[ 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[Last 50 Posts]

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?

 No.8235

>>8234
Fairly straight forward political meme. Funny enough for its purpose.  
What exactly is your question about it?

 No.8236

>>8235
To me, it looks like a pretty violent remark and I am flooded back to all the violence I have heard about especially by people told to comply to Covid measures.

I lament that this is what's become to society now.

 No.8237

>>8236
It's certainly hyperbolic.
It's an internet meme, after all. I wouldn't take it so seriously as that.

Why does that make you lament society, now?
Snitches haven't been liked for centuries. Minding one's own business has been a common phrase before now.
If its the violence, violent hyperbole of similar nature has also existed long before our civilizations had.

 No.8238

File: 1607382346298.jpg (101.64 KB, 994x748, 497:374, 1592652645366.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Yeah, I saw someone I know share this not like a day after the UK went back into second lockdown and it made me cringe. IMO, "memes" about covid are just not funny honestly. People are hypocrites; these people who are furious that people aren't following the rules and that's why we keep having lockdowns and restrictions are the very same people who will insist upon their right to go have a gathering with people because it's just the flu. With Christmas coming up, it's going to be an absolute nightmare and I fully predict there to be a further spike in the new year.

Granted, like someone above said, it is just a meme, because people who share this kind of stuff aren't going to actually go attack anyone over it. They're just trying to justify their own shitty behavior. The "mind your own business" argument doesn't really work when you're contributing to global recession and the death of hundreds daily just for the sake of your feigned freedom or some weird entitlement issues. I know firsthand that these people don't find it funny once it affects them personally; after my colleague's bf's mother died from covid, she soon stopped bitching about masks. It's a shame that's what it takes.

 No.8239

>>8238
>these people who are furious that people aren't following the rules and that's why we keep having lockdowns and restrictions are the very same people who will insist upon their right to go have a gathering with people because it's just the flu.
That's weird. These are directly contradictory positions.
Is this a common thing you've heard over there? I don't think I've come across anyone saying both here, but maybe that's the cultures.

Goes a bit outside hypocrisy into outright brainless stupidity, you ask me.  

 No.8242

File: 1607385348281.png (148.08 KB, 371x353, 371:353, 1573132292773.png) ImgOps Google

>>8239

It's because they're only mad because it impacts their day to day life and ability to do things. They don't care about limiting spread or anything like that, it's literally singlemindedness. I had customers who caught it, waited the two weeks and then came right back in still complaining about having to wear masks and follow the rules. The last thing any of them want is more restriction, but they also don't want to follow any rules. I watched people get more and more reckless with it over the course of the four months we were able to open back up, then they act outraged when we have to close again. It's a real catch 22. It is absolutely brainless stupidity you are correct. So when I see these memes, all I can think is that they're a selfish arsehole, I don't really find humour in them.

 No.8244

>>8242
Do you mean then that they're hypocritical for complaining about the rules, because what they are doing will extend them?
That's not hypocrisy.
You could call it stupid, but it's certainly a far cry from advocating one thing, then doing another.
If anything, that behavior is consistent with their beliefs.

 No.8245

File: 1607387027146.jpg (31.42 KB, 600x434, 300:217, 3f5.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8244

>but it's certainly a far cry from advocating one thing, then doing another.

Is that not literally what hypocrisy is or are you just being pedantic

 No.8246

>>8245
I had said that is not what occurred. Perhaps you didn't understand the term used there.

If Jim says "we should be allowed to drink until we're hung over", and then drinks until he's hung over,  Jim is not a hypocrite.

 No.8249

File: 1607390009871.png (485.35 KB, 1096x720, 137:90, 1565688828759.png) ImgOps Google

>>8246

alright, then i'll just skip calling them hypocrites and call them what they are: shitty selfish fuckin people

 No.8250

>>8234
States enforce order, and that is justice.  But individuals punish snitches, and provided it is allowed by the state, that is justice, too.  If the state effectively punishes retribution enough, then retribution becomes -- not justice.  As usual, it's important to feel out who does the most violence to figure out justice.

 No.8252

Nobody is liking it because it's funny. They're liking it because it agrees with them, and there is nothing sweeter to a person than being agreed with.

 No.8254

Hypocrite, I suppose would be people pressing that the rules should be followed and then totally breaking them themselves.
Which is something politicians have been scandalously guilty of.

I do get the sentiment, with Christmas coming up even more so, that people following rules get tired of all the news about people breaking restrictions and eventually abandon restrictions as well. People following the rules and never seeing their family and then realizing that their neighbor has been throwing parties every week now and never seems to get caught.
Funy enough there's going to be the question on when vaccinations arrive what it will do with the rules. Strategies will depend, but now the governments are planning to vaccinate certain professions first and then the more vulnerable groups, but does that mean that those who have access to vaccinations will also be privileged to more liberties? This is something people will still consider as being unfair.

This pandemic is a disaster on anyone's view on society, I suppose. those in favor of restrictions watch as many people ignore the rules or fight them.
The once who oppose restrictions sees a society of people sheepishly follow the rules and restrictions blocking freedom while many all favor these invasions.

And at the core is the question on how dangerous Covid really is and whether restrictions really work.

>>8237
>>8238
it's a tough question at what point jokes/memes are being funny and when they get offensive. It all depends on what side you're on, I suppose.
Still, this idea of people proudly announcing they will break the rules and that anyone who disagrees needs to have their teeth kicked in is a bit crude to my tastes.

 No.8255

File: 1607420426457.jpg (97.8 KB, 547x500, 547:500, 3rygpi.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.8258

It looks like typical right-wing macho posturing. Basically it's saying "I'm going to have a big party with all my family because Corona is a hoax created by Hillary using her witch powers, because I read that on freedom.eagle. And I'll knock your teeth out if you suggest I be anything but a hyper-masculine uncaring butt hole."

 No.8264

>>8250
Order isn't inherently justice. It's desirable, sure, but desirability doesn't inherently make something just, or punishments for that desire justice.
Likewise, something doesn't have to be permitted by the state to be justice.

The trouble comes in that it's hard for groups of individuals to guarantee justice. It's why we [are supposed to anyway] presume innocence in our legal systems. There is nothing more unjust than an innocent person punished unduly.
Safety, order, and desirability, have nothing to do with this, however.

 No.8265

>>8254
>Still, this idea of people proudly announcing they will break the rules and that anyone who disagrees needs to have their teeth kicked in is a bit crude to my tastes.
Why is an announcement of breaking the rules a bad thing?
Rules aren't inherently just, or even reasonable.

As to the latter, it's hyperbole. And the view on snitches has existed for longer than most any nation. I don't really find it particularly shocking.

 No.8281

>>8264
>Order isn't inherently justice
I think I agree.  I often struggle to talk about these topics because either I use language badly or there isn't ready language to use.

To be respectful, order must be taken as what authorities enforce, otherwise you might talk back to an authority -- resist what they do because it's not supporting your sense of order.  Same with safety, or public good, or whatever.  So I suppose I meant order as a meaningless word, really.  The essence of justice, I think, is a legitimate relationship between an authority and a subject of that authority's punishments.  Where I take legitimate to generally be associated with political states.

>presume innocence
Yes, individuals are not to take justice into their own hands unless the state gives it a nod.  Maybe you don't agree with that last part, but those knocking out teeth are also innocent unless the state says otherwise.

