This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.  (Read 342161 times)

This Guy
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 642
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #1875 on: April 19, 2021, 05:41:39 PM »
What crowd, it's all the same chuds thinking all the same things, and we're all replying to ourselves.
I don't want to play with you.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #1876 on: April 19, 2021, 05:44:41 PM »
What crowd, it's all the same chuds thinking all the same things, and we're all replying to ourselves.
This Guy isn't wrong.

And Pat is still full of shit.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #1877 on: April 19, 2021, 06:03:20 PM »

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?
Different circumstances. A volcano is a natural threat. In the parlance, an Act of God. Beyond human control, and thus those affected are widely considered to deserve our sympathy.

Mexico and Guatemala are politics and economics. Quagmires of misery, caused by humans but resistant to clear answers when it comes to causes, solutions, who's to blame, and pretty much anything else involved. Even worse, most interventions seem to make things worse, not better. (And yet, people remain extremely confident that their solution will work (even if very similar solutions failed repeatedly in the past), and that anyone who refuses to throw all the resources they demand at the problem right away is Evil.)

That's why it's easy to get support for one, and not the other. They're treated very differently in the public mind. This isn't unique to these two circumstances, either. Look at the various causes of death. We take extraordinary action, trillions upon trillions of dollars and horrendous violations of civil rights, to fight a so-called war against terror. Which kills a handful of people compared to heart disease, cancer, car crashes, and all kinds of other things that don't get a fraction of those resources.

Or look at the various ways the value of a human life can be calculated. For instance, the EPA typically considers a human life to be worth about $9 million. That's the amount they'll spend on environmental measures that can be calculated to save a single life. Conversely, the median household income in the US is about $68K/year. Consider a working life of 45 years (start at 20, retire at 65), and that works out to lifetime earnings of only a bit over $3 million. And that's the median household income, not the median individual income, so the real number is considerably less. But even if we run with that number, we'll take measures to prevent the loss of life that at least triple the value of that human life to the system. And that calculation varies widely, depending on the type of threat.

This isn't an issue about how we value a human differently in different circumstances. It's about equal treatment, and human dignity. That, however we decide to value a life under different circumstances, when the government is purportedly acting for society, that they value all those lives equally. That we don't discriminate based on whether they're rich or poor, whether they're green or blue, whether they come from the right side or the left side of the tracks, or their personal beliefs. All people are equally deserving of rescue from burning buildings and pyroclastic flows.


« Last Edit: April 19, 2021, 06:06:39 PM by Pat »

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #1878 on: April 19, 2021, 06:07:34 PM »
What crowd, it's all the same chuds thinking all the same things, and we're all replying to ourselves.
People sing in the shower or dance in front of their bedroom mirror. It's still a performance, even if the audience is one.

This Guy
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 642
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #1879 on: April 19, 2021, 06:11:38 PM »
What crowd, it's all the same chuds thinking all the same things, and we're all replying to ourselves.
People sing in the shower or dance in front of their bedroom mirror. It's still a performance, even if the audience is one.

I mean you don't have to tell me that but who's he scoring points with then, and who cares if he misses your dichotomy. Were you comin to a mutual meetin of minds anytime soon and lighting upon the truth or what.
I don't want to play with you.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #1880 on: April 19, 2021, 06:31:31 PM »
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, as far as I can tell, what has happened is that you have gotten more emotional and more insulting. You have been launching personal attacks at me for a week or two now. In general, I make it a policy not to reply to personal insults, but in this case I'll briefly reply.

And yes, posters *have* been making claims about the threat of being burned by lava. Brad's post that I was replying to specifically referred to "possibly getting melted by lava because you don't have a vaccine".

I generally prefer to try to move forwards and establish what people's current real positions are. Particularly here on theRPGsite, people will trade barbs and claims of various sorts, and the best way to get past them is to move forward rather than get caught up in name-calling.

My position is:

(1) There was advance warning about the eruption, and the 15-20k residents in the red zones were all successfully evacuated.

(2) Unvaccinated people were not allowed on the cruise ships sent to help, but it appears they were still evacuated by other means - and other means were mentioned in the news coverage I read. Cruise ships have been proven to be great breeding grounds for covid-19, so there was reason to take precautions.

(3) I have not seen anything to indicated that anyone was in danger of being burned or buried. Instead, the problems seem to be falling ash, crowded conditions, lack of supplies, and infectious disease - including covid-19.

(4) I don't see evidence that the government engaged in anything that would be equivalent to death camps or death squads.

(5) These are factual statements, not political positions. It is technically possible that maybe the government *did* have death camps and/or left people to die, but I have not thus far seen evidence of that. If new evidence comes to light, I'll have to review it and decide.


