Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[This Guy]

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.

Cool, cool, carry on then.

[Kyle Aaron]

Plus, Kim's a gamer. So he reads and talks about games.

If we judge the value of a forum only by its off-topic section, then we end up going the way of rpg.net. Which nobody wants.

[This Guy]

Plus, Kim's a gamer. So he reads and talks about games.

If we judge the value of a forum only by its off-topic section, then we end up going the way of rpg.net. Which nobody wants.

Hey the on-topic section has its problems too, me among 'em. Just been readin' thread upon thread of kim-shitting when he pops up.

[Mistwell]

Your post made it sound like people were being killed by superfast flows...

Only if you read things into my post that aren't there. Though you could read my post and think people were directly fleeing an eruption, instead of being evacuated because there was an eruption nearby, because I didn't go into much detail. But I assumed that the timing (last week) and common knowledge of how eruptions work (people fleeing lava or pyroclastic flows are things that only really happen in movies) would dispel any confusion, and even if not, anyone interested in the subject would click on the link.

Some of your assumptions are sketchy. Dozens dead from covid assumes all 20K people being evacuated catch the disease, which is not even close to a realistic assumption. And the whole point is the government's decision. It wasn't to isolate or otherwise trying to contain people who might be infected, or otherwise taking reasonable measures to mitigate any potential problems. They're not even, like the cruise ship itself, insisting on a negative PCR test. Their position is no shot, no evacuation. That's more than appalling. It's in the same category as death camps or death squads.

Why do you still keep responding to this communist? He has got to be on the CCP payroll for all the bullshit he posts.

1. You're still a nutcase for thinking covid is a "fake disease";
2. You're literally the only guy here who Pundit had to ask them to change their avatar because you used what appeared to be an underaged porn star as your avatar once. Which feeds the "he's a nutcase" image you appear to be going for.

[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, 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.

No, you don't get to play the victim. You've been attacking me, by maliciously misinterpreting what I've been saying. I initially assumed good faith, and gave you every chance, but at this point there seems to be no other reasonable explanation. My responses have been extraordinarily mild, and even when I've bluntly called you out for your bad actions, I've explained exactly what you've done instead of resorting to simple insults.

And no, this isn't me being emotional. This is just text, on a screen, where I've dropped some of the traditional niceties because you keep missing the point when I present it in a more circumlocutious way. But instead of address the points I'm making, you're doing it again. You're telling me what I think. Which is a conversation ender.

I'm serious about everything I've said. We've rarely directly interacted, but you're someone I've seen on and off on various messageboards, for more than two decades. You've always seemed quite reasonable. And you have been, in the past, here. But in the last couple years, you've adopted some of the rhetorical techniques which were first popularized by the SJW crowd, but are now common in most corners of the internet.

I can't stop from you doing that, but I'm trying to make you aware that, by doing so, you're killing any chance of a real conversation. The reason I'm specifically addressing you on this point, and ignoring some other people, is because I think you're generally a rational and reasonable person who thinks things through and makes good points. We need more of that, and less of this adversarial, attack everyone, win at any costs, tell people what they think, claim everyone who disagrees has evil motives, kind of crap that has turned so much of the internet into a cesspool.

You've expressed interest in having substantive conversations. That's exactly what I'm trying to address. Most of the conversations I've had with you lately crash up against the rocks because you do something like tell my what I feel, or ascribe to me beliefs I don't hold. Which, to repeat myself, is a conversation ender. I have to spend most of my time telling you what I don't believe, repeating what I do believe, and unpacking and refuting the various nasty implications your wrap into your statements. When that happens, aAny discussion immediately stalls, and usually crashes and burns.

[Mistwell]

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.

You're excluding other options that were avaliable to those people.

Under the most generous possible interpretation, they're segregating access to rescue services. It's horrific.

No. If the evacuation destinations will not accept people who are unvaccinated, it's not like the island Government can force them to accept people, right? The decision isn't even being made by the Government of the island. IF you are allowed to go to a neighboring island by that neighboring island's government, then you can go there. If you are not allowed to go to a neighboring island by that neighboring island's government, then you can go to the part of the island not in danger. They are not the ones making any segregation decisions, nor does either involve "rescue services."

[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.

You're excluding other options that were avaliable to those people.

Under the most generous possible interpretation, they're segregating access to rescue services. It's horrific.

No. If the evacuation destinations will not accept people who are unvaccinated, it's not like the island Government can force them to accept people, right? The decision isn't even being made by the Government of the island. IF you are allowed to go to a neighboring island by that neighboring island's government, then you can go there. If you are not allowed to go to a neighboring island by that neighboring island's government, then you can go to the part of the island not in danger. They are not the ones making any segregation decisions, nor does either involve "rescue services."

Again, that would be reasonable explanation. But do you have a source?

Because all the articles that have been linked in this thread have said it was the government of St. Thomas who made that call, and that the cruise ships softened it a little bit (only requiring a negative PCR test, instead of a vaccination).

Yes, it's possible this could just be terrible messaging. The articles aren't that comprehensive. But as I said before, it's been a week and a half. Don't you think they would have realized by now how badly they came across, and corrected it? Governments tend to be very sensitive to bad press.