 No.8289

>>8281
>but those knocking out teeth are also innocent unless the state says otherwise.
They are presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law.

 No.8294

>>8289
I suppose the punishment is to relate to some previous event.  You could therefore imagine guilt beginning at the event of the crime.  But this implies some objective guilt or innocence divorced from state enforcement, and then you can begin to create a standard by which to judge state enforcement external to the state itself, potentially even condemning state action or inaction.

 No.8299

>>8281

punching someone is a far lesser crime morally than willingly infecting your loved ones to prove a point, die mad about it

 No.8300

>>8299
Intentionally, maybe.  But unintentionally?
I don't think so.

 No.8301

>>8300

we live in an age where it's a choice to be misinformed, everyone has access to the knowledge of the fact that the virus can be dangerous to those more vulnerable. ergo, by intentionally, key word, flouting the rules and risking their exposure to it, you are doing it intentionally. There is no way to pretend it's an accident. It's a choice people make

 No.8302

>>8301
Can be, yes, but not necessarily will be, or even is likely to be.
Moreover, and this is the big one, some people are okay with risk.
Life is a risk in most everything one does. I don't think anyone's forcing at gunpoint grandma to attend Christmas dinner.

 No.8309

>>8302

some people can be okay with whatever they want, it just means they're ignorant to the wider effects of their actions. Untold amounts of people are losing their jobs and lives, unable to go to work or do anything, because the pervasive attitude among so many people is "well, i'm willing to take that risk, so should everyone else." Selfish wankers, pure and simple.

Sure, you can say "oh well everything is a risk" but by that logic you would never leave your house because you could get hit by a bus or whatever. This is a specific situation where everyone needs to try to minimize, and instead, people are turning it into a thing about their personal freedoms.

And nobody may be forcing them, but if the older generation want to take the risk, fuck them, because they took the same risk with both our economy and environment to benefit themselves. It makes perfect sense that their generation thinks "well, I aint got long left anyway, I don't care if I catch it, because the world is about me and I want to do what I want dag nabbit, these other people are just whining about nothin'!"

 No.8311

>>8299
Well, I've got to go to my parents for Christmas.  If it were up to me, we'd postpone for a few months, but family visits are a matter of duty, I think, in that my parents, who have the greatest risk, desire the meeting.  But anyway, while I can rank lesser and greater crimes by the amount of punishment authorities impose.  And there are at least half a dozen other ways, you're thinking about harm reduction, I think.

 No.8312

>>8311
Do you need to travel by air or other public transportation to visit them?  I usually visit my parents every year for Christmas, but not this year, due to the Wuhan Virus.  Do you have an n95 or KN95 mask?

 No.8313

>>8300
Doesn't "willing" imply that it is intentional?

 No.8314

File: 1607915635529.png (128.16 KB, 1186x1144, 593:572, 2020-12-13-graph-South Dak….png) ImgOps Google

>>8312
My sister is driving.  Normally I ride a Jefferson Line bus, but I'm not very interested in that right now.  I expect it to be about as safe as going to work every day, which is also my duty.  I have a cloth mask that is adequate at work.  The timing seems bad, but it's not really my choice unless I want to make myself (more of) a family pariah.

 No.8316

>>8313
Again, nobody is forcing anyone at gun point to attend Christmas.
Make that choice for yourself.
I wouldn't force you to wear a seatbelt.

 No.8317

>>8309
>Untold amounts of people are losing their jobs and lives, unable to go to work or do anything, 
Personally I pin that blame to government.  
They are the ones who seem to be, frankly, using this problem to specifically benefit corporations over individual business.
I fail to see why Walmart can remain open while "non essential" businesses must close, nor do I see how that stops any virus. You're actively concentrating people.

And of course I also believe people should be free to make their own choices.  If they wish to put themselves at risk by shopping at a business, that's their choice.
If government must be involved, why not at least focus solely on those at highest risk?
But then I think this is primarily political posturing, not pragmatic responsibility.

>but by that logic you would never leave your house because you could get hit by a bus or whatever. 
Yes, exactly.  
Which is why I think the current actions taken are stupid.
I appreciate your making my point for me.

>This is a specific situation where everyone needs to try to minimize, and instead, people are turning it into a thing about their personal freedoms.
I disagree.
I'm not convinced of the risk, the efficacy of the restrictions, nor am I convinced the sacrifice is worth it.

Anyone who believes governments will return their rights, remove the new powers granted to them, is frankly horrifically naive to the point I'd doubt they've ever looked at history at all.
I wouldn't trade liberty for 25% of the population, and this has certainly not killed 25%. I do not consider freedom so cheap as to be worth that, and far more importantly, I do not believe for a second governments granted the ability to violate rights will not do so again, resulting in far more death and destruction than any measly virus could ever hope to create.

 No.8318

>>8317

>If they wish to put themselves at risk by shopping at a business, that's their choice.

How many times, it's putting OTHERS at risk, not just them. If these clowns get it and die, that absolutely is their choice, but the fact is they're still giving it to other people by being around others for the sake of their bullheaded attitude. A lot of people like to pull the "we are helping local businesses/keeping jobs" card, but most of you who make this argument also never consider the staff of these businesses, who are forced to interact with people who don't care if they infect them or not; your only concerns are about putting yourself at risk shopping at a business? No concern for putting the staff of a business, many of who have no choice but to work right now, at risk for the sake of your own fucking arrogance. Every retail worker I know has been on the verge of mental exhaustion this year, because nearly every person has treated us like shit for enforcing rules we didn't create, and upping their entitlement game tenfold. You people would rather see us choke to death and be replaced before you let another fast food place close.

I don't give a shit if you are convinced or not, frankly the people I know personally who've caught it has been in the single digits.. since March. Pretty substantial reason for me to think it's bullshit too. That doesn't mean that I don't take the precaution because honestly, what great harm is it doing to my life? Unfortunately the fact is whether I do or don't, my work remains closed and the restrictions remain in place. So acting the way people are at this point is like children throwing tantrums. Like, you can protest and bitch all you like, and scream from the roof about how it's all lies so Bill Gates can track your toilet breaks, but it's not going away. Like I said, feel free to go get hit by a bus. But the analogy here is more like you're the one driving the bus and you're crashing it into a 4-bedroom house thorugh the wall and lighting it on fire because "you should be allowed to drive it if you want to because that's your right."

The government has been eradicating and violating rights forever, you are just noticing it now because it's affecting you personally. Many people have been enjoying limited freedoms for decades and decades due to shit beyond their control, but because a virus doesn't discriminate, it's affecting everyone. That's why it's the case that so many of the antimask, antivax people are whites and karens; you don't like being told what to do. The amount of people i've seen be staunch bootlickers who have suddenly decided they don't trust the government in the past 9 months just because they got told they couldn't do whatever they please is hilarious. I blame the government for a lot of this bullshit too, but to ignore the ignorance of the fellow man is what I would call more "horrifically naive." People are willing to take the risk of infecting each other just so they can do what they want to. People who think like this make me sick.

 No.8319

>>8318
>No concern for putting the staff of a business, many of who have no choice but to work right now, at risk for the sake of your own fucking arrogance.
Ah, yes, how evil to allow people to work instead of... forcing them not to work.
You aren't even trying with this argument.
The current chosen route is fuck over the economy so thoroughly that after close to a year now of not working, they won't even be able to work.

