Coronavirus Thread v.2

[ReaPsTA]

Again, since I feel I have to keep saying it, I am personally very much FOR masking, distancing and vaccination where it makes sense. Having said that, I feel pretty strongly that we should reserve the types of judgments we're seeing here about "deserving" and "bringing it on".

I wouldn't say that I "judge" people, and never think people deserve it, but at this point, 2 years into it, anyone who chooses not to take the recommended and reasonable precautions - while very much free to make those choices - will get not sympathy from me should those choices and actions lead to unfavorable consequences.  It's not judgement as much as it is lack of sympathy - at least, from my perspective.  Choices have consequences (both good and bad).  Those that own the choice, also own the consequence.

Interesting. Interesting.

Look I am not perfect I find amusement at things you "shouldn't" laugh at all the time. Maybe there's something specific to that situation. Maybe it's because I am far from an ideal person.

But going with 'when people suffer the consequences of their bad choices they get no sympathy' as a default/stated philosophy? It doesn't take much creativity to find situations where if you apply that reasoning you'll run into some serious issues.

[Grappler]

I'm not finding enjoyment in a family being sick. 

I'm finding enjoyment in the fact that they couldn't leave the house to protest against something they are passionate about because they got sick with the same illness that the mitigations are (were) in place for.

I'm done discussing that point.

[hunnus2000]

Again, since I feel I have to keep saying it, I am personally very much FOR masking, distancing and vaccination where it makes sense. Having said that, I feel pretty strongly that we should reserve the types of judgments we're seeing here about "deserving" and "bringing it on".

I wouldn't say that I "judge" people, and never think people deserve it, but at this point, 2 years into it, anyone who chooses not to take the recommended and reasonable precautions - while very much free to make those choices - will get not sympathy from me should those choices and actions lead to unfavorable consequences.  It's not judgement as much as it is lack of sympathy - at least, from my perspective.  Choices have consequences (both good and bad).  Those that own the choice, also own the consequence.

Look, you (royal) go outside in February rain without an umbrella or a coat, then getting wet is something you brought on yourself.  I'm not judging you for it, but I've got no sympathy for your situation.  And please Bill... no need to find the situations (but what if it's because the smoke detector went off at 2am?) where it's quite reasonable.  For once, just go along with the point.    I'm speaking generally.

Your feelings are not uncommon. I have grown weary of the unvaccinated (especially those not doing it for political reasons) and have grown to despise them. Shrugs.....

[Stadler]

Again, since I feel I have to keep saying it, I am personally very much FOR masking, distancing and vaccination where it makes sense. Having said that, I feel pretty strongly that we should reserve the types of judgments we're seeing here about "deserving" and "bringing it on".

I wouldn't say that I "judge" people, and never think people deserve it, but at this point, 2 years into it, anyone who chooses not to take the recommended and reasonable precautions - while very much free to make those choices - will get not sympathy from me should those choices and actions lead to unfavorable consequences.  It's not judgement as much as it is lack of sympathy - at least, from my perspective.  Choices have consequences (both good and bad).  Those that own the choice, also own the consequence.

Look, you (royal) go outside in February rain without an umbrella or a coat, then getting wet is something you brought on yourself.  I'm not judging you for it, but I've got no sympathy for your situation.  And please Bill... no need to find the situations (but what if it's because the smoke detector went off at 2am?) where it's quite reasonable.  For once, just go along with the point.    I'm speaking generally.

Of course. And the general is the problem.  It's not about "deserve" it's about schadenfreude for a position/opinion you collective disagree with.   And women who get raped shouldn't wear skirts and tight shirts, and long hairs shouldn't bitch when they don't get jobs, and queens shouldn't complain when people don't accept them for "who they are", and if you don't want an abortion, don't have sex, and soldiers who get blown up in war, well, they volunteered, amirite?  They all deserve it.

Freedom of choice for one person with the overwhelming consequences of all those others who disagree with them is no free choice at all.

[ReaPsTA]

Your feelings are not uncommon. I have grown weary of the unvaccinated (especially those not doing it for political reasons) and have grown to despise them. Shrugs.....

Neat. Curious how doing it for political reasons makes it worse. They can't be sincere?

[Stadler]

Again, since I feel I have to keep saying it, I am personally very much FOR masking, distancing and vaccination where it makes sense. Having said that, I feel pretty strongly that we should reserve the types of judgments we're seeing here about "deserving" and "bringing it on".

I wouldn't say that I "judge" people, and never think people deserve it, but at this point, 2 years into it, anyone who chooses not to take the recommended and reasonable precautions - while very much free to make those choices - will get not sympathy from me should those choices and actions lead to unfavorable consequences.  It's not judgement as much as it is lack of sympathy - at least, from my perspective.  Choices have consequences (both good and bad).  Those that own the choice, also own the consequence.

Look, you (royal) go outside in February rain without an umbrella or a coat, then getting wet is something you brought on yourself.  I'm not judging you for it, but I've got no sympathy for your situation.  And please Bill... no need to find the situations (but what if it's because the smoke detector went off at 2am?) where it's quite reasonable.  For once, just go along with the point.    I'm speaking generally.

Your feelings are not uncommon. I have grown weary of the unvaccinated (especially those not doing it for political reasons) and have grown to despise them. Shrugs.....

