or high.  

I think many people who oppose the lock Downs do so because it just doesn't make sense, With what is being traded.
Unfortunately, it is true that partisans of one particular side Have a nasty and longstanding habit of misrepresenting and misaligning their opposition, instead of engaging with them honestly, and confronting their concerns.

 No.8440

>>8438
>>8412
I would assume that politics does enter the scene as it more or less predisposes the way that people look at aspects of society.

> The death rates are not all that shocking or high.  
For me I would not take note only of the death rates.
being stuck in an overcrowsded hospital and becoming in pincushion cause my lungs need to be drained every 2 hours would still be a big yikes for me, even if I have a good chance I can leave the hospital after 3 weeks.
The facts that the virus gets hospitals flooded and people in healthcare crying uncle over the work load will never bode well for me.

 No.8441

>>8438
>I think many people who oppose the lock downs do so because it just doesn't make sense, with what is being traded.

Human lives are what is being saved. There's nothing you can put on the other side of that scale.

Add to that the fact that, if this country was NOT run by a corrupt criminal moron, then absolutely nothing would be "traded" by doing lockdowns. Every other developed nation was able to do it and get the virus under control by paying people to stay home and suspending rent and other things. We could have easily done the same, again, with better leadership. I just hate that so many people accept the situation we ended up in because of the corrupt moron as the only possible situation, ignoring the rest of the world.

 No.8443

File: 1609050726673.jpg (954.93 KB, 1480x2071, 1480:2071, ac2c2f5db595717cf315ab1cfc….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8441
>Human lives are what is being saved. There's nothing you can put on the other side of that scale.
Most were very old and had underlying conditions, so most deaths lost of only a few QALYs each.  For the purpose of medical intervention by the UK NHS, each QALY is valued at about £30,000.

>Every other developed nation was able to do it and get the virus under control by paying people to stay home and suspending rent and other things.
The latter is an especially severe intervention.  We could have done better by starting to build N95 mask factories back in February or March, so that we'd have enough for everyone.

 No.8444

>>8443
You just literally put a price tag on a human life. I shouldn't have to explain to you why that's fucking disgusting, but that's fucking disgusting.

Businesses can be rebuilt, and the "economy" is something that we made up to keep the rich rich. It will recover. People can't be brought back from the dead. All those people who died had families that loved them. Who lost someone when they didn't have to. Because of greed and callousness. Unless you're a robot, that should matter to you.

 No.8445

File: 1609105641093.jpg (671.5 KB, 870x1064, 435:532, a303a35cbacb158f0c75f0a8e4….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8444
>You just literally put a price tag on a human life. I shouldn't have to explain to you why that's fucking disgusting, but that's fucking disgusting.
Given that there are limited resources, it is necessary to put a limit on how many resources to devote to save a single person's life.  Spending those resources on one person makes them unavailable for other people.  And a vast majority of people would rather not spend all their resources on prolonging their life.  E.g., a typical young person, if presented with a choice of prolonging their life by 1 year at the expense of never being able to perform their favorite recreational activities again, would decline the offer.

>Businesses can be rebuilt
Many businesses have closed permanently.

>Because of greed and callousness.
Wanting to keep your business afloat when there is a very real chance of it failing isn't greed.

 No.8446

>>8444
>You just literally put a price tag on a human life.
It was the UK National Health Service that decided on the price tag, not me.

 No.8447

>>8445
No business is worth a human life. Not even a Trump supporter's life.

 No.8448

>>8447
>No business is worth a human life.
What about a business that makes life-saving medicine, without which more people will die if the business fails?

 No.8449

>>8448
Those should be supported by the government.

 No.8450

File: 1609129834204.jpg (102.65 KB, 850x1200, 17:24, 1596060181820.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8449
I don't understand.  Are you withdrawing your previous statement that "No business is worth a human life"?

Also, Communism has failed every time it has been tried.

 No.8451

>>8450
Currently we do have essential services that are forced to keep going, even if they can't guarantee minimal human contact.

Like, hospital/medical care facilities, obviously and stores. Schools are up for debate.

Unfortunately, there are services who are not considered essential who get a very crappy year in an attempt to curb the spread.

 No.8457

>>8440
That was originally supposed to be the idea behind the lock down. We weren't supposed to go until a cure.
The economic damages already suffered are insane. Let alone continuing this for another year.
I would say this is why when it was originally proposed, spoken of, and power to do so was given, it was only supposed to last a month or 2.