I guess it's better to people like you to let everyone live in poverty with their livelihood ruined, than let a minority who were likely to die in the next ten years anyway do so by their own choices.

Your moral grandstanding doesn't persuade me.  Not when your route seems to be actively the immoral one.

>You people would rather see us choke to death and be replaced before you let another fast food place close.
Look into the fucking stats.  If you're working in fast food, you're not likely to die anyway.  
You're being a paranoid  and ruining people's lives for it
Where are you going to work? Amazon? You're going to work for some corporation for the rest of your lives, for pennies on the dime pushing mark is that really what you prefer? Is that really worth the complete sacrifice of our liberties, our livelihoods, everything so many people have worked for?
Fuck that, man.

You call me heartless, but you're the one abandoning the majority for the sake of a tiny fraction.
Maybe you feel secure enough in your life not to worry, but not everyone has your privilege.

 No.8320

>>8318
>That doesn't mean that I don't take the precaution because honestly, what great harm is it doing to my life?
Never said I didn't either.  That's a presumption on your part because it's easier to assume you're arguing with a fictional monster than what people actually say.

Everybody should be free to choose the precautions that they desire. I just want people to be allowed to run their business, maintain their rights, without government slamming their boot on them. I don't want our economy sacrificed, or our rights, for the sake of a small minority.  

Its a good idea to be careful.  It's a bad idea to force people at gun point to live in poverty.

It's pretty damn telling that, rather than acknowledge that, you have to make shit up

I have been a staunch supporter of liberty long before this virus ever showed up.  The claim that I only care now is another of your shitty projections where you evidently couldn't honestly engage with what I've actually fucking said.
If you are arguing against your own creations, maybe it's time for some self reflection.

 No.8321

>>8319

You are ignoring the minor details, I want to be able to re-open my work and go back, but I can't while people are being ignorant of the rules. It's not as simple as either "work or don't" because we cannot work if the public won't work with us, and the public is not working with us because they are fighting us every step of the way. Whether a business agrees with the government's decisions or not they have to enforce it, we don't get the luxury of deciding it's bullshit and ignoring it or else we're getting closed down regardless. People like me? What kind of person is that? I haven't been able to work for the last month and a half because of this crap, doesn't mean i justify people having house parties and not doing basic things to help. MY livelihood is being ruined by covid, and I am likely to be evicted soon myself, so don't come with the "you are privileged and are only seeing it from that perspective," I have zero privilege with this. My future and life is very bleak right now because of it. Does that mean I say fuck it and just start hangin out hugging and kissing my buddies? Or protesting my right not to cover the bottom half of my face for 2 minutes if i want to go buy something? Of course not.

The point was not about staff literally dying, it was about people not having a shred of empathy for how difficult it has been the past 6 months to try to remain in business while people actively fight the rules every step of the way. I don't care if I die from it. The point was that you don't care if we die because it is more valuable to the economy. Don't lecture me about work and all the many great things we have lost, I have been paid fuck all for most of my life and that same remains true. Whether covid goes away or not, I am picking up the price personally far more than you would be, I can guarantee. For you to think I feel secure in my life is hysterical; i've never been more terrified and unsure and I don't think there is much future for me regardless of what is done about this now. Even if covid were to vanish on January 1st 2021, the repercussions of this mean I am likely to lose further work and money. That DOESN'T MEAN that that justifies this blasé attitude people have towards the precautions. I think you'll find the "majority" is the people like me, who are having our jobs robbed from us for longer than was necessary because of mouthbreathing ignorant people who don't want to miss out on a basic social gathering for a couple months.

>Its a good idea to be careful.  It's a bad idea to force people at gun point to live in poverty.

See this is just hyperbolic and once more totally missing the point. People who are having big social gatherings aren't being careful at all. There's not even the vaguest attempt at it. You can't just make it so extreme that it's either complete liberty or total oppression. That's fucking stupid. If people could be trusted to follow (honestly pretty lax) basic expectations then we wouldn't be at the point that people are getting stabbed over it.

 No.8322

>>8321
>MY livelihood is being ruined by covid, and I am likely to be evicted soon myself, so don't come with the "you are privileged and are only seeing it from that perspective," I have zero privilege with this
Then why the fuck are you coming at me with a million and a half accusations based on shit I never said, for having the audacity to say lockdowns are a bad idea?

You should be agreeing there, and yet instead you're yelling at me for some made up boogieman.

>Does that mean I say fuck it and just start hangin out hugging and kissing my buddies? Or protesting my right not to cover the bottom half of my face for 2 minutes if i want to go buy something? Of course not.
No, but nobody fucking said you should.
That's a creation of your own mind.

Why are you whining to me about it?

>The point was not about staff literally dying, it was about people not having a shred of empathy for how difficult it has been the past 6 months to try to remain in business while people actively fight the rules every step of the way. 
And again, why are you bitching at me about it?
What, you think I kick retail workers? You think I harass them for their legal requirements?
Of fucking course I don't. I have never once said a damn thing to suggest otherwise.
You just keep on making shit up.

>That DOESN'T MEAN that that justifies this blasé attitude people have towards the precautions. 
Who the fuck said i have a blase attitude towards precautions?
Is all you have disingenuous accusations?
Can you really make no points without massive projection and dishonest accusations?

I've got not a single fucking problem with precaution, and have never once suggested otherwise.
You're making shit up.

 No.8325

>>8322

>Then why the fuck are you coming at me with a million and a half accusations based on shit I never said, for having the audacity to say lockdowns are a bad idea?

Because those who whine that lockdown is a bad thing are the reason we have had to have further lockdowns. This shit is a self-perpetuating cycle where the people who cheat the rules complain that the rules haven't been lifted yet.

> What, you think I kick retail workers? You think I harass them for their legal requirements?

When your primary concern and response on the subject is to talk about the financial loss and the economy, then yeah, that's absolutely dehumanising and ignorant. I don't think it should be viewed through this lens of "well, sucks that half the staff want to die and are being screamed at over table plans and taped arrows on the floor buuuuttt you know, we need money."

As for why i'm "whining about it to you," that's because you are the one who keeps trying to talk down to me and refute my points. Why would i not reply?

 No.8326

>>8325
>Because those who whine that lockdown is a bad thing are the reason we have had to have further lockdowns. 
And yet you yourself were giving good reasons why its a terrible idea not worth the cost.

What, now you're in favor of lockdowns despite all you've said?
Really? Knowing full well it may mean you, and millions others like you, are jobless, likely homeless, or worse?
Anyone with a brain should be against lockdowns. They're a bad idea.

>This shit is a self-perpetuating cycle where the people who cheat the rules complain that the rules haven't been lifted yet.
I don't think that they should have ever existed.  It's not that they haven't been lifted yet, it's that this gross violation of basic human rights is resulting in wide scale destruction for no significant gain.
I don't say "it's gone on too long", I say the entire premise is unacceptable.

>When your primary concern and response on the subject is to talk about the financial loss and the economy, then yeah, that's absolutely dehumanising and ignorant. 
My primary concern is rights, actually.
The economic argument is about what we actually get out of it.

And if you don't think economics can kill, you're the ignorant one, not me.