And I grow weary of those with gall and gumption to presume they know better than I do what should go in my body.   Only rather than add to the hate in this world, I'm trying to remember that they have a real right to their opinion - just as much as I do - and me chilling them does a disservice to my libertarian beliefs. Rather than create more alienation and more divisiveness, I'm trying to break down the in-groups and out-groups. 

[TAC]

Your feelings are not uncommon. I have grown weary of the unvaccinated (especially those not doing it for political reasons) and have grown to despise them. Shrugs.....

Neat. Curious how doing it for political reasons makes it worse. They can't be sincere?

Yeah, the people doing it for political reasons are fucking stupid. But surely there's room for people that simply have a conflict or a legit fear of some sort.

I had a fear of flying for years, no matter how airline safety was touted. Safer than driving to work. But no way in hell would I get on a plane. I can easily see people like that with the vaccine. Once you hook that needle up, there's no going back.

Honestly, I'm fucking appalled that I have to show my vax card to see Dream Theater next week. (yes, I know it's not a DT issue)

[Ben_Jamin]

Again, since I feel I have to keep saying it, I am personally very much FOR masking, distancing and vaccination where it makes sense. Having said that, I feel pretty strongly that we should reserve the types of judgments we're seeing here about "deserving" and "bringing it on".

I wouldn't say that I "judge" people, and never think people deserve it, but at this point, 2 years into it, anyone who chooses not to take the recommended and reasonable precautions - while very much free to make those choices - will get not sympathy from me should those choices and actions lead to unfavorable consequences.  It's not judgement as much as it is lack of sympathy - at least, from my perspective.  Choices have consequences (both good and bad).  Those that own the choice, also own the consequence.

Look, you (royal) go outside in February rain without an umbrella or a coat, then getting wet is something you brought on yourself.  I'm not judging you for it, but I've got no sympathy for your situation.  And please Bill... no need to find the situations (but what if it's because the smoke detector went off at 2am?) where it's quite reasonable.  For once, just go along with the point.    I'm speaking generally.

Your feelings are not uncommon. I have grown weary of the unvaccinated (especially those not doing it for political reasons) and have grown to despise them. Shrugs.....

And I grow weary of those with gall and gumption to presume they know better than I do what should go in my body.   Only rather than add to the hate in this world, I'm trying to remember that they have a real right to their opinion - just as much as I do - and me chilling them does a disservice to my libertarian beliefs. Rather than create more alienation and more divisiveness, I'm trying to break down the in-groups and out-groups. 

There's a story in the Bible about these people called Lepers...Which describes the mindset of those who consider others contaminated to be a part of their in group.

[ReaPsTA]

Your feelings are not uncommon. I have grown weary of the unvaccinated (especially those not doing it for political reasons) and have grown to despise them. Shrugs.....

Neat. Curious how doing it for political reasons makes it worse. They can't be sincere?

Yeah, the people doing it for political reasons are fucking stupid.

I wouldn't say fucking stupid but I don't think it's a good idea. If you think there's some political issue with getting a shot but you think it would medically benefit yourself to get it, you can do what's best for you without believing anyone should be compelled to do it. I don't really find something like a hunger strike persuasive, but at least it's a good show. I'm not sure if getting a COVID shot does the same thing.

But to each their own.

[hunnus2000]

Your feelings are not uncommon. I have grown weary of the unvaccinated (especially those not doing it for political reasons) and have grown to despise them. Shrugs.....

Neat. Curious how doing it for political reasons makes it worse. They can't be sincere?

I'm not sure what sincerity has to do with anything but yeah - I believe they are being sincere - sincerely stupid.

The reasons why doing it for political reasons make it worse is that their thinking isn't consistent. If they are military, they will go take that hill because of orders but getting this particular vaccine - well now they have their personal freedoms. Just ignant!

[Ben_Jamin]

Again, since I feel I have to keep saying it, I am personally very much FOR masking, distancing and vaccination where it makes sense. Having said that, I feel pretty strongly that we should reserve the types of judgments we're seeing here about "deserving" and "bringing it on".

I wouldn't say that I "judge" people, and never think people deserve it, but at this point, 2 years into it, anyone who chooses not to take the recommended and reasonable precautions - while very much free to make those choices - will get not sympathy from me should those choices and actions lead to unfavorable consequences.  It's not judgement as much as it is lack of sympathy - at least, from my perspective.  Choices have consequences (both good and bad).  Those that own the choice, also own the consequence.

Look, you (royal) go outside in February rain without an umbrella or a coat, then getting wet is something you brought on yourself.  I'm not judging you for it, but I've got no sympathy for your situation.  And please Bill... no need to find the situations (but what if it's because the smoke detector went off at 2am?) where it's quite reasonable.  For once, just go along with the point.    I'm speaking generally.

What about not being healthy enough by not eating a nutritious diet and now you have a variety of heath issues because you just have to have that donut burger deep fried in bacon grease?

I have a sympathy for them, but don't come crying to me when they made that choice and decision knowing full well what the potential detrimental, dreadful outcome may be.

If you don't want health issues caused by a bad diet, and raise your odds of catching Covid, maybe you should consider doing something about it rather than forcing others to take a quick fix, cause eating nutritiously is hard. That's putting it in a nice, blunt way. I could say more, but that would be considered inconsiderate, but it's the truth in weighing outcomes by one's own choices.