>>8441
If human lives were the only metric we used for value, everybody would be in a prison camp, with no ability to go out except for at the scheduled points, in which they garden
We would have a perfect society, where the needs of the many are met by strict And efficient work schedules, where comfort and happiness is secondary to survival

We do not live in such a society comment because such a standard is absurd. It does not make logical sense. Nobody, ever, has advocated for such, who has actually thought about it. Everybody who does makes a billion odd exceptions and stipulations, as soon as you start questioning them on it.
The idea is entirely down to feelings. Nothing more.
It is said to be good because it feels emotionally good. Not because it makes sense, or is actually good.

This aside, I do not believe for a single 2nd at this point The greater good is being served by these lock Downs. Many people are suffering, and many will die as a result of the economic explosion that we are intentionally throwing ourselves into. Many will die because of the inevitable unrest that will result from this. Many will die as they catch themselves outside of a window because of watching every single thing that they worked their entire lives for crumble into complete and total cost. Many will die because they are homeless, unable to pay rent, or even feed their families.

The damage that the disease could have caused is microscopic to the damage already caused
Especially when you consider the complete and total erosion of basic liberties.

>Add to that the fact that, if this country was NOT run by a corrupt criminal moron, then absolutely nothing would be "traded" by doing lockdowns
Trump has had little if anything to do with the lockdown. It's been entirely state by state, as it really ought to be.
Blaming him does nothing for the actual problems at hand. It's a scapegoat at best, and a case of partisan tribalism at worst.

>Every other developed nation was able to do it and get the virus under control by paying people to stay home and suspending rent and other things.
If you honestly believe this, you are ignorant. That is simply what you are. You are not actually paying attention to the world situation, you are only going off of a surface level at best investigation.

Both the UK and Australia I know for certain are hitting the exact same problems America is, although with a higher rate of government overstep I'll grant.
China seems to solve its problem mainly through a body count, And while I don't know the specifics due to not speaking the languages for most of Europe, I know that they are suffering the same cases of complete erosion of private sectors outside of big business, difficulty for families to pay basic necessities, and of course again erosion of the most basic liberties.

>I just hate that so many people accept the situation we ended up in because of the corrupt moron as the only possible situation, ignoring the rest of the world.
And I just hate how so many people seem to not understand how America actually works, what States can do, how they govern themselves, and of course, how a bad idea doesn't just work because it sounds nice.

They say the same nonsense for communism, and that's never once turned out for the better.
Maybe scapegoating all of your problems onto somebody else is a unhealthy way to conduct yourself.

 No.8458

>>8444
This may come as a shock to you, but humans need supplies in order to survive

Those supplies are not free.
There is a labour cost to food, shelter, and basic utilities.

We do not live in some post scarcity star trek style society wherein all of our needs can be produced by replicator.
Even to tell tarion regimes, wherein All assets are ultimately controlled by the government, fall prey to an economy.
It won't be the dollars and change that we are used to come on that is true. But cost V income is still applicable, just in the assets directly rather than the intermediary.

Hell, any strategy game will show you this.  And do you control every aspect effectively directly come in those games.  Whether you play stellaris, age of empires, or dwarf fortress, an economy is universally present.
Even in some anarcho primitivist society, it will be there.

 No.8459

>>8449
Then the government needs funding to support it.
Which means taxes.
Which means businesses are subsequently necessary to preserve life, to support that production, on top of selling needed resources and providing employees funding for housing food and utilities.

 No.8551

the world really genuinely is just full of Colorful Antelopes who are getting impatient and just want enough of us to die so that we can go make some more money

honestly makes me want to just leave the planet

 No.8552

>>8551
>honestly makes me want to just leave the planet
Are you going to sign up when when Elon Musk offers a one-way ticket to establish a Martian colony?

 No.8553

>>8552

I was referring to suicide, not space travel

 No.8563

File: 1610608052456.png (452.91 KB, 894x894, 1:1, eef.png) ImgOps Google

>>8553
You might as well wait for the comet.  No need to rush.

 No.8566

>>8563

yes, a slow, starving death would be more preferable to throwing myself under a train. at least then people would think I was "grateful"

 No.8567

File: 1610659067205.png (148.03 KB, 860x1059, 860:1059, 177-1778324_just-stay-calm….png) ImgOps Google

>>8566
I can see being grateful for the train, sometimes.  But im holding out for the comet.  So far.  If the suspense doesnt get me first.

 No.8568

Comet?


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]