Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[Pat]

My general reaction to most of that is they're at bigger risk from things like diphtheria than covid-19. If the people on the cruise ships going to other islands are treated much better, it's still a horrible case of discrimination.

Was there discrimination in who was offered the vaccine?

If you don't take the drugs the government wants you to take, burn? Nice.

Who's burning, bitch? That's right, nobody is burning.

You're another alternative facts fuckwit.

So if there's horrific discrimination and bias in a response to a life-threatening emergency, it's fine as long as the life-threatening emergency doesn't actually take any lives?

If your only argument is literally ignoring everything I said and making up things I never said, you don't have a good argument.

[jhkim]

So is the bad thing only bad if people died from it, or what?

Potentially dying from a fake disease is bad, possibly getting melted by lava because you don't have a vaccine for the fake disease isn't bad. Clear enough?

This is assuming that covid-19 is fake. But even most of the conservative posters here believe that covid-19 is real, and that ots of people have *actually* died from it -- while zero people have died or been injured by the Saint Vincent lava flows.

The new claim seems to be that even though there were zero casualties, people were *almost* melted by lava. But no one has shown any evidence to that effect. As far as I can tell, everyone - vaccinated and unvaccinated - was evacuated safely. The actual dangers that evacuees are facing are crowded and unhealthy conditions, such as lack of clean water and infectious disease.

The story is that unvaccinated people were not allowed onto the cruise ships -- which have been proven to be hotbeds for spreading covid-19. Some posters evidently read this as (1) "the unvaccinated people were left to die from lava and they were almost burned up". But the alternate possibility is (2) "the unvaccinated people were evacuated by other means - such as buses, cars, and fishing boats". If #1 was actually true, I agree that is a horrible violation. But I don't think it has actually been demonstrated to be the case.

15-20,000 people are being evacuated due to a volcano. And it's not precautionary, or due to tremors, or because of something that's less than instantly fatal like ash. They're being evacuated because some of the most dangerous and deadly volcanic events are happening, specifically fast moving pyroclastic flows that will kill anyone they touch. There's no indication that anyone was rescued from the jaws of fiery death, but that's irrelevant. It's a volcano, erupting, in a very dangerous way. Volcanoes are highly unpredictable, and very deadly. That nobody was poisoned or burned to death doesn't mean the danger wasn't real.

Volcanoes *are* predictable, though, thanks to modern science. That's why people were being evacuated in advance of the eruption last Monday. There are margins of uncertainty in the prediction, but there were designated red zones and as far as I can tell, everyone was safely moved out of them. If you have any news stories to the contrary, I'd be interested to read them.

They're talking about people in shelters and rationing water. In other words, they're crowding people together in conditions where sanitation is poor. That creates a huge risk for the spread of disease, and not just the latest respiratory one. They're also talking about ashfalls, and while I don't know the nature of the particulates being ejected, that's another serious health risk.

I agree that crowding people together creates risk of disease. That's why they should try to keep people separated based on risk of infection, including vaccination status. They should worry about all infectious diseases, but based on recent death count, covid-19 is top of the list.

[HappyDaze]

My general reaction to most of that is they're at bigger risk from things like diphtheria than covid-19. If the people on the cruise ships going to other islands are treated much better, it's still a horrible case of discrimination.

Was there discrimination in who was offered the vaccine?

If you don't take the drugs the government wants you to take, burn? Nice.

Who's burning, bitch? That's right, nobody is burning.

You're another alternative facts fuckwit.

So if there's horrific discrimination and bias in a response to a life-threatening emergency, it's fine as long as the life-threatening emergency doesn't actually take any lives?

If your only argument is literally ignoring everything I said and making up things I never said, you don't have a good argument.

You said the government wanted those that didn't take the drugs the government  wanted them to take to burn. I'm pointing out that nobody was going to burn because they didn't take the drugs (i.e. a covid vaccine).

[HappyDaze]

So is the bad thing only bad if people died from it, or what?

Potentially dying from a fake disease is bad, possibly getting melted by lava because you don't have a vaccine for the fake disease isn't bad. Clear enough?

It's clear enough to me that Brad is a flat earth dumbass, but thats old news.

[Pat]

My general reaction to most of that is they're at bigger risk from things like diphtheria than covid-19. If the people on the cruise ships going to other islands are treated much better, it's still a horrible case of discrimination.

Was there discrimination in who was offered the vaccine?