And if humans do not assess these risky outcomes well. Why expect humans to be that way all of sudden when a world-wide situation occurs.

[Ben_Jamin]

Your feelings are not uncommon. I have grown weary of the unvaccinated (especially those not doing it for political reasons) and have grown to despise them. Shrugs.....

Neat. Curious how doing it for political reasons makes it worse. They can't be sincere?

I'm not sure what sincerity has to do with anything but yeah - I believe they are being sincere - sincerely stupid.

The reasons why doing it for political reasons make it worse is that their thinking isn't consistent. If they are military, they will go take that hill because of orders but getting this particular vaccine - well now they have their personal freedoms. Just ignant!

That's tolerance. And people have high tolerance for what they will take for the purposes of defending their beliefs. Why do people join the military? It's not because they enjoy being yelled at and demanded to answer to the higher ranked authority.

When this tolerance reaches a certain point, people will disobey the authority and say "enough is enough" this is where I draw my line in the sand.

[hunnus2000]

Your feelings are not uncommon. I have grown weary of the unvaccinated (especially those not doing it for political reasons) and have grown to despise them. Shrugs.....

Neat. Curious how doing it for political reasons makes it worse. They can't be sincere?

I'm not sure what sincerity has to do with anything but yeah - I believe they are being sincere - sincerely stupid.

The reasons why doing it for political reasons make it worse is that their thinking isn't consistent. If they are military, they will go take that hill because of orders but getting this particular vaccine - well now they have their personal freedoms. Just ignant!

That's tolerance. And people have high tolerance for what they will take for the purposes of defending their beliefs. Why do people join the military? It's not because they enjoy being yelled at and demanded to answer to the higher ranked authority.

When this tolerance reaches a certain point, people will disobey the authority and say "enough is enough" this is where I draw my line in the sand.

Tolerance is a 2-way street.

[emtee]

We're down to 1 positive in our facility. Dear God I hope this is the end.

[ReaPsTA]

Tolerance is a 2-way street.

Lots of people do things every day that I tolerate without them even knowing I'm tolerating it...

I'm not just saying this stuff to win internet points. I know both a leftie and a righty who blame 'baby bitches' who won't engage in COVID mitigation/'stupid liberals' for letting communism ruin our society. This shit rots your brain folks!

[Stadler]

Your feelings are not uncommon. I have grown weary of the unvaccinated (especially those not doing it for political reasons) and have grown to despise them. Shrugs.....

Neat. Curious how doing it for political reasons makes it worse. They can't be sincere?

I'm not sure what sincerity has to do with anything but yeah - I believe they are being sincere - sincerely stupid.

The reasons why doing it for political reasons make it worse is that their thinking isn't consistent. If they are military, they will go take that hill because of orders but getting this particular vaccine - well now they have their personal freedoms. Just ignant!

You can't know they are inconsistent unless you know EXACTLY what they are thinking.  There are SO MANY VARIABLES to these things you cannot possibly say that "taking a hill under military orders" and "taking a vaccine because the government mandates it" are necessarily "inconsistent".  And you're patently ignoring the ways the GOVERNMENT is inconsistent in their application of "harm to society" as a means for furthering their agenda.  Heart disease kills far more people in the US than COVID; our obesity rates are through the roof.  How about the government start mandating weight requirements for our citizenry?   Why don't we "fat-shame" the way we "vaccine-shame"?  Where's the thread where we rag on everyone eating a Big Mac or a Whopper as "sincerely stupid"? 

[jingle.boy]

Again, since I feel I have to keep saying it, I am personally very much FOR masking, distancing and vaccination where it makes sense. Having said that, I feel pretty strongly that we should reserve the types of judgments we're seeing here about "deserving" and "bringing it on".

I wouldn't say that I "judge" people, and never think people deserve it, but at this point, 2 years into it, anyone who chooses not to take the recommended and reasonable precautions - while very much free to make those choices - will get not sympathy from me should those choices and actions lead to unfavorable consequences.  It's not judgement as much as it is lack of sympathy - at least, from my perspective.  Choices have consequences (both good and bad).  Those that own the choice, also own the consequence.

But going with 'when people suffer the consequences of their bad choices they get no sympathy' as a default/stated philosophy? It doesn't take much creativity to find situations where if you apply that reasoning you'll run into some serious issues.

I didn't mean to imply I have a blanket default "no sympathy" for anyone making bad choices.  For a lot of bad choices that are completely discretionary and self serving, knowingly "bad" or unsafe, and reasonably avoidable, I would say more often than not I would struggle to be sympathetic.  Knowingly driving impaired and getting into a car accident?  Not much sypmathy.  Consuming 5000 calories daily of a high fat diet with no exercise then having "underlying conditions" ... not much sympathy.  Unvax'd, unmasked, routinely going to crowded indoor spaces for purely discretionary purposes? Not much sympathy if you contract COIVD.

There will always be 'exceptions to the rule'.  Example, my wife's uncle was killed in a head-on collision a number of years ago from a 20-something year old kid that fell asleep at the wheel.  He'd been up all night (working I think) and driving home.  Bad choice - most certainly given the outcome.  But I can feel sympathy for the hell he's going thru (ie, having to live with his own actions taking the life of another person).

Yeah, the people doing it for political reasons are fucking stupid. But surely there's room for people that simply have a conflict or a legit fear of some sort.