> I don't think it should be viewed through this lens of "well, sucks that half the staff want to die and are being screamed at over table plans and taped arrows on the floor buuuuttt you know, we need money."
That has jack shit to do with me.
I don't do that.  I don't make people do that.  I don't support that.

Should I just say to you "you're wrong because you support baby murder"?
No
That would be extremely stupid.
Why are you doing it?

>As for why i'm "whining about it to you," that's because you are the one who keeps trying to talk down to me and refute my points.
And you haven't?
Get off your high horse.

Refutation is what you're supposed to do. If you take offense to refutation, that is your own personal failing, not mine.

 No.8327

>>8326

We wouldn't be in lockdown if people stopped acting like selfish pricks. Fundamentally you obviously disagree and think it's some kind of battle for personal independence. You'll not convince me that my own life is more valuable than others; I fully expect to be dead soon as a result of all of this, but my finger of blame goes heftily to every person who's prioritised their own comfort over human lives.

> gross violation of basic human rights

God again with this. Genuinely tell me, exactly what rights are being robbed from people by asking them not to hold mass social gatherings or touch people? Is peoples' lives really this easy that being asked not to eat out for a bit makes them froth at the mouth at the pure injustice of it? What about the rights of the people with more compromised immune systems and already worse health? Do they not deserve the right to not be breathed on?

 No.8328

>>8327
I do not believe it is acceptable for people's right to be eroded for the sake of a minority.
This shouldn't be a controversial viewpoint, but, here we are.

>I fully expect to be dead soon as a result of all of this, but my finger of blame gpes heftily to every person who's prioritised their own comfort over human lives.
Saying it's just their comfort is dishonesty on your part.

Rights are not about comfort.  It's far more comfortable to live without them.  All your blame can be pinned on someone else, and all your needs are another's responsibility.
Freedom isn't comfortable. But it damn well is important.

>Genuinely tell me, exactly what rights are being robbed from people by asking them not to hold mass social gatherings or touch people? 
Isn't that blatantly obvious?
Freedom of association.  Freedom of movement.  The right for consenting adults to do as they please.

And that of course isn't the only policy. There's plenty more.  

>Is peoples' lives really this easy that being asked not to eat out for a bit makes them froth at the mouth at the pure injustice of it?
Again you behave dishonestly, acting as though it is only this.

None the less, yes, that would be an injustice, if you actually value liberty and basic human rights.
Consenting adults should be allowed to take the risks they please. Especially when it's their livelihood at risk.  When it's everything they've worked for until now.
Nobody's giving free money to these businesses forced by state fiat to close.
Nobody's helping them get through these months on end where they cannot sell products people want to buy.
Their businesses are failing through no fault of their own, and likewise, workers around the world are finding themselves without a job for months, with no job in the future either.

And you call this a matter of "comfort". I call you heartless.

>Do they not deserve the right to not be breathed on?
They can choose to stay home.  
It's their choice. Nobody is forcing grandma to go to Christmas dinner at gunpoint.

 No.8329

>>8328

>do not believe it is acceptable for people's right to be eroded for the sake of a minority.

Well the minority are fucking people too and it's disgusting that you deem them unworthy of survival for the sake of the many.
All you go on about is freedom, but what about the freedom of others not to die because some asshole had to have a panini?

>Freedom of association.  Freedom of movement.  The right for consenting adults to do as they please.

Come on dude. All people are being asked to do is fuckin stay away from each other. It's not that deep.

>Again you behave dishonestly, acting as though it is only this.

Because that's what the meme is about! A trivial thing like a house gathering. People just turn it into a grander scale thing to excuse the fact that they're doing it for ultimately selfish, shitty reasons.

>Consenting adults should be allowed to take the risks they please.

You know what's mad though is... they STILL ARE. Sure, they can't go every place they want, but you talk like they can't do any of it, when this very meme is about doing something regardless of any rules put in place and then laughing about it. Like sure maybe they get some admonishment, but they're still doing it..  

>you call this a matter of "comfort". I call you heartless.

Don't take this angle that you care about the workers. It's just a convenient appeal to humanity. Society at large don't give two fucks about workers. When people think it's acceptable to get a positive covid test and walk into my place of work and then refuse to leave after being asked, literally risking our closure for his own wants, I think any notion of the general public wanting to help support us goes far out the fucking window. The fact that people use us as an angle to justify it is even more insulting.

>They can choose to stay home. It's their choice. Nobody is forcing grandma to go to Christmas dinner at gunpoint.

Okay so how is Grandma going to get anything she needs if she's unable to go shopping for basic needs because you've branded her an unimportant minority? Most over 60s people I know can't use smartphones or the internet and refuse to learn, so they aren't gonna be ordering groceries online.

 No.8330

File: 1608058482860.jpg (34.55 KB, 601x482, 601:482, WK1mpDe.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In regards to government violations of rights, I'd like to add that we had a vaccine and the ability to manufacture enough to vaccinate the most vulnerable elderly people months ago, but the government prevented pharma companies from selling it because the side effects were unknown.  As if the side effects of catching the COVID-19 or the side effects of the lockdown are well-known and safe.

And we still don't have enough N95-mask manufacturing plants to have enough N95 masks for everyone to wear.  If we did, we could probably reduce the viral reproduction number R_0 below 1 with only modest restrictions on gatherings.

 No.8331

>>8329
>Well the minority are fucking people too and it's disgusting that you deem them unworthy of survival for the sake of the many.
I do not consider survival enough to warrant an abandonment of liberty,  as a flat rule.  
Rights do not guarantee survival by the virtue that the world doesn't.
We all, every single one of us, will die. That's a fact.

I would never condemn someone else to slavery just to save my own skin, and I damn well hope that's something my fellow man shares.

>but what about the freedom of others not to die because some asshole had to have a panini?
Doesn't exist.  It wouldn't logically flow.

>Come on dude. All people are being asked to do is fuckin stay away from each other
No, that is not all.  You know full well that isn't, so why are you lying?

>Because that's what the meme is about!
I am not talking about the meme!
Pay attention to what I've actually fucking said, instead of what you fabricate in that mind of yours, and that'd be apparent.

>People just turn it into a grander scale thing to excuse the fact that they're doing it for ultimately selfish, shitty reasons.
No, that is just what you dismiss them as, because you're unwilling to engage with them honestly.

>Sure, they can't go every place they want, but you talk like they can't do any of it
No, I don't.
Again, this is a dishonest strawman on your part.  

It is not this one issue I have trouble with, nor do I consider violating every single one of your rights necessary for complaint.

>when this very meme is about doing something regardless of any rules put in place and then laughing about it. 
Doing something that is against the law doesn't mean it isn't against the law.
You can still be punished by the state for exercising your rights.
Again, you're aware of this.
Why are you acting disingenuously?

>Don't take this angle that you care about the workers. It's just a convenient appeal to humanity.
Kindly fuck right the hell off, man.
I'm one of them.
I do care.  So please, piss off with this shitty  "U DON CARE IT JUST CONVENIENT" bullshit.

I do.  You don't like that, because it's inconvenient to you.  I don't give a damn if you don't, you don't get to dictate to me who I care about.

>When people think it's acceptable to get a positive covid test and walk into my place of work and then refuse to leave after being asked, literally risking our closure for his own wants, I think any notion of the general public wanting to help support us goes far out the fucking window.
I am not them.
Stop blaming me for other people's actions.
That is the action of an asshole.

