US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3299

On August 28 2021 07:56 Mohdoo wrote:


I think 0.001% is too many. I think that when our society maintains a certain quality of life, but lets those people die, it means the quality of life we were given was more than it should have been. Similar to the idea that a society is only as rich as their poorest citizen, I think we essentially have more than people deserve because the freedoms people have end up causing a really crazy amount of people to die. There are of course questions of "well then where do you draw the line?". I draw that line at preventable, transmittable disease. I think that should be our minimum. Not interested in slippery slope type of arguments. Just saying as it pertains to this, we should do better.

On August 28 2021 08:24 JimmiC wrote:
The thing is that mohdoo understands that he is being extreme, you apparently think it is being reasonable stating that people dying over 65 are less valueable. Do you really think it was not the old and vulnerbale dying in the spanish flu? But now these people are less valuable? Will you feel this way at 65?

On August 28 2021 13:35 KwarK wrote:

The reason COVID has killed so little of the world population is totalitarianism in China. The low death rate of COVID globally is an argument for totalitarianism, not against. The death rate of COVID is considerably higher in the US.

On August 28 2021 12:40 JimmiC wrote:

I don't disagree with you. But this is not a democrat issue it is a republican one. (no it is not a Black or Hispanic issue either, the numbers are clear). Also, Biden has nothing to do with lockdowns or masking.

I'm pointing out the vaccinated people are pissed about it, because they have done the right thing and now they are being "punished" for those who did not, and continue to not to. This is why Passports and even forced vaccination are rising in popularity and measures are falling.

The reality is if you don't have enough get vaccinated you will have to continually do lockdowns maybe multiple a year, I really doubt your populace is going to be OK with this.

On August 28 2021 18:35 BlackJack wrote:


0.001% is too many and you draw the line at preventable, transmittable disease? That's 3,300 people in a coutry of 330 million. The flu kills over 10x that amount. Every year. 360,000 in the last 10 years which averages out to 36,000 a year. Should we have been having yearly mask mandates? Partial lockdowns? Banishment for people that don't get the flu vaccine? Are you sure you haven't been going through life not really giving a damn about the 10s of thousands of people that died every year in the US from the flu just like the rest of us?

On August 28 2021 23:47 Mohdoo wrote:


Preventable deaths should be prevented. Mandatory vaccinations would have a huge impact on flu deaths too, I’m in full support of that. Lots of literature published recently also supports mask mandates during flu season. I’m glad you are understanding we have a large, existing cultural issue with the flu as well.

It appears we have totally different ethics regarding how much inconvenience is reasonable to prevent death. I am comfortable with that contrast.

On August 28 2021 05:41 ChristianS wrote:
I think the “Western dogma” we’re getting at is the harm principle, usually stated as some version of “everyone should be able to do what they want unless it harms someone else.” There’s a sort of libertarian economist-type philosophy wherein everybody should be able to do whatever they want, and the government should just calculate the externality generated by each person’s actions and tax/fine them appropriately. “Garnish the unvaccinated’s wages “ sounds like a version of that, which is actually extremely compatible with the harm principle-based “Western dogma.”

The widely-acknowledged problem with the harm principle, practically speaking, is that everybody is constantly causing various harms to others that are essentially impossible to enumerate, let alone quantify and convert to a dollar figure to be fined or taxed. The less-talked-about problem is that the harm principle doesn’t account for politics; the obvious solution in this framework to carbon emissions, for instance, is a carbon tax. But carbon taxes are generally extremely unpopular, so democratic governments can’t really tax carbon as much as the externalities would dictate.

Putting aside policy for a moment, I agree with the idea that individualism as an ethic has gotten way out of hand, and that’s made us peculiarly ill-suited to addressing the pandemic, or climate change, or any of the other big issues threatening massive human cost up up and including societal collapse. When the facts indicate we must all make difficult sacrifices for the common good, people simply choose to ignore or disbelieve those facts. But fantasizing about seizing authoritarian control and forcing everyone to do what you think they should do strikes me as, at best, unhelpful escapism. The “at worst” scenarios for that kind of talk are pretty graphic, and probably don’t require elaboration at present.

