Oh, to be young and invincible - and heartless.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Hekate
- Start date
Oh, to be young and invincible - and heartless.
Beer
Well-Known Member
Heartless, maybe. A realist, certainly.
Realism: every day is precious to hose not in pain.
Realism: my mother weighed over 500 pounds from the time she was 50, and lived to be 72. For most of her last 15 years, she was the day care provider of three of her grandchildren. Your "realism" writes people like her off if they die at 50 from covid19.
Beer
Well-Known Member
No, I'm saying if your mother weighed over 500 pounds no one should be surprised if she died at 25, 35, 50 .... and the fact she made it to 72 is really amazing. Doesn't mean she wasn't a great person, mother, and grandmother. Doesn't mean she deserved to die. 99.9999% of deaths don't happen to people that deserve to be dead. But old and unhealthy people die at faster rates, at earlier ages, and are more susceptible to disease. It's just the facts. Politicians throwing **** at a wall for 6 months only for everyone, well most everyone, to realize that the extreme policies were pretty much futile and just delayed the inevitable. When the logical approach would be for masks, extreme hand washing, and the sick and elderly to take extreme precaution because they are the ones that will die. I know it's not fair to them. But it's not fair to everyone else to shoulder the brunt of it either.
I think most states have started to become logical sans Hawaii, California, New York ... probably others.
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
Beer, you’re being a dick.
I am fat as **** and old as ****.
I am taking every precaution.
And you know what? For all I know you may be 95% on the way to a Nobel Prize in something, but I would venture a guess that I am contributing more to the well being and good of my fellow man than you are.
You ARE heartless, and youthfully naive.
You can’t be surprised that most disagree with your position when it is based on a lack of wisdom and perspective.
These people also make valuable contributions to our world, and that is also the facts.
Every time you eat, you're delaying the inevitable. I don't think you'll stop eating, and if you had nothing to eat, I don't think you would view someone giving you food as engaging in a pointless effort.
Beer
Well-Known Member
I'd venture to guess a pretty significant majority agree with my position actually.
1. Masks. Where them anytime you are in a building with other people.
2. Keep hand sanitizer in your car so you can sanitize immediately after going anywhere
3. If you are obese, asthmatic, over 65, are in a nursing home, etc .... then YOU have to take extreme precaution. YOU have to wear masks, gloves, avoid going places as much as possible.
If you are a fat ***, that is your own problem. You can fix it. That's on you. I don't feel bad for you. Age obviously you cant control. But as Nas said "Life's a bitch and then you die" It sucks you were born at a time when you would be older during this pandemic. Now I don't want you to die. So I will do my part, as far as it is reasonable anyways. I will wear a mask. I will wash my hands non stop. I will not come into your home unless absolutely necessary. I will not however stop working, keep others from working, shut down industries, stop traveling, and everything else that has proven to be worthless.
Now I've been lucky enough to keep my job, my company is doing well, but like I said earlier its the lower class and the kids that are getting screwed by all of this. So sorry but yeah, I'll sacrifice the old and unhealthy for the greater good of the young and the poor. I'd hope you wouldn't be selfish enough to think everyone should be completely focused on you.
Beer
Well-Known Member
Point 1. I concur and have never once said anything to the contrary. All I'm saying is THEY have to look out for themselves much more than others have to adjust their lives to protect them.
Point 2. I literally have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Last edited:
Red
Well-Known Member
Well, I guess you might favor the administration’s apparent approach. Personally, I don’t like your too casual attitude where human life is concerned. Every human life is precious. That’s just how I was raised. Maybe my elders were just stupid and naive. You’re entitled to your views, I’m entitled to be disgusted by them. Yes, nursing homes have been hard hit everywhere, and I guess once a person is in such a home, they are preparing for the fate that awaits us all. But I don’t have to like hearing someone talk about human life like it was a ****ing nusiance.
Trump’s COVID Advisers: He’s Now Pushing Herd Immunity
Scott Atlas, the president’s most favored adviser, says it’s not true. But others working on the pandemic say it’s merely a game of semantics. The policy is increasingly clear.
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
Spoken like someone that is young.
I only have one life.
I don’t give a rat’s *** if you are young or old. I will sacrifice you to save me any day, simply based on your naïveté and shortsightedness.
Do you honestly believe that anyone high risk would be ok with being sacrificed?
Clueless.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
He knows they are not ok with it. But in the grand scheme of things he doesn't care if they are or not. He's taking a fairly straightforward utilitarian approach to the problem, stating, in essence, it is better to just allow a smaller portion of the population to die than for the bulk of the population to suffer. The major axiom he is espousing here is that all suffering is equal. So someone suffering from lack of a job is equal to someone else dying. So, to oversimplify, if you can save many jobs by allowing a few deaths, that tilts the scale in favor of allowing the deaths, since it alleviates the suffering of many but allowing the suffering of relatively few. It also gets to the core of many criticisms of utilitarianism, what is the value/cost of a human life? Frankly this concept is applied in very very many scenarios across society all the time. When the 737 maxes crashed society set a value on those lives by not requiring an infinite payment from Boeing. By imposing specific and ultimately limited "sanctions", both officially and societal (loss of stock value for example), "we" set an actual monetary value on the lives lost in those crashes. What he is proposing isn't terrible far removed from this concept, it's just more direct in it's valuing, or devaluing as it may be viewed, of life. And specifically lives he feels already have less value since they are potentially at risk anyway. It's pretty callous, yes, but a common way for people to assess these scenarios because we all feel our own suffering more acutely than the suffering of others, so it's human nature to view our own pleasure or suffering as equally or more important than others when from a purely objective standpoint that just isn't true.