And that's fine.  If one fears the vaccine, but takes other reasonable precautions (masking, distancing, isolating etc...) and contracts COVID, I can feel sympathy.  Those that spit in the face of all reasonable precautions is where I'm not likely to sympathize.

[Stadler]

Again, since I feel I have to keep saying it, I am personally very much FOR masking, distancing and vaccination where it makes sense. Having said that, I feel pretty strongly that we should reserve the types of judgments we're seeing here about "deserving" and "bringing it on".

I wouldn't say that I "judge" people, and never think people deserve it, but at this point, 2 years into it, anyone who chooses not to take the recommended and reasonable precautions - while very much free to make those choices - will get not sympathy from me should those choices and actions lead to unfavorable consequences.  It's not judgement as much as it is lack of sympathy - at least, from my perspective.  Choices have consequences (both good and bad).  Those that own the choice, also own the consequence.

But going with 'when people suffer the consequences of their bad choices they get no sympathy' as a default/stated philosophy? It doesn't take much creativity to find situations where if you apply that reasoning you'll run into some serious issues.

I didn't mean to imply I have a blanket default "no sympathy" for anyone making bad choices.  For a lot of bad choices that are completely discretionary and self serving, knowingly "bad" or unsafe, and reasonably avoidable, I would say more often than not I would struggle to be sympathetic.  Knowingly driving impaired and getting into a car accident?  Not much sypmathy.  Consuming 5000 calories daily of a high fat diet with no exercise then having "underlying conditions" ... not much sympathy.  Unvax'd, unmasked, routinely going to crowded indoor spaces for purely discretionary purposes? Not much sympathy if you contract COIVD.
 
There will always be 'exceptions to the rule'.  Example, my wife's uncle was killed in a head-on collision a number of years ago from a 20-something year old kid that fell asleep at the wheel.  He'd been up all night (working I think) and driving home.  Bad choice - most certainly given the outcome.  But I can feel sympathy for the hell he's going thru (ie, having to live with his own actions taking the life of another person).

What you think is what you think.  That's fair.  And it's not like I don't have my inner moments of "you fucking idiot" (not about you).  But I've said this elsewhere: everyone has a story.  And when everyone has a story, NO ONE does.  Sure, they have their life experiences, but we get to the point that it's impossible to take every one of the 7.9 billion (side bar:  I've always used "7.3" and I googled it for shits and giggles - shits and googles? - and we're at 7.9 billion. ALMOST 8 BILLION PEOPLE) stories into account.   Was that kid working?  Working to feed his family, working to buy dope, what?  Does it matter?   We're human and we're fallible.   We are exceedingly tactical - meaning, A to B to C - and we, as a means of survival, have a knack for finding connections and causation where none really exists.   I can't sit here and muster a whole lot of disgust when you have people like my parents - vaxx'ed and in assisted living where I have to literally YELL at them to get out of their room and see people - and they get COVID, and I haven't, after numerous concerts, numerous flights, and kids around me that are in the germ soup we call schools.   You said - and I think it was just a figure of speech - there are "exceptions to the rule".  But there aren't any rules, only patterns, trends, and generalizations, and we're not even really talking about those.  We're talking about SPECIFIC applications of those patterns/trends/generalizations, and in some cases, then ACTING on those (demanding that those that knowingly deviate from the patterns/trends/generalizations face arbitrary and subjective "consequences"). 

If we're just shooting the shit here, and noting "huh, I think that guy is an idiot!" then I'll go start my weekend.   But it doesn't feel like that. I think a large majority of people saying "idiot!" WOULD enact laws, regulations, policies that would punish that idiocy.

Yeah, the people doing it for political reasons are fucking stupid. But surely there's room for people that simply have a conflict or a legit fear of some sort.

And that's fine.  If one fears the vaccine, but takes other reasonable precautions (masking, distancing, isolating etc...) and contracts COVID, I can feel sympathy.  Those that spit in the face of all reasonable precautions is where I'm not likely to sympathize.

Quick question, who decides "reasonable"?   And why is disregarding those arbitrarily determined "reasonable" precautions automatically "spitting" on them?  I can respect them, I can understand them, but not feel they are appropriate.  Speeding laws, for one.   Several gun laws for another.   

[ProfessorPeart]

Well, my son is running a 100 degree fever and is very achy. Considering school is the only place he goes, literally, if he has Covid it came from there. Still getting daily emails about kids testing positive every day. May have finally caught up with him. Wife is taking him to be tested now.

Well, a day later and he is even sicker than before. No test result yet, but seems we know the answer. Coughing uncontrollably, trouble breathing, vomiting, diarrhea, the whole thing. He's way sicker than my daughter when she had it.

[Stadler]

Well, my son is running a 100 degree fever and is very achy. Considering school is the only place he goes, literally, if he has Covid it came from there. Still getting daily emails about kids testing positive every day. May have finally caught up with him. Wife is taking him to be tested now.

Well, a day later and he is even sicker than before. No test result yet, but seems we know the answer. Coughing uncontrollably, trouble breathing, vomiting, diarrhea, the whole thing. He's way sicker than my daughter when she had it.

I'm a pretty pragmatic guy, generally, but watching my kids (and now grandkids) be sick is probably the hardest thing I've endured as a parent.  I feel for you and your family.  Here's hoping the worst symptoms abate quickly.