If you don't take the drugs the government wants you to take, burn? Nice.

Who's burning, bitch? That's right, nobody is burning.

You're another alternative facts fuckwit.

So if there's horrific discrimination and bias in a response to a life-threatening emergency, it's fine as long as the life-threatening emergency doesn't actually take any lives?

If your only argument is literally ignoring everything I said and making up things I never said, you don't have a good argument.

You said the government wanted those that didn't take the drugs the government  wanted them to take to burn. I'm pointing out that nobody was going to burn because they didn't take the drugs (i.e. a covid vaccine).

I didn't say anything about want. I said that's what the government was doing. And they did.

That the immediate crisis is over and nobody burned is irrelevant from a moral action standpoint. That's like saying it's fine if the government evacuates only the people who make more than $100,000/year from a burning building, as long as the fire fighters manage to put the fire out. As long as nobody ends up burning, it's perfectly okay, right?

Wrong.

[Pat]

The new claim seems to be that even though there were zero casualties, people were *almost* melted by lava.

No, that's not the new claim. It's not an old claim, either. People never claimed that, and nobody changed their argument, as you're trying to imply. No, they've been consistent from the start.

You have a nasty habit of "rephrasing" what people say in ways that completely change what they actually said. That's not a valid way to make a case. It's a dishonest attempt to change an opponent's argument into something that's easier to rebut, in the hopes that that they'll unthinkingly accept your reframing, and trap themselves by trying to defend the made-up indefensible position you just created, instead of defending the position they actually hold.

Since nobody falls for that crap anymore, all it really amounts to is a derailing technique. You're saying you don't want to a real discussion on the subject, and ceding the entire argument.

I'll repeat: You used to be better than this. What happened?

[Pat]

15-20,000 people are being evacuated due to a volcano. And it's not precautionary, or due to tremors, or because of something that's less than instantly fatal like ash. They're being evacuated because some of the most dangerous and deadly volcanic events are happening, specifically fast moving pyroclastic flows that will kill anyone they touch. There's no indication that anyone was rescued from the jaws of fiery death, but that's irrelevant. It's a volcano, erupting, in a very dangerous way. Volcanoes are highly unpredictable, and very deadly. That nobody was poisoned or burned to death doesn't mean the danger wasn't real.

Volcanoes *are* predictable, though, thanks to modern science. That's why people were being evacuated in advance of the eruption last Monday. There are margins of uncertainty in the prediction, but there were designated red zones and as far as I can tell, everyone was safely moved out of them. If you have any news stories to the contrary, I'd be interested to read them.

No, volcanoes are not predictable. This is another example of you using a trite, irrelevant tautology (they predicted something! that means it's predictable!) and pretending it proves something. It doesn't. Volcanoes are one of the most unpredictable natural phenomena we know. Scientists have gotten better at understanding how they function, and at recognizing warning signs like gas emission and the like, but that doesn't mean they can predict the behavior with a high degree of certainty over any reasonable period of time.

It's the degree of uncertainty that leads to the evacuations. If we knew what was going to happen with a high degree of certainty, they'd only need to make a few targeted evacuations. But they don't, so they're evacuating a big chunk of the entire island.

They're talking about people in shelters and rationing water. In other words, they're crowding people together in conditions where sanitation is poor. That creates a huge risk for the spread of disease, and not just the latest respiratory one. They're also talking about ashfalls, and while I don't know the nature of the particulates being ejected, that's another serious health risk.

I agree that crowding people together creates risk of disease. That's why they should try to keep people separated based on risk of infection, including vaccination status. They should worry about all infectious diseases, but based on recent death count, covid-19 is top of the list.

Recent death count? You mean zero? Because there have been zero covid deaths among the evacuatees (and less than half a dozen cases), you're arguing that covid needs to the biggest priority?

There seems to be a problem with your math.

[HappyDaze]

If you don't take the drugs the government wants you to take, burn? Nice.

I didn't say anything about want. I said that's what the government was doing. And they did.

Didn't say anything about want? But your quote has that word in it... must be more of your alternative facts then.

[HappyDaze]

I'll repeat: You used to be better than this. What happened?

Pat, you've never been better than this. What happened to you?

[HappyDaze]

That the immediate crisis is over and nobody burned is irrelevant from a moral action standpoint. That's like saying it's fine if the government evacuates only the people who make more than $100,000/year from a burning building, as long as the fire fighters manage to put the fire out. As long as nobody ends up burning, it's perfectly okay, right?