This Guy
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 642
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #1881 on: April 19, 2021, 06:36:12 PM »
kim have you seen like any benefits out of this stance of yours in fifteen years? Here specifically I mean
I don't want to play with you.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #1882 on: April 19, 2021, 06:38:13 PM »

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?
Different circumstances. A volcano is a natural threat. In the parlance, an Act of God. Beyond human control, and thus those affected are widely considered to deserve our sympathy.

Mexico and Guatemala are politics and economics. Quagmires of misery, caused by humans but resistant to clear answers when it comes to causes, solutions, who's to blame, and pretty much anything else involved. Even worse, most interventions seem to make things worse, not better. (And yet, people remain extremely confident that their solution will work (even if very similar solutions failed repeatedly in the past), and that anyone who refuses to throw all the resources they demand at the problem right away is Evil.)

That's why it's easy to get support for one, and not the other. They're treated very differently in the public mind. This isn't unique to these two circumstances, either. Look at the various causes of death. We take extraordinary action, trillions upon trillions of dollars and horrendous violations of civil rights, to fight a so-called war against terror. Which kills a handful of people compared to heart disease, cancer, car crashes, and all kinds of other things that don't get a fraction of those resources.

Or look at the various ways the value of a human life can be calculated. For instance, the EPA typically considers a human life to be worth about $9 million. That's the amount they'll spend on environmental measures that can be calculated to save a single life. Conversely, the median household income in the US is about $68K/year. Consider a working life of 45 years (start at 20, retire at 65), and that works out to lifetime earnings of only a bit over $3 million. And that's the median household income, not the median individual income, so the real number is considerably less. But even if we run with that number, we'll take measures to prevent the loss of life that at least triple the value of that human life to the system. And that calculation varies widely, depending on the type of threat.

This isn't an issue about how we value a human differently in different circumstances. It's about equal treatment, and human dignity. That, however we decide to value a life under different circumstances, when the government is purportedly acting for society, that they value all those lives equally. That we don't discriminate based on whether they're rich or poor, whether they're green or blue, whether they come from the right side or the left side of the tracks, or their personal beliefs. All people are equally deserving of rescue from burning buildings and pyroclastic flows.

So the smoothbrain is pro open borders, why I'm not surprised? I mean This Guy not you Pat.

Illegal migration benefits the following groups:

The corrupt governments in latin america since it provides a safety valve for social unrest.
The big corporations in the USA that can pay less since the illegals create a downward pressure on salaries.
The DNC since they want to create a serf class and a new voting plantation.

It harms the following groups:

The people in the countries from where the illegals come since the more likelly to do the travel are the more likelly to vote against the corrupt government.
The poor in all the countries and in the USA since the corrupt governments here don't have the pressure to fix their shit and the poor in the USA have increased competition for the jobs and a downward pressure on salaries.
And this includes all races, if you're poor you'll be negativelly affected by open borders.
Legal immigrants since they did things the right way and now have people that didn't there.
The tax payer since people that haven't paid shit get to use the tax funded stuff there.

Guess the smoothbrain socialist isn't so much in favor of poor people but of those like the Kook Brothers, and their ilk.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

This Guy
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 642
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #1883 on: April 19, 2021, 06:41:44 PM »

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?
Different circumstances. A volcano is a natural threat. In the parlance, an Act of God. Beyond human control, and thus those affected are widely considered to deserve our sympathy.

Mexico and Guatemala are politics and economics. Quagmires of misery, caused by humans but resistant to clear answers when it comes to causes, solutions, who's to blame, and pretty much anything else involved. Even worse, most interventions seem to make things worse, not better. (And yet, people remain extremely confident that their solution will work (even if very similar solutions failed repeatedly in the past), and that anyone who refuses to throw all the resources they demand at the problem right away is Evil.)

That's why it's easy to get support for one, and not the other. They're treated very differently in the public mind. This isn't unique to these two circumstances, either. Look at the various causes of death. We take extraordinary action, trillions upon trillions of dollars and horrendous violations of civil rights, to fight a so-called war against terror. Which kills a handful of people compared to heart disease, cancer, car crashes, and all kinds of other things that don't get a fraction of those resources.

Or look at the various ways the value of a human life can be calculated. For instance, the EPA typically considers a human life to be worth about $9 million. That's the amount they'll spend on environmental measures that can be calculated to save a single life. Conversely, the median household income in the US is about $68K/year. Consider a working life of 45 years (start at 20, retire at 65), and that works out to lifetime earnings of only a bit over $3 million. And that's the median household income, not the median individual income, so the real number is considerably less. But even if we run with that number, we'll take measures to prevent the loss of life that at least triple the value of that human life to the system. And that calculation varies widely, depending on the type of threat.