[cramx3]

Well, my son is running a 100 degree fever and is very achy. Considering school is the only place he goes, literally, if he has Covid it came from there. Still getting daily emails about kids testing positive every day. May have finally caught up with him. Wife is taking him to be tested now.

Well, a day later and he is even sicker than before. No test result yet, but seems we know the answer. Coughing uncontrollably, trouble breathing, vomiting, diarrhea, the whole thing. He's way sicker than my daughter when she had it.

That sucks, but I hope he has a speedy recovery.  Kids are strong.

[jingle.boy]

Not gonna quote the whole post, but just wanted to point out "exception to the rule" was being used as figure of speech.  Not everything need to be taken so literally.

Well, my son is running a 100 degree fever and is very achy. Considering school is the only place he goes, literally, if he has Covid it came from there. Still getting daily emails about kids testing positive every day. May have finally caught up with him. Wife is taking him to be tested now.

Well, a day later and he is even sicker than before. No test result yet, but seems we know the answer. Coughing uncontrollably, trouble breathing, vomiting, diarrhea, the whole thing. He's way sicker than my daughter when she had it.

I'm a pretty pragmatic guy, generally, but watching my kids (and now grandkids) be sick is probably the hardest thing I've endured as a parent.  I feel for you and your family.  Here's hoping the worst symptoms abate quickly.

+1.  That's tough on you, Prof.  Hope it passes as quickly as it came on.

[Harmony]

If we're just shooting the shit here, and noting "huh, I think that guy is an idiot!" then I'll go start my weekend.   But it doesn't feel like that. I think a large majority of people saying "idiot!" WOULD enact laws, regulations, policies that would punish that idiocy.

That has happened many many times throughout history.  This is why we have regulations on food, medicine, building codes, on vehicle safety, putting a swimming pool in your back yard, hell even keeping a chicken coop.  Laws and policies are designed to keep "idiots" from harming other people with their idiocy.  And these laws and regulations started with one person speaking out and gathering the support of others toward their cause.

That doesn't mean I like having all of these regulations.  I didn't like having some city employee come to my house six months after I got a new AC unit installed to ensure it was installed correctly (my tax dollars at work!) but probably somewhere some family or some property was damaged by some incompetent HVAC business and laws were changed.  And now the city makes money to ensure my family is protected.  Seems like a racket to me, but what the fuck do I know?  Maybe it is keeping me and mine safe.  Maybe I'm just too much of an "idiot" to understand how an AC unit could potentially harm me and I need that regulation.  Is that a form of punishment?

************

ProfessorPeart, I hope your son feels better soon.  You've probably already done so, but perhaps a call into his pediatrician's office just as a precaution?  At least have a game plan going into the weekend for what to do should he need more supportive care.  Might set your mind at ease a little bit. 

[Stadler]

If we're just shooting the shit here, and noting "huh, I think that guy is an idiot!" then I'll go start my weekend.   But it doesn't feel like that. I think a large majority of people saying "idiot!" WOULD enact laws, regulations, policies that would punish that idiocy.

That has happened many many times throughout history.  This is why we have regulations on food, medicine, building codes, on vehicle safety, putting a swimming pool in your back yard, hell even keeping a chicken coop.  Laws and policies are designed to keep "idiots" from harming other people with their idiocy.  And these laws and regulations started with one person speaking out and gathering the support of others toward their cause.

That doesn't mean I like having all of these regulations.  I didn't like having some city employee come to my house six months after I got a new AC unit installed to ensure it was installed correctly (my tax dollars at work!) but probably somewhere some family or some property was damaged by some incompetent HVAC business and laws were changed.  And now the city makes money to ensure my family is protected.  Seems like a racket to me, but what the fuck do I know?  Maybe it is keeping me and mine safe.  Maybe I'm just too much of an "idiot" to understand how an AC unit could potentially harm me and I need that regulation.  Is that a form of punishment?

I'm not sure I can articulate this clearly, and let's not assume that I necessarily think the housing regulations are okay either (I'm indifferent, truth be told and you'll see why in a second) but there's a pretty broad difference of scope here.  There are at least FIVE parties involved in your scenario above, and only two or three in the scenario at hand.  The vast majority of regulations in that arena aren't about the sort of utopian "balancing the individual right versus the greater good" that seems to surround the vaccine issue.   You need not put an AC unit in and no one is going to be the wiser, and no one is going to call you (in any meaningful way) an idiot either way. Most housing regs aren't for you and me; they are for the insurance companies, so that they will underwrite houses so that mortgage companies will issue loans so that the housing market remains robust.  And unless you've been a homeowner for generations, you've likely signed away any rights you had to object to that when you bought; you agreed, before you got the right in title to that property, to acquiesce to that intrusion.  There's no component of "fundamental rights" in the constitutional sense to ANY of this.

Vaccines are different, though. I struggle with why some people (not suggesting you, Harmony, I'm speaking generally) don't UNDERSTAND - I didn't say "agree", I didn't say "accept", just "understand" - the conceptual difference of say, getting a driver's license (another mode of government intrusion in our lives that sometimes gets offered when talking about vaccines) and having the government stick a needle in your arm, and why that might be a problem for some people.