On August 29 2021 04:08 JimmiC wrote:

You need to look at your own logic here. In one post you are saying that covid is not that bad because the people are dying over 65 and most of the time people didn't live that long and pointing out that lots of people under 65 died in the spanish flu, when there simply was not that many people left over 65. I mean duh? You are using %'s for the things that help your point and raw numbers when it does not, it is quite nonsensical.


I think if you reread my post you will see that I said vulnerable and was pointing out how there were far more vulnerable young people because of the conditions (hello ww1). Not to mention just general health/diet lack of food and so on. And a far more robust health care system that is way more advanced with loads on it managed through unprecedented measures.

Your last two sentences would make me irrational if we were comparing apples to apples (or you were even consitent in what you were comparing), but as usual you are comparing apples to car batteries to try to make yourself right.

Do you believe this was a pandemic or do you think the world leaders, doctors and so on completely overreacted? Do you think the pandemic is over? Do you think that masks work? Do you think there is any places in the states that should require masks in the current situation? Do you still think that DeSantis and Abbot have done the right thing and that other states should follow their lead? Do you think low vaccination rates are a problem, or is it fine and everyone can do as they want? Do you think the tax payers should continue to pay for the health care of those who refuse the preventive measures?

On August 29 2021 04:51 JimmiC wrote:


Shockingly obvious cop out, and wildly inaccurate.


Why is your reading comprehension so bad? Im not arguing that Spanish flu killed a higher percentage of people over 65. Im saying that does not mean Covid is jot bad.

Its ok your non-answer and strange dodge says more than enough.

Edit: Incase it is not abundantly clear, I'm not arguing your numbers, I'm arguing your conclusions and I put the reasons in why.

On August 28 2021 08:24 JimmiC wrote:
The thing is that mohdoo understands that he is being extreme, you apparently think it is being reasonable stating that people dying over 65 are less valueable. Do you really think it was not the old and vulnerbale dying in the spanish flu? But now these people are less valuable? Will you feel this way at 65?

On August 29 2021 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:


How do you see capitalism fitting into this analysis?

Could the foundational belief of capitalism in rational choice theory play an important role?

On August 29 2021 05:51 IgnE wrote:


It certainly played a role in getting us all to the point that we can talk about “preventable” and “curable” disease.

On August 29 2021 05:34 JimmiC wrote:

Yes the Old then were not as old as the old now. At 65 you have on average another 15 years to live on average. In 1918 where the life expectancy was 55 a person with 15 years left to live would be 40. There were not many 65 to die because people were so much weaker, less healthy, medicine was so much worse, so on that there were just not that many left to die.

I explained this in the part you didn't quote. But much like how you use the numbers you pick and choose what fits your narrative and ignore the rest.


Edit: 1918 4% of the population was over 65. in 2020 18% was.


And again this is mostly beside the point because that the Spanish flu killed more than covid given what we know about both viruses says the measures worked and awesome job by the medical community and advancements. It proves the exact opposite of what you seem to think it does. This is the problem when you take your knowledge from facebook meme's and don't actually think about them or use any critical thinking and instead "own libs".

On August 29 2021 06:03 Mohdoo wrote:


So, this may not be appropriate for me to say, of course do what you wanna do, but I want to caution: Discussions where we try to determine how much scientific progress is due to capitalism rather than due to the natural scientific inclination of humans is generally not productive. It is way too fuzzy to figure out or determine. I will say that I strongly disagree with the perspective you are describing and I still don't have any desire to explain why. I generally blab without notice or reason. It just hasn't been a topic that can reach a good answer, in any circumstance, IMO. It is like trying to determine if capitalism/communism are good or bad because everyone has wildly different definitions and whatnot.

On August 29 2021 06:28 IgnE wrote:


Discussions where we ask how much “capitalism” has to do with the state of a pandemic are no more productive, which was my point. Invoking “capitalism” to explain the complex dynamics between ideology, sociology, politics, and economy is just as reductive. What does anyone here even mean by such a term? In any case insofar as GH was asking about “individualism,” one might as well ask what individualism has to do with science. Or what agriculture has to do with government has to do with money has to do with property has to do with “capitalism.”