This isn't an issue about how we value a human differently in different circumstances. It's about equal treatment, and human dignity. That, however we decide to value a life under different circumstances, when the government is purportedly acting for society, that they value all those lives equally. That we don't discriminate based on whether they're rich or poor, whether they're green or blue, whether they come from the right side or the left side of the tracks, or their personal beliefs. All people are equally deserving of rescue from burning buildings and pyroclastic flows.

So the smoothbrain is pro open borders, why I'm not surprised? I mean This Guy not you Pat.

Illegal migration benefits the following groups:

The corrupt governments in latin america since it provides a safety valve for social unrest.
The big corporations in the USA that can pay less since the illegals create a downward pressure on salaries.
The DNC since they want to create a serf class and a new voting plantation.

It harms the following groups:

The people in the countries from where the illegals come since the more likelly to do the travel are the more likelly to vote against the corrupt government.
The poor in all the countries and in the USA since the corrupt governments here don't have the pressure to fix their shit and the poor in the USA have increased competition for the jobs and a downward pressure on salaries.
And this includes all races, if you're poor you'll be negativelly affected by open borders.
Legal immigrants since they did things the right way and now have people that didn't there.
The tax payer since people that haven't paid shit get to use the tax funded stuff there.

Guess the smoothbrain socialist isn't so much in favor of poor people but of those like the Kook Brothers, and their ilk.

Good, harming Latin America is an unqualified good thing.
I don't want to play with you.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #1884 on: April 19, 2021, 06:46:33 PM »
Different circumstances. A volcano is a natural threat. In the parlance, an Act of God. Beyond human control, and thus those affected are widely considered to deserve our sympathy.
I feel less sympathy for those impacted by a natural event than those impacted by the abuse and neglect of other humans. I'm not saying that anyone deserves to be killed by a tsunami, volcano, or lightning strike, but those have far less emotional impact on me than people being shitty to other people.

This Guy
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 642
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #1885 on: April 19, 2021, 06:48:31 PM »
Different circumstances. A volcano is a natural threat. In the parlance, an Act of God. Beyond human control, and thus those affected are widely considered to deserve our sympathy.
I feel less sympathy for those impacted by a natural event than those impacted by the abuse and neglect of other humans. I'm not saying that anyone deserves to be killed by a tsunami, volcano, or lightning strike, but those have far less emotional impact on me than people being shitty to other people.

I mean humans were also an act of God depending on who you ask, so. Same shit different scoop.
I don't want to play with you.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #1886 on: April 19, 2021, 06:52:03 PM »
Different circumstances. A volcano is a natural threat. In the parlance, an Act of God. Beyond human control, and thus those affected are widely considered to deserve our sympathy.
I feel less sympathy for those impacted by a natural event than those impacted by the abuse and neglect of other humans. I'm not saying that anyone deserves to be killed by a tsunami, volcano, or lightning strike, but those have far less emotional impact on me than people being shitty to other people.

I mean humans were also an act of God depending on who you ask, so. Same shit different scoop.
And really, if god is going to strike people down, who are we to side with those fuckers? They are obviously objectively evil if god is jerking off some lava cum on them.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #1887 on: April 19, 2021, 06:53:28 PM »
Different circumstances. A volcano is a natural threat. In the parlance, an Act of God. Beyond human control, and thus those affected are widely considered to deserve our sympathy.
I feel less sympathy for those impacted by a natural event than those impacted by the abuse and neglect of other humans. I'm not saying that anyone deserves to be killed by a tsunami, volcano, or lightning strike, but those have far less emotional impact on me than people being shitty to other people.

But you're the empatethic one no?

Fuck off.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

This Guy
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 642
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #1888 on: April 19, 2021, 06:58:05 PM »
Different circumstances. A volcano is a natural threat. In the parlance, an Act of God. Beyond human control, and thus those affected are widely considered to deserve our sympathy.
I feel less sympathy for those impacted by a natural event than those impacted by the abuse and neglect of other humans. I'm not saying that anyone deserves to be killed by a tsunami, volcano, or lightning strike, but those have far less emotional impact on me than people being shitty to other people.

I mean humans were also an act of God depending on who you ask, so. Same shit different scoop.
And really, if god is going to strike people down, who are we to side with those fuckers? They are obviously objectively evil if god is jerking off some lava cum on them.

Who can look at the devastation of this board and think we are not deserving of the coof.
I don't want to play with you.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« Reply #1889 on: April 19, 2021, 07:00:15 PM »
kim have you seen like any benefits out of this stance of yours in fifteen years? Here specifically I mean

I feel that it improves the ratio of content to noise in conversation.

One of the things I appreciate about posting here in Pundit's forum is learning about how people of opposing views think. If I'm just engaging in insults or arguing over who said what, I don't learn what they're actually thinking about the issues.