This isn't to you, Harmony, in response to anything you wrote, but it anticipates a certain response that I might get from others on something: That we've "done this" before for other vaccines isn't really the point; it was a slippery slope then, and this is just that hen coming home to roost.  Letting it go then on the premise that "it's not that big a deal" I can only venture didn't contemplate a scenario like the COVID-19 pandemic, and rather than it being an example of why we should STFU on a COVID vaccine, is likely the best argument why we SHOULDN'T.  What's next? 

[Ben_Jamin]

If we're just shooting the shit here, and noting "huh, I think that guy is an idiot!" then I'll go start my weekend.   But it doesn't feel like that. I think a large majority of people saying "idiot!" WOULD enact laws, regulations, policies that would punish that idiocy.

That has happened many many times throughout history.  This is why we have regulations on food, medicine, building codes, on vehicle safety, putting a swimming pool in your back yard, hell even keeping a chicken coop.  Laws and policies are designed to keep "idiots" from harming other people with their idiocy.  And these laws and regulations started with one person speaking out and gathering the support of others toward their cause.

That doesn't mean I like having all of these regulations.  I didn't like having some city employee come to my house six months after I got a new AC unit installed to ensure it was installed correctly (my tax dollars at work!) but probably somewhere some family or some property was damaged by some incompetent HVAC business and laws were changed.  And now the city makes money to ensure my family is protected.  Seems like a racket to me, but what the fuck do I know?  Maybe it is keeping me and mine safe.  Maybe I'm just too much of an "idiot" to understand how an AC unit could potentially harm me and I need that regulation.  Is that a form of punishment?

There's countries that do not have these regulations and were well off before the others implemented their regulations onto them. The effects of colonization determined what regulations humans follow.

If you want AC you would have to know how to do it, if not, then that sucks for you and now you have to gather wood for your fireplace. But, oh no, houses don't have fireplaces anymore.

Social Structures were changed into what is considered "the norm" and what is happening is these are being challenged and reconsidered. Do humans really need these benefits and "advantages"?

Urbanization and Industrialization changed humans social constructs and we're only seeing the consequences of that decision now. Both the beneficial and the detrimental consequences.

In some societies and cultures, you don't think for yourself to determine what is good for you. Whatever the authority determines is good for the people, everyone has to follow. China is a great example of that with it's Child Laws and it's regulation of Masculinity and Male Dominance. Women from China leave there so they can be better treated here in America. Now they're concerned the boys are being more effeminate, and China is doing things to prevent that feminity and are requiring the boys to do more masculine things.

For the betterment of China as a Nation. They determined that effeminate boys are a threat to that. And many other things are considered a threat to their National Standards.

It goes way beyond regulations and rules and is about Nationalism, the betterment of the country, and control of the populace.

Every Nation wants to be the number one GOAT nation. And America benefits from that label and people are saying, nah, you aren't, we are. And then we get into fights and conflicts and that's how wars begin.

[ReaPsTA]

I'm not sure I can articulate this clearly, and let's not assume that I necessarily think the housing regulations are okay either (I'm indifferent, truth be told and you'll see why in a second) but there's a pretty broad difference of scope here.  There are at least FIVE parties involved in your scenario above, and only two or three in the scenario at hand.  The vast majority of regulations in that arena aren't about the sort of utopian "balancing the individual right versus the greater good" that seems to surround the vaccine issue.   You need not put an AC unit in and no one is going to be the wiser, and no one is going to call you (in any meaningful way) an idiot either way. Most housing regs aren't for you and me; they are for the insurance companies, so that they will underwrite houses so that mortgage companies will issue loans so that the housing market remains robust.  And unless you've been a homeowner for generations, you've likely signed away any rights you had to object to that when you bought; you agreed, before you got the right in title to that property, to acquiesce to that intrusion.  There's no component of "fundamental rights" in the constitutional sense to ANY of this.

Vaccines are different, though. I struggle with why some people (not suggesting you, Harmony, I'm speaking generally) don't UNDERSTAND - I didn't say "agree", I didn't say "accept", just "understand" - the conceptual difference of say, getting a driver's license (another mode of government intrusion in our lives that sometimes gets offered when talking about vaccines) and having the government stick a needle in your arm, and why that might be a problem for some people.

This isn't to you, Harmony, in response to anything you wrote, but it anticipates a certain response that I might get from others on something: That we've "done this" before for other vaccines isn't really the point; it was a slippery slope then, and this is just that hen coming home to roost.  Letting it go then on the premise that "it's not that big a deal" I can only venture didn't contemplate a scenario like the COVID-19 pandemic, and rather than it being an example of why we should STFU on a COVID vaccine, is likely the best argument why we SHOULDN'T.  What's next?

You could make a serious argument that the slippery slope "fallacy" is one of the most damaging memes to cogent discussion of anything. Slippery slopes are inevitable.

[hefdaddy42]

Vaccines are different, though. I struggle with why some people (not suggesting you, Harmony, I'm speaking generally) don't UNDERSTAND - I didn't say "agree", I didn't say "accept", just "understand" - the conceptual difference of say, getting a driver's license (another mode of government intrusion in our lives that sometimes gets offered when talking about vaccines) and having the government stick a needle in your arm, and why that might be a problem for some people.

The concept I have a hard time with is you characterizing getting a driver's license as being a "government intrusion."  That belies your particular distinct perspective on these matters in much the same way (although opposite) to some of the others here (which I assume includes me) whose perspectives you object to.