>The fact that people use us as an angle to justify it is even more insulting.
Yeah, people like you.
Take a look in the fucking mirror, you hypocrite

>Okay so how is Grandma going to get anything she needs if she's unable to go shopping for basic needs because you've branded her an unimportant minority?
Didn't do that shit.  That's another dishonesty strawman on your part.
You're evidently quite incapable of anything else.

She can do the same thing that she does now. In fact, I would argue it be better for her come considering there would be more open stores, which means less concentration in Walmart.
I do not believe for a fucking second she's somehow safer when everyone does their shopping there, while "non essentials" are forced to close.

>Most over 60s people I know can't use smartphones or the internet and refuse to learn, so they aren't gonna be ordering groceries online.
You do realize you're appealing to ignorance, right?

It's a non argument.  And it sure as fuck has nothing to do with rights.

 No.8332

>>8330
I am not really convinced a rushed vaccine is a good idea, personally.
But I'll agree it's better than lockdowns.  

 No.8333

File: 1608060728518.jpg (1.37 MB, 3507x4182, 1169:1394, burger_1598760027452.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8332
>I am not really convinced a rushed vaccine is a good idea, personally.
I personally wouldn't take a rushed vaccine either, especially since I'm not in the high-risk groups.   But I think each person should have the right to make that decision on his/her own.  If an elderly person would rather take a potentially unsafe vaccine and celebrate the holidays with their family rather than stay in isolation or risk contracting Wuhan Pneumonia, they shouldn't be prevented from doing so by the government.

 No.8334

>>8333
Reasonable enough. I can't really disagree there.
I guess it should have a clear warning, and probably something to make sure people don't do it just for a quick like some of those "natural remedies" running around.
Not to say all natural remedies are bad, but, there's a lot of people preying on the looseness of it.

In any case, everyone should be free to make their own choices about their own body.

 No.8336

>>8331

>We all, every single one of us, will die. That's a fact.

Sure, but a lot of people could have lived a lot longer if more people were making effort to prevent the spread. Is that what you'd tell your dying relative on their deathbed? "Well, gotta go sometime i guess."

>Doesn't exist. It wouldn't logically flow.

So you just straight up admit your concern isn't peoples' lives then, alright

>You know full well that isn't, so why are you lying?

The thread's about minding your business in context of covid guidelines. I didn't comment intending to have you make it some grand sweeping commentary.

>It is not this one issue I have trouble with, nor do I consider violating every single one of your rights necessary for complaint.

Oh complain away by all means, I just think you're trying to make complaining about not being able to have a social gathering sound like some kind of grand commentary on the violation of human rights and I just think it's ridiculous. That isn't me intentionally being unwilling to engage, I just don't think you have any argument.. sorry i guess. But i think you'd have to admit you don't really think I have any point either, if you think about it.

>You can still be punished by the state for exercising your rights.

Name me one person you know who's been punished over breaking some covid regulations. People are acting like the world has gone dystopian and people are being arrested in their beds. It's dramatic bull.

>I'm one of them.

Then I feel sorry for your coworkers if they have to hear this crap from you. But i guess if it doesn't bother you being coughed on by the public and being expected to like it then you do you.

>Stop blaming me for other people's actions.

I am not blaming you, I am just explaining why the "we want to come out because we want to support the business/staff" point has no water to me. The behavior of the general public in this pandemic has reduced my options to lose my job and starve or keep my job but have people put me in danger because they don't want to follow the guidelines and be grateful for the opportunity.

>Yeah, people like you. Take a look in the fucking mirror, you hypocrite

ok. Follow the rules and die mad about it.

>You're evidently quite incapable of anything else.

I guess so, all I read when you speak is that you're more concerned with muh rights and muh freedoms than about people suffering. I cannot see anything else to your point.

>I do not believe for a fucking second she's somehow safer when everyone does their shopping there, while "non essentials" are forced to close.

It'd be a lot safer for her if people weren't walking around there ignoring sanitizer or dancing with no masks on protesting their right not to wear one. But hey whatever

wooooo post fucked up i hate phone typing

 No.8337

>>8336
>Is that what you'd tell your dying relative on their deathbed? "Well, gotta go sometime i guess."
That's what I'd say on MY dying deathbed.

I would never, in a million years, trade someone else's liberty for a small increase to my lifespan.
That'd be plain barbaric.

>So you just straight up admit your concern isn't peoples' lives then, alright
Rights first, lives second.

It would be safer if everyone was imprisoned by the state, only allowed to go out for select times to maintain crops to support themselves.
I would hardly consider that a life worth living.

>The thread's about minding your business in context of covid guidelines. I didn't comment intending to have you make it some grand sweeping commentary.
That's how conversations work.

If you'd like to return to the origin, I still think the idea that people who assault others, punching them in the face, are moral equivalents to those wanting to spend Christmas with their loved ones, is deranged.

>Oh complain away by all means, I just think you're trying to make complaining about not being able to have a social gathering sound like some kind of grand commentary on the violation of human rights 
It is, flatly, a violation of rights.
There's no grand commentary necessary.
That's an objective fact.

>Name me one person you know who's been punished over breaking some covid regulations. People are acting like the world has gone dystopian and people are being arrested in their beds. It's dramatic bull.
Are you seriously going to pretend nobody's been hasled by the state for covid restrictions when you were just telling me moments ago your store risked being shut down if they didn't?

If you're willing to admit you were lying when you said that, I'll be happy to flood this thread with link upon link of those hassled by the state when I get home.
Otherwise, I'll defer to your own claims on the matter.
You yourself made the claim.  You're the one who is saying you were wrong.

>Then I feel sorry for your coworkers if they have to hear this crap from you
They don't want to die in poverty, or be homeless. They agree with me

>But i guess if it doesn't bother you being coughed on by the public and being expected to like it then you do you.
You know what I'd do if it did? Wear a mask.  Or just quit, for that matter.
As opposed to having the state force me to not work, I'd be able to choose for myself.

>I am not blaming you
You're a liar.
You literally said "you" in your last post.

Rather than be honest about it, you try to hide that fact.
That makes you a coward,  too.

>I guess so, all I read when you speak is that you're more concerned with muh rights and muh freedoms than about people suffering. I cannot see anything else to your point.
Because you're incapable of honestly engaging with others you disagree with.

You're the one who seems to be fine with others suffering.  You're okay with these lock downs despite what they will do.
You seem to be the unempathetic heartless monster to me. After all, I'm not the one who supports States violating people's rights and forcing them to live homeless watching their lives get ruined.

That is solely your own camp

>It'd be a lot safer for her if people weren't walking around there ignoring sanitizer or dancing with no masks on protesting their right not to wear one. But hey whatever
It would also be safer for her if everyone was locked up with their meals slid under the door.

But I sure as hell wouldn't want to live like that.

 No.8338

File: 1608065618044.jpg (90.47 KB, 800x958, 400:479, 1553379691540.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8336
>you're more concerned with muh rights and muh freedoms than about people suffering.
There's a good argument to be made that a strong principle of protecting and respecting people's rights and freedom will, over the long term, lead to less suffering.  If you establish the precedent that deeply cherished rights can be thrown out the window for the crisis du jour, bad things will happen.

