What's new
By:

Coronavirus

This is cool



also, Steph Curry’s interview with Dr Fauci was good. Glad to see Americans stepping up. Contrast that with this nonsense:

 
Wes Mantooth said:
I’m guessing when we’re all said and done we finish with over 500,000 deaths. One million is a definite possibility.
Click to expand...

I'd bet we're under 250,000.

And that's hedging it, imo. I really doubt it goes over 150,000.

Still a lot of people.

It sounds like even for those who don't die, there can be some serious long term issues. That will be interesting to follow.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
You obviously didn't suggest that I look there until a separate post that you sent later, and I'm not doing homework that you assign anyway. I think it's meaningless that you ask me to search out some random and anonymous dope who makes a dumb statement. Your original post that I responded to implied that right-to-lifers were now callously suggesting that old people's lives have no value. Your claim remains unsubstantiated. Your quote was made up, just as I had suspected.
Click to expand...


Anyone who is advocating for stopping lockdowns or shutdowns or social distancing for economic reasons is saying that they will trade lives for prosperity.

I’m not even arguing that this is wrong.

Im just saying that people who profess to be pro life cannot make this argument without moral difficulties.
 
silesian said:
Anyone who is advocating for stopping lockdowns or shutdowns or social distancing for economic reasons is saying that they will trade lives for prosperity.

I’m not even arguing that this is wrong.

Im just saying that people who profess to be pro life cannot make this argument without moral difficulties.
Click to expand...
Is there a difference between loss of life as the intended (and actively pursued) consequence vs. loss of life as a recognized risk? My assumption is that your argument is that they are the same. If so, it makes for the automobile accident fatalities as a calculated risk the same scenario, if we’re assuming equivalence of the first two.
 
infection said:
Is there a difference between loss of life as the intended (and actively pursued) consequence vs. loss of life as a recognized risk? My assumption is that your argument is that they are the same. If so, it makes for the automobile accident fatalities as a calculated risk the same scenario, if we’re assuming equivalence of the first two.
Click to expand...

Nah, I’m just pointing out hypocrisy of people who say there is no price worth paying for a human life advocating for a policy that will surely lead to many deaths. My morals see the ambiguity that you rightly point out.
 
silesian said:
Nah, I’m just pointing out hypocrisy of people who say there is no price worth paying for a human life advocating for a policy that will surely lead to many deaths. My morals see the ambiguity that you rightly point out.
Click to expand...
Would you grant that one could believe loss of life as the sole intended consequence is different than loss of life as a result of elevated risk factors? Would pro-lifers be inconsistent in belief by opposing the loss of life via abortion while also voting for raising the speed limit on the highway? [not arguing scale here, just principle]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top