This isn't to you, Harmony, in response to anything you wrote, but it anticipates a certain response that I might get from others on something: That we've "done this" before for other vaccines isn't really the point; it was a slippery slope then, and this is just that hen coming home to roost.  Letting it go then on the premise that "it's not that big a deal" I can only venture didn't contemplate a scenario like the COVID-19 pandemic, and rather than it being an example of why we should STFU on a COVID vaccine, is likely the best argument why we SHOULDN'T.  What's next?

That we've been through it before really IS the point.  Calling something a slippery slope doesn't make it so.  The results of our response to the Spanish Flu in the early 1900s were the blueprint for what should have happened with COVID, down to mask wearing and vaccinations.

What's next?  The next big virus, for which a sizable portion of the populace will irrationally object to any recommended practices of protection.  And we'll have a million or more citizens die, many of whom will die needlessly.  Except it will be worse next time, because I'm sure that many healthcare workers will say "to hell with this" after being overwhelmed with THIS round.

[jingle.boy]

I find it fascinating that questions like "what's next" in these kinds of context expecting the path of "what could / will go wrong?"  How about thinking about it in the context of "what could go right?" 

Maybe what's next is ... nothing.  Bill... just as you said constantly remind us, Kavanaugh's appointment did not literally mean women died.  Like Hef said, envisioning a "slippery slope" doesn't mean there is one.

[lonestar]

Are we still micromanaging the shit out of a simple medical procedure?

[Ben_Jamin]

Vaccines are different, though. I struggle with why some people (not suggesting you, Harmony, I'm speaking generally) don't UNDERSTAND - I didn't say "agree", I didn't say "accept", just "understand" - the conceptual difference of say, getting a driver's license (another mode of government intrusion in our lives that sometimes gets offered when talking about vaccines) and having the government stick a needle in your arm, and why that might be a problem for some people.

The concept I have a hard time with is you characterizing getting a driver's license as being a "government intrusion."  That belies your particular distinct perspective on these matters in much the same way (although opposite) to some of the others here (which I assume includes me) whose perspectives you object to.

This isn't to you, Harmony, in response to anything you wrote, but it anticipates a certain response that I might get from others on something: That we've "done this" before for other vaccines isn't really the point; it was a slippery slope then, and this is just that hen coming home to roost.  Letting it go then on the premise that "it's not that big a deal" I can only venture didn't contemplate a scenario like the COVID-19 pandemic, and rather than it being an example of why we should STFU on a COVID vaccine, is likely the best argument why we SHOULDN'T.  What's next?

That we've been through it before really IS the point.  Calling something a slippery slope doesn't make it so.  The results of our response to the Spanish Flu in the early 1900s were the blueprint for what should have happened with COVID, down to mask wearing and vaccinations.

What's next?  The next big virus, for which a sizable portion of the populace will irrationally object to any recommended practices of protection.  And we'll have a million or more citizens die, many of whom will die needlessly.  Except it will be worse next time, because I'm sure that many healthcare workers will say "to hell with this" after being overwhelmed with THIS round.

Are you accounting for how humans lifestyles were back then? Human lifestyles are not the same as they were back then.

They are more invested in different aspects and have different mindsets than before.

Imagine what we could have had if they didn't have the mindset that Cannabis causes the white children to act out like the immoral black man and made a plant illegal for everybody. Because that's how the mindsets were not even 100 years ago.

You can't expect peoples mindsets to change within 100 years, it takes generations for mindsets to change and that requires trust and obedience. You obey authority, don't question it, and just do what your told.

Lots of humans die needlessly. Take a look at third world countries who have humans dying needlessly because other humans just have a desire and want for certain products that deplete the resources, causing hardships for those people that reside in that place. Yet, humans still desire those things and are not changing anytime soon. To where they won't deplete those resources and cause hardships for others, if they supposedly care about humans.

[ReaPsTA]

What's next?  The next big virus, for which a sizable portion of the populace will irrationally object to any recommended practices of protection.  And we'll have a million or more citizens die, many of whom will die needlessly.  Except it will be worse next time, because I'm sure that many healthcare workers will say "to hell with this" after being overwhelmed with THIS round.

When the speed limit was lowered to 55 mph nationally, compliance was so bad that eventually the lower speed limit was scrapped. People didn't follow the law and the government gave up on it knowing that it might be more dangerous because people don't want to drive that slow.

People have the right to make decisions that carry risks/consequences to life in order to get some other benefit. If you want to do those things you can do them.

And in terms of the healthcare workers thing - and this applies to a lot of different arguments about COVID - I don't know why the average person is somehow responsible for the state of the healthcare system. Somehow during the last few months hospitals experienced peak profits in spite of low staffing and high COVID case numbers. Fixing the healthcare system is a public policy issue not something we all need to band together to do. It's like when California tried to get people to save water by not flushing after they took a piss, meanwhile the almond industry uses 10% of the state's water.

[Stadler]

Vaccines are different, though. I struggle with why some people (not suggesting you, Harmony, I'm speaking generally) don't UNDERSTAND - I didn't say "agree", I didn't say "accept", just "understand" - the conceptual difference of say, getting a driver's license (another mode of government intrusion in our lives that sometimes gets offered when talking about vaccines) and having the government stick a needle in your arm, and why that might be a problem for some people.