Personally, I think the government should, in general, have power to temporarily encroach on some rights during a severe pandemic.  But it is a very difficult matter, and I feel you might not be fully appreciating the gravity of this encroachment.

>>8337
What do you think would be an appropriate response to a worse pandemic, e.g., where even healthy adults had a 25% chance of death?  Wikpedia reports of the Bubonic Plague during the mid-1300s:
>The trend of recent research is pointing to a figure more like 45% to 50% of the European population dying during a four-year period. There is a fair amount of geographic variation. In Mediterranean Europe and Italy, the South of France and Spain, where plague ran for about four years consecutively, it was probably closer to 75% to 80% of the population. In Germany and England, it was probably closer to 20%.

 No.8339

>>8338
Close boarders, limit or outright close some federal and state services mostly to beef up medical and logistical services, freeze up government controlled economic apparati in so far as to limit financial damage, and divert funding from military or similar development and research to infrastructure, medical, and logistical systems.
I'd get funding to factories to shift to needed supplies where possible, and since I don't really believe in intellectual property I'd steal the China- controlled patents on various needed medical supplies, to start switching to in house production.
Oh, and of course, stop foreign aid until we've solved our own issues.

Basically, think the original reasons for the lockdown, being to prevent hospitals and such from being overwhelmed, but instead of doing that through stopping certain liberties, I'd do that through emergency restructuring to those requirements.
If the military can build bunkers in a day, I think they can build a hospital.

Obviously, people would be encouraged to stay home and all that, but not forced to.  Same for businesses, though they probably still risk liability if they don't take precautions.

 No.8340

>>8337

>I would never, in a million years, trade someone else's liberty for a small increase to my lifespan

Again with the liberty and freedom stuff. Frankly, I and many people I know no longer want to be out doing things because we know people like this are roaming around. You talk of liberties and rights being taken; consider the fact that by acting like this you are taking the rights of untold amounts of people to feel safe in public ever again. Because we know. We know it's not as important to you to be the least bit considerate or careful as your right to do as you please. So we know we can never be safe as at any moment we could touch something one of you touched and put back, or get shoved out the way and pushed by an impatient shopper. So you tell me what liberty you are helping to protect if you're making people actively avoid returning. Imprisoned by the state? I feel far more imprisoned by the lack of consideration by my fellow human.

As for the punching in the face thing, quit being so literal minded. I don't think people would actually PUNCH someone for doing this, and I don't genuinely condone violence. It was just a way to punctuate my point and disapproval.

Re: the restrictions, i'm referring specifically to the curfews and fines being given to people personally. Wider restrictions on businesses and work practices is a whole different beast altogether. I was on about the stuff related to the thread (social/personal gatherings and personal responsibility) so like, i am not saying all the other restrictions i unanimously agree with.

>They don't want to die in poverty, or be homeless.

Again, this leads me back to this shitty situation people have concocted in their minds where, because i want people to be considerate of my welfare as I am of theirs and not be put in needless risk at work, it somehow means I want /deserve to lose my job and starve. Why should I be forced to sacrifice personal safety just to be allowed to live?

>You're the one who seems to be fine with others suffering. You're okay with these lock downs despite what they will do.

I'm not, it's pissing me off. Me and many I know are not doing well and we don't want more suffering at all. I had to watch my coworker lose her mother weeks before Christmas due to this virus, and I couldn't do anything to be there for her because we closed two days begore. Maybe that just means in your eyes that i'm biased due to sentimentality or whatever and that that makes my points invalid, so fine. But heartless is absolutely bollocks to say.

Of course we don't want to live like this, I miss working and I miss all my coworkers and friends. But i direct my annoyance at the PEOPLE because it's the PEOPLE'S fault we're back in more lockdowns. I don't WANT lockdown, but people are too thick headed to behave so that we can get out of it. No, instead they push and push and cheat and justify, then complain that nothing has changed.

>>8338

What will lead to less suffering is more human consideration and empathy, which is why it's been nine months of this shit. Until people stop making it all about themselves we are all fucked.

 No.8341

>>8340
>You talk of liberties and rights being taken; consider the fact that by acting like this you are taking the rights of untold amounts of people to feel safe in public ever agai
That right does not exist.  It has never existed.  Nobody is safe, to begin with, let alone is guaranteed to "feel" safe.
It isn't something that can exist. It's a pipe dream at best, naivety at worse.

Humanity hasn't been safe since we crawled out of our caves. That's how it is.  What we do, we do in spite of danger.

>So we know we can never be safe as at any moment we could touch something one of you touched and put back, of get shoved out the way and pushed by an impatient shopper.
Or you could slip on a bit of ice, have a rock fall from a clifside face, get tangled in some vines and drown, slip off the road into a ravine, or a million other dangers.

Life.
Is.
Not.
Safe.

You do not have the right to feel safe, because you are not safe.  Rights have never been about safety.
To go to the old quote;
"Those who would trade freedom for safety deserve neither".

>As for the punching in the face thing, quit being so literal minded. 
If you don't mean something you've said, don't say it in the first place.

>Re: the restrictions, i'm referring specifically to the curfews and fines being given to people personally. 
Fines are punishment, so once again, you contradict yourself.

>I was on about the stuff related to the thread (social/personal gatherings and personal responsibility)
Well I was on, and have consistently referred to, lockdowns generally,  including those put in place against businesses.

>Again, this leads me back to this shitty situation people have concocted in their minds where, because i want people to be considerate of my welfare as I am of theirs and not be put in needless risk at work, it somehow means I want to lose my job and starve
Nobody said that. That's your mind creating something that doesn't exist.

>Why should I be forced to sacrifice personal safety just to be allowed to live?
Nobody's making you.  Except maybe the state, considering what they're doing.

>Me and many I know are not doing well and we don't want more suffering at all. 
Sure, same here.
That's why we oppose these lockdowns that are hurting people.

> I had to watch my coworker lose her mother weeks before Christmas due to this virus, and I couldn't do anything to be there for her because we closed two days begore.
And while that sucks, there's also a lot of people finding themselves homeless with nothing to give to their loved ones for Christmas, while family is miles away, and many people still dying anyway without any chance to see their loved ones.

I get that it sucks, but that's no reason to choose the route that results in even more suffering.

>But heartless is absolutely bollocks to say.
Well, I'll tell you what.  If you stop trying to label everyone against these restrictions as heartless, I won't call you heartless.
Otherwise, I stick to an eye for an eye.

>But i direct my annoyance at the PEOPLE because it's the PEOPLE'S fault we're back in more lockdowns. 
I would say you're wrong, then.
I don't think it's people's fault.
I think it's the government who decided this is a great excuse to start violating people's rights.

> I don't WANT lockdown, but people are too thick headed to behave so that we can get out of it.
"It's for your own good" has never been an argument that convinced me, I'm afraid.
I do not believe the state has the slightest idea what's good for me.
States are rarely competent.

>No, instead they push and push and cheat and justify, then complain that nothing has changed.
Again I think this is your projection.

Near as I can tell, they were against it from the start.
It's not that nothings changed.  It's that it never should have happened.

 No.8342

>>8340
>Until people stop making it all about themselves we are all fucked.
Wanting basic human rights to be respected is not selfish, nor is it "making it about themselves".

You whine about empathy, and then behave as unempathetically as humanly possible.