Wrong.

Here, let's try a more apt analogy:
After firefighters rescue everyone from a burning building, it's fine for the government to only allow those with passports to go to the airport and board planes going to another country, since those without passports won't be allowed off the planes in the foreign destination. The government will allow anyone to get a passport and then board a plane, but it will take weeks to get one if you haven't already done so. Meanwhile, nobody with or without a passport is left inside the burning building.

[Pat]

If you don't take the drugs the government wants you to take, burn? Nice.

I didn't say anything about want. I said that's what the government was doing. And they did.

Didn't say anything about want? But your quote has that word in it... must be more of your alternative facts then.

There's a difference between wanting them to burn, and wanting them to take a drug.

Or there should be.

[HappyDaze]

If you don't take the drugs the government wants you to take, burn? Nice.

I didn't say anything about want. I said that's what the government was doing. And they did.

Didn't say anything about want? But your quote has that word in it... must be more of your alternative facts then.

There's a difference between wanting them to burn, and wanting them to take a drug.

Or there should be.

So you admit you did say something about want?

And, again, who burned?

[Pat]

That the immediate crisis is over and nobody burned is irrelevant from a moral action standpoint. That's like saying it's fine if the government evacuates only the people who make more than $100,000/year from a burning building, as long as the fire fighters manage to put the fire out. As long as nobody ends up burning, it's perfectly okay, right?

Wrong.

Here, let's try a more apt analogy:
After firefighters rescue everyone from a burning building, it's fine for the government to only allow those with passports to go to the airport and board planes going to another country, since those without passports won't be allowed off the planes in the foreign destination. The government will allow anyone to get a passport and then board a plane, but it will take weeks to get one if you haven't already done so. Meanwhile, nobody with or without a passport is left inside the burning building.

That raises a separate set of issues, which you don't seem to recognize. But how about: The government pulls everyone from a burning building, then shoves all the poor people without passports into a shelter across the street, where they don't have running water, and may even pick up some of those trendy medieval diseases that San Fransisco made popular again. Those with passports get to fly off to a resort.

Is that a problem?

[HappyDaze]

That the immediate crisis is over and nobody burned is irrelevant from a moral action standpoint. That's like saying it's fine if the government evacuates only the people who make more than $100,000/year from a burning building, as long as the fire fighters manage to put the fire out. As long as nobody ends up burning, it's perfectly okay, right?

Wrong.

Here, let's try a more apt analogy:
After firefighters rescue everyone from a burning building, it's fine for the government to only allow those with passports to go to the airport and board planes going to another country, since those without passports won't be allowed off the planes in the foreign destination. The government will allow anyone to get a passport and then board a plane, but it will take weeks to get one if you haven't already done so. Meanwhile, nobody with or without a passport is left inside the burning building.

That raises a separate set of issues, which you don't seem to recognize. But how about: The government pulls everyone from a burning building, then shoves all the poor people without passports into a shelter across the street, where they don't have running water, and may even pick up some of those trendy medieval diseases that San Fransisco made popular again. Those with passports get to fly off to a resort.

Is that a problem?

Wanna compare that to the US border issue? Many more people die in Mexico and Central America than have died to this volcano, and those people are having a harder time getting in than just needing a vaccination. You think everybody should be allowed on the cruise ships, so should everybody be allowed across the border? We owe them a flight to a resort too, right?

[Pat]

If you don't take the drugs the government wants you to take, burn? Nice.

I didn't say anything about want. I said that's what the government was doing. And they did.

Didn't say anything about want? But your quote has that word in it... must be more of your alternative facts then.

There's a difference between wanting them to burn, and wanting them to take a drug.

Or there should be.

So you admit you did say something about want?

I don't admit anything, because that implies some level of guilt. But that's what I said. You don't need to ask, because it's right there, and I have no history of denying my own words.

Now go back and re-read everything, with context, and realize there's no contradiction at all. You're avoiding the plain meaning of statements made in the context of an on-going conversation, in an attempt to find apparent contradictions that don't actually exist.

You're not really replying to me anymore, are you? Because I've been involved in the conversation. I know what I said, what it means, and what I was replying to. You're never going to fool me. Instead, you're playing to the crowd. You're attempting to score points with those watching, in the hopes that they weren't following along closely, and won't immediately spot your false dichotomy.

And, again, who burned?

Oh look, another example.