The concept I have a hard time with is you characterizing getting a driver's license as being a "government intrusion."  That belies your particular distinct perspective on these matters in much the same way (although opposite) to some of the others here (which I assume includes me) whose perspectives you object to.

I honestly don't follow; I only said "government intrusion" as a sort of placeholder for why it's similar to a vaccine.  FOR ME, I don't have much problem with quote, government intrusion, unquote, where it's a reasonable compromise.  I only object to it when it's the collective running rough shod over the fundamental rights that we, the people, have.  Roe (in terms of the "trimester limitations") is right.  Planned Parenthood is right.   The silly "abortion is legal up until you get a positive pregnancy test" are not.  The former allow you a reasonable choice to exercise your rights to autonomy, while providing a reasonable protection for the individual life to have theirs.  The latter is just the guv'ment telling you what to do.  I feel like my position isn't just "the opposite" of what others want; I like to think my position let's ALL of us do what we want, whereas the opposite will always have some subset of the population looking to right past wrongs.

This isn't to you, Harmony, in response to anything you wrote, but it anticipates a certain response that I might get from others on something: That we've "done this" before for other vaccines isn't really the point; it was a slippery slope then, and this is just that hen coming home to roost.  Letting it go then on the premise that "it's not that big a deal" I can only venture didn't contemplate a scenario like the COVID-19 pandemic, and rather than it being an example of why we should STFU on a COVID vaccine, is likely the best argument why we SHOULDN'T.  What's next?

That we've been through it before really IS the point.  Calling something a slippery slope doesn't make it so.  The results of our response to the Spanish Flu in the early 1900s were the blueprint for what should have happened with COVID, down to mask wearing and vaccinations.

What's next?  The next big virus, for which a sizable portion of the populace will irrationally object to any recommended practices of protection.  And we'll have a million or more citizens die, many of whom will die needlessly.  Except it will be worse next time, because I'm sure that many healthcare workers will say "to hell with this" after being overwhelmed with THIS round.

Okay, so?  "Irrational" is a meaningless word here.  it just means you don't agree.  I think objecting to protection is (or rather can be) EXTREMELY rational.  I don't agree with it, but it's (or rather it can be) rational. 

I don't see anywhere in any mainstream law, regulation, statute, philosophy, dictum, or manifesto where "needless deaths" are to be avoided at all cost, including to personal freedom.  I mourn for them, of course, but isn't any homicide "needless" by definition?

[Stadler]

I find it fascinating that questions like "what's next" in these kinds of context expecting the path of "what could / will go wrong?"  How about thinking about it in the context of "what could go right?" 

Maybe what's next is ... nothing.  Bill... just as you said constantly remind us, Kavanaugh's appointment did not literally mean women died.  Like Hef said, envisioning a "slippery slope" doesn't mean there is one.

I don't disagree with any of that.  I've already said that we're humans so we're really SHITTY at being strategic, and we're really SHITTY at judging relative risk.   I was merely pointing out that this COULD BE the slippery slope in action, that's all.

(But there's no doubt that the slippery slope DOES exist; we see it all the time in a multitude of ways with a corresponding degree of harm.)

[Harmony]

I find it fascinating that questions like "what's next" in these kinds of context expecting the path of "what could / will go wrong?"  How about thinking about it in the context of "what could go right?" 

Maybe what's next is ... nothing.  Bill... just as you said constantly remind us, Kavanaugh's appointment did not literally mean women died.  Like Hef said, envisioning a "slippery slope" doesn't mean there is one.

I don't disagree with any of that.  I've already said that we're humans so we're really SHITTY at being strategic, and we're really SHITTY at judging relative risk.   I was merely pointing out that this COULD BE the slippery slope in action, that's all.

(But there's no doubt that the slippery slope DOES exist; we see it all the time in a multitude of ways with a corresponding degree of harm.)

This is not a "gotcha" question but a serious question.  Does the "slippery slope" argument always mean "harm"?  Can it be a slippery slope to anything beneficial for society?  Can one person's "harm" be another person's "benefit?"

[ReaPsTA]

I find it fascinating that questions like "what's next" in these kinds of context expecting the path of "what could / will go wrong?"  How about thinking about it in the context of "what could go right?" 

Maybe what's next is ... nothing.  Bill... just as you said constantly remind us, Kavanaugh's appointment did not literally mean women died.  Like Hef said, envisioning a "slippery slope" doesn't mean there is one.

I don't disagree with any of that.  I've already said that we're humans so we're really SHITTY at being strategic, and we're really SHITTY at judging relative risk.   I was merely pointing out that this COULD BE the slippery slope in action, that's all.

(But there's no doubt that the slippery slope DOES exist; we see it all the time in a multitude of ways with a corresponding degree of harm.)

This is not a "gotcha" question but a serious question.  Does the "slippery slope" argument always mean "harm"?  Can it be a slippery slope to anything beneficial for society?  Can one person's "harm" be another person's "benefit?"

I am not Stadler but the answer is always harm.

A building takes years to build but can be destroyed in a day. An emergency measure can be passed in a week of furious emotion and take years to unwind. A moral panic causes drug laws to be enacted that a century later have resulted in a massive prison industrial complex we still can't unwind.

The easier choice is never the right choice. And it's the one you always "slip" into.