 No.8343

File: 1608068391096.jpg (161.69 KB, 850x1200, 17:24, bb54a1a853e3992eb855805b48….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8340
>Until people stop making it all about themselves we are all fucked.
Some people are selfish assholes.  But others sincerely believe that, as a matter of principle, the government encroachment on people's rights is ethically worse than the suffering caused directly by the virus.  

>>8339
> Same for businesses, though they probably still risk liability if they don't take precautions.
I've heard a suggestion somewhere that, in theory, individuals should face civil liability if they negligently infect other people (and perhaps criminal liability for gross negligence or recklessness).  Of course, there are many practical problems with such a proposal, but what do you think of it in principle?

 No.8344

>>8343
If you can prove they were aware that they were infected, and did not take measures to prevent risk to others, I think I could agree, yeah.

Big thing for me there is really whether or not they knew. Same for any liability, really.  I don't like people who didn't realize there was a risk getting slammed for some bad luck, I guess.

 No.8345

>>8341

The issue I have with this mentality of "anything could happen to you anyway so why worry" is that those other things are often left to chance, whereas allowing rates to rise by not keeping distance is a direct consequence of that action of not keeping away from people. That's why I don't buy it.

>Fines are punishment, so once again, you contradict yourself

uhh not really.. fining a business for not following guidelines and fining individuals for not following guidelines are pretty different things to me. A business has an obligation to try to be as safe as possible, but also ultimately (in my specific case at least) relies on customers co-operating with us for it to work. So when a customer breaks our rules and threatens and spits at us and we call police for help, and the police show up and threaten us with a fine rather than bothering to even ask the name of the customer (happened twice so far), that I feel is unjust. Because it's a consequence of human shitty behaviour. Which is why i feel differently if people are being personally fined for personally breaking rules. I don't feel that's all that contradictory.

>Well I was on, and have consistently referred to, lockdowns generally,  including those put in place against businesses.

Right, well what possible alternative are you suggesting? We should have just gone the herd immunity route and carried on the same? Is that what you genuinely would consider a better plan?

>Nobody's making you.

Right, nobody's making me, especially not the people intentionally treating us like shit knowing full well we need to work to live. What's your next line? "Quit if you don't like it"? Like the onus is on me to put up with it and not on other people to not be clowns.

>I get that it sucks, but that's no reason to choose the route that results in even more suffering.

There is no choice involved in any of this. People can stamp their feet and go maskless all day, doesn't mean the government's gonna change anything. And I think the government has our worst interests at heart like any other sane person, but that doesn't mean the general public aren't making things much worse without their help.

>I think it's the government who decided this is a great excuse to start violating people's rights.

Well I can see why you'd think that, and I don't even really disagree. I just don't think that that being true or not changes the fact that people are being assholes to each other about it, either.

>Wanting basic human rights to be respected is not selfish, nor is it "making it about themselves".

It's not a basic human right to be utterly inconsiderate of everyone else. If you think it is then that's disheartening but I suppose I can't really change your mind on that.

 No.8348

>>8345
I didn't say why worry.  You keep jamming words in my mouth I've never said.
That's a really bad habit.

>uhh not really.. fining a business for not following guidelines and fining individuals for not following guidelines are pretty different things to me. 
Okay?
That doesn't change the fact that both are objectively punishment.

An execution and a ticket may be different, but both are punishments.

>So when a customer breaks our rules and threatens and spits at us and we call police for help, and the police show up and threaten us with a fine rather than bothering to even ask the name of the customer (happened twice so far), that I feel is unjust. 
Okay???

Again, you're whining to me about shit I don't like and don't support, and have nothing to do with.
This is all irrelevant.  It has nothing to do with what I've said.

>Which is why i feel differently if people are being personally fined for personally breaking rules. I don't feel that's all that contradictory.
Alright, but just because you feel like it's deserved when it's to a regular Joe, and injustice when it happens to some corpo, doesn't mean it's not objectively punishment.

I'm not overly concerned with how you feel.
If we ruled by feeling, we'd have some people granted rights, while others do not get them.
I do not want such a system.

>Right, well what possible alternative are you suggesting? We should have just gone the here immunity route and carried on the same? Is that what you genuinely would consider a better plan?
I've given my suggestions already. As to yours, yes, morally speaking, it is better.

>Right, nobody's making me, especially not the people intentionally treating us like shit knowing full well we need to work to live
This coming from the guy okay with others not having that same luxury.

It falls on deaf ears, man.
You have the ability to work.  Many of us are not so lucky.

>What's your next line? "Quit if you don't like it"?
Nope, just some of us don't get that choice due to state fiat.

>There is no choice involved in any of this. People can stamp their feet and go maskless all day, doesn't mean the government's gonna change anything.
Well, personally, I'm not a defeatist bootlicker, so I don't really care if you're all doom and gloom about it.

That's no reason to roll over and take it.  
That's what losers do.

>I just don't think that that being true or not changes the fact that people are being assholes to each other about it, either.
Sure, I agree.  Case and point, your conduct in this thread.

Again, that doesn't mean we should accept shit policy by the state.

>It's not a basic human right to be utterly inconsiderate of everyone else. If you think it is then that's disheartening but I suppose I can't really change your mind on that.
Never said that.

I just don't get why you're so in favor of pedophilia.

 No.8349

>>8345
> So when a customer breaks our rules and threatens and spits at us and we call police for help, and the police show up and threaten us with a fine rather than bothering to even ask the name of the customer (happened twice so far), that I feel is unjust.
It definitely is unjust.  It seems your local police are corrupt and/or incompetent.  In normal times, spitting at someone might be considered a minor simple assault, but in the pandemic, perhaps it should be considered assault with a deadly weapon, for both the purposes of criminal prosecution and ability to respond in self-defense.  I've heard a couple of stories of customers being charged with bioterrorism for intentionally coughing at store employees.

>>8344
I'd say it's also negligent to intentionally go maskless at any indoor business that is open to the public, especially since a lot of transmission is pre-symptomatic.  Simple cloth masks aren't perfect, but the studies seem to show that they do cut down on transmission if worn by an infected person.

 No.8350

>>8349
I can understand the perspective. Maybe if you could prove that was where the injured party contracted the disease.  But I think that's a bit moot, given such is extremely hard to prove.

And of course just general criminal charges for not wearing a mask is definitely too far

 No.8351

File: 1608071828351.png (1.33 MB, 1278x1500, 213:250, mtr_1598762295533.png) ImgOps Google

>>8350
>And of course just general criminal charges for not wearing a mask is definitely too far
Why?  How do you feel about criminal charges for driving with a BAC between 0.08% and 0.10%?

 No.8353

>Again, you're whining to me about shit I don't like and don't support, and have nothing to do with.

If you support peoples' "right" to purposely ignore the guidelines and restrictions, then by proxy, in my opinion, you are indirectly supporting peoples' right to behave like shit to us. So I think it's absolutely relevant. I don't care about a corporation getting fined, because the corporation isn't getting the fine, our personal business is and our staff are. WE have to pay that if it happens to us. All because someone wanted to make a point at our expense.

I know you don't care about how I feel about it, to be honest i'm not that arsed how you feel about it either, but i'm glad you got the messaage across just in case I somehow missed it.

Now if you think leaving the virus to it and pretending everything was normal would have been a better option, then fine, because I honestly don't have words to bother arguing why I think that's so completely backwards. Have your opinion.

>This coming from the guy okay with others not having that same luxury. It falls on deaf ears, man. You have the ability to work.  Many of us are not so lucky.

Once again you presume I have luxury or privilege just because I disagree with your views, which is funnily enough something you moaned about me doing earlier in the thread iirc. First you assumed I was well-off financially and in status and then that I supported closing places down because I didn't have to work in them or want their services. You're presuming just as much as I have. Suffice to say without going into detail that no, I do not have the luxury of getting other work or lots of options about where I can work, I have my own things that prevent that. Logically speaking, I am in the position that should support no lockdown because it would mean my work was more likely not to close down, and yet... I don't, how wild. It's almost like my views aren't centred around my own self-preservation.

>Well, personally, I'm not a defeatist bootlicker, so I don't really care if you're all doom and gloom about it. That's no reason to roll over and take it. That's what losers do.

Yes, because dancing around Target without a mask on is absolutely not loser behaviour and will definitely change things. I want to be clear though that i am no bootlicker and I know full well our government here is run by a fucking moron and a bunch of incompetents. Again, I can think both things are shit. They aren't interlinked. I don't automatically worship the government just because I don't oppose something they did.

>Sure, I agree.  Case and point, your conduct in this thread.

I was more talking about day to day humans interacting but sure, I spose can be an asshole too. Who wouldn't be when they're losing months of work because a bunch of people decided "we're not gonna take it" and shut the country back down? But this is going in circles, since you've already stated you think the lockdown is a nefarious government scheme whereas I think it's a result of human thoughtlessness, so swings and roundabouts I suppose.

>I just don't get why you're so in favor of pedophilia.

Yeah gonna need you to er explain what you mean by that because WOW haha what???

 No.8355

>>8351
Because if they are not actually sick, they do not pose a risk.

As to alcohol, I wish it wasn't as abused as it is, frankly.
besides That, I think there's some room up argue, but ultimately unlike an undiseased individual not wearing a mask, there seems to be consistent danger at play with drunk driving.  
That is to say, anyone in that situation would be impaired, and this is known, thus the danger is reasonable and consistent.

I think cops lie often with it, though.

 No.8356

>>8353
>Yeah gonna need you to er explain what you mean by that because WOW haha what???
You kept attacking me for things I never said and never supported, so I figured why not do the same to you.
What, you take issue with it?
Then why do you think it's okay to do to others?

 No.8357

File: 1608072917917.jpg (496.92 KB, 850x637, 850:637, mtr_1598762111602.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8353
>If you support peoples' "right" to purposely ignore the guidelines and restrictions
I don't remember Colorful Antelope ever saying that people have a right to trespass against the rules imposed by a private business on their private property.

>>8355
>Because if they are not actually sick, they do not pose a risk.
True.  But the problem is that people are often infected and contagious for a couple of days before they have any symptoms.  If people weren't contagious before they showed symptoms, I'd agree that requiring non-sick individual to wear masks wouldn't be right.  But given the nature of the virus, I don't think anyone can really know whether they're infected, unless they've been in isolation for 14 days.

 No.8360

>>8356

Ahh I get your point, though somehow I think what I said is a little less harsh than calling someone a fucking pedo, but sure. Saying I attacked you is a little dramatic, don't you think?

>>8357

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.

Also please note that they are not rules imposed by a private business, it's government rules. We had no choice in taking on such rules, and infact most of my coworkers were also anti-mask. Out of the 25 or so people I work with, only one other wore one until the government made it mandatory. But they don't get to choose not to wear one if they want to keep their job. Some people act like businesses are enforcing these rules because it's their own beliefs, but it's not the case. Many are just as frustrated with the rules as the general public, none of us has a choice.

For me that falls into a dilemma because on one hand, I can agree with where they're coming from in regards to that being a mandated government thing that has to be obeyed and that being a negative thing. Absolutely, it isn't ideal. But, on the other hand, would that mean it was fair to force more at-risk staff to work around our coworkers while they have no obligation to bother trying to protect our health? It's a tricky one. Because the only way anyone I know took that small miniscule step to protect us was when the government forced them to.

 No.8361

>>8353
Saying people have a right to do something doesn't mean they should in the first place.
But people don't have the right to spit on others. That was assault before covid ever existed.
Moreover, that sure as fuck doesn't mean I support corrupt cops punishing victims because they're too lazy or too shitty to do their job.

> I don't care about a corporation getting fined, because the corporation isn't getting the fine, our personal business is and our staff are. WE have to pay that if it happens to us. All because someone wanted to make a point at our expense.
Sounds like the laws I don't like are shitty, and being supported by shitty people I don't like.

Again, you're putting this on my shoes when I'm someone who's against this nonsense.
It's like you're paying attention to nothing I say, and arguing with a fictional projection of your ex girlfriend.

I'm not her. You need to let go.

>Once again you presume I have luxury or privilege just because I disagree with your views
No, I presume that because of your statements.
You said you have a job.
Not everyone does.

I literally fucking SAID this in my post, but I guess projection overrides literacy.

>First you assumed I was well-off financially and in status and then that I supported closing places down because I didn't have to work in them or want their services
Nah, m8. I think you made that up.
I wouldn't trust you a second of honestly representing me to begin with, but I know I was saying you've got the luxury of the ability to work, when so many of us don't.

But I get it.
You lack the empathetic capabilities to even imagine those people who are suffering.
That's a shame.

>Logically speaking, I am in the position that should support no lockdown because it would mean my work was more likely not to close down, and yet... I don't, how wild. It's almost like my views aren't centred around my own self-preservation.
Yeah, instead they're built on blindness and a desire to appear virtuous at the expense of others.

Look, I make assumptions when others throw them around.  If you want to put them behind us, great.  But that means you gotta do the same
Otherwise, as always, I will respond in kind.
An eye for an eye.

>Yes, because dancing around Target without a mask on is absolutely not loser behaviour and will definitely change things. 
Did I say that I support that?
No.  Of fucking course I didn't.

You can't help to make things up.  Any argument to support trapping people in state-sponsored slavery, right?
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 want to be clear though that i am no bootlicker and I know full well our government here is run by a fucking moron and a bunch of incompetents. Again, I can think both things are shit. They aren't interlinked. I don't automatically worship the government just because I don't oppose something they did.
And yet you're fine with lockdowns, and think everyone should just bend over because that will fix it faster.

No. A defeatist is still a bootlicker, even if he insists he doesn't like the boot he licks.

>Who wouldn't be when they're losing months of work because a bunch of people decided "we're not gonna take it" and shut the country back down? 
See what I mean?
You suck the boot while complaining about anyone who is trying to resist.

You're a bootlicker, man.  It's an objective reality.

 No.8362

>>8360
Not really.  I think it is accurate to what you have done.  And it really annoys me how hostile and dickish people get on these subjects.
You're so quick to assume the worst about people you're arguing with. You don't even hesitate to make things up about them.

This is happening far too often these days, and no matter how much I've tried being kind, patient with them,  nothing is done. Nothing changes.  They just continue their aggression.
So, instead, I've gone to using their own tact against them, and calling them out when they complain.

The core of empathy is being able to imagine yourself in another's situation.
Thus, I hope if I put the people doing this stuff into the same situation, maybe they'll actually give some thought about what they're doing.

 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 ]