Edit: A more plausible scenario is they corrected the report, but the news mostly ignored it because it wasn't dramatic enough. But in that case, it would still be out there, somewhere. Find a link, and you'll have proven your case. But until then, we have to rely on what's been said.

[Pat]

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.

The problem with people being shitty to each other is how do you fix it? Volcanoes are easy. People are so messy often the best thing you can do is walk away, because whatever you do will make it worse.

[Mistwell]

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.

You're excluding other options that were avaliable to those people.

Under the most generous possible interpretation, they're segregating access to rescue services. It's horrific.

No. If the evacuation destinations will not accept people who are unvaccinated, it's not like the island Government can force them to accept people, right? The decision isn't even being made by the Government of the island. IF you are allowed to go to a neighboring island by that neighboring island's government, then you can go there. If you are not allowed to go to a neighboring island by that neighboring island's government, then you can go to the part of the island not in danger. They are not the ones making any segregation decisions, nor does either involve "rescue services."

Again, that would be reasonable explanation. But do you have a source?

Because all the articles that have been linked in this thread have said it was the government of St. Thomas who made that call, and that the cruise ships softened it a little bit (only requiring a negative PCR test, instead of a vaccination).

Yes, it's possible this could just be terrible messaging. The articles aren't that comprehensive. But as I said before, it's been a week and a half. Don't you think they would have realized by now how badly they came across, and corrected it? Governments tend to be very sensitive to bad press.

Edit: A more plausible scenario is they corrected the report, but the news mostly ignored it because it wasn't dramatic enough. But in that case, it would still be out there, somewhere. Find a link, and you'll have proven your case. But until then, we have to rely on what's been said.

Link

Some are due to be temporarily housed in the neighboring islands of St. Lucia, Grenada, Barbados, and Antigua.

But most of the islands would require vaccination before they take anybody in.

"If people are willing to welcome you at a time of COVID-19, they will wish you to have the highest level of protection possible," Gonsalves told reporters on Saturday.

St. Lucia is not requesting people to be vaccinated to come, he said, but it may require vaccination on arrival.

So it would appear they are being evacuated to four neighboring islands. Three of them (Grenada, Barbados and Antigua) require vaccinations before you can leave for them as a destination. St. Lucia does not appear to require that, but may require that you be vaccinated prior to arrival. But in sum if you're just gathering people quick to board for neighboring islands the ship is likely going to dock at all four (or at least more than one of them), and it would need vaccinated passengers to get permission to dock at three of those four in the least. So it makes sense the just issued a rule saying "vaccinated only, so we can have permission dock at any of the four neighboring locations."

[Pat]

So it would appear they are being evacuated to four neighboring islands. Three of them (Grenada, Barbados and Antigua) require vaccinations before you can leave for them as a destination. St. Lucia does not appear to require that, but may require that you be vaccinated prior to arrival. But in sum if you're just gathering people quick to board for neighboring islands the ship is likely going to dock at all four (or at least more than one of them), and it would need vaccinated passengers to get permission to dock at three of those four in the least. So it makes sense the just issued a rule saying "vaccinated only, so we can have permission dock at any of the four neighboring locations."

You're still speculating a lot, but that seems plausible. I can see that as an example of a practical decision made in a crisis that has unfortunate implications. It would be good to have it directly clarified, though, and something put in place to ensure that that decisions like that aren't made again. For instance, quarantine protocols (heresy I know, quarantine the sick instead of entire countries), and talking to the neighboring countries to waive those rules. The silence on this specific issue is still very strange.

[Mistwell]

So it would appear they are being evacuated to four neighboring islands. Three of them (Grenada, Barbados and Antigua) require vaccinations before you can leave for them as a destination. St. Lucia does not appear to require that, but may require that you be vaccinated prior to arrival. But in sum if you're just gathering people quick to board for neighboring islands the ship is likely going to dock at all four (or at least more than one of them), and it would need vaccinated passengers to get permission to dock at three of those four in the least. So it makes sense the just issued a rule saying "vaccinated only, so we can have permission dock at any of the four neighboring locations."

You're still speculating a lot, but that seems plausible. I can see that as an example of a practical decision made in a crisis that has unfortunate implications. It would be good to have it directly clarified, though, and something put in place to ensure that that decisions like that aren't made again. For instance, quarantine protocols (heresy I know, quarantine the sick instead of entire countries), and talking to the neighboring countries to waive those rules. The silence on this specific issue is still very strange.

It doesn't seem strange at all to me. It's not the United States. They're not treating this issue like we are. It's just a fact of life to them and not some rights and freedom issue.

Also noteworthy, "Gonsalves added that he highly recommends those who opt to go to a shelter in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, an island chain of more than 100,000 people, be vaccinated."

[HappyDaze]

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.

No, you don't get to play the victim. You've been attacking me, by maliciously misinterpreting what I've been saying. I initially assumed good faith, and gave you every chance, but at this point there seems to be no other reasonable explanation. My responses have been extraordinarily mild, and even when I've bluntly called you out for your bad actions, I've explained exactly what you've done instead of resorting to simple insults.

And no, this isn't me being emotional. This is just text, on a screen, where I've dropped some of the traditional niceties because you keep missing the point when I present it in a more circumlocutious way. But instead of address the points I'm making, you're doing it again. You're telling me what I think. Which is a conversation ender.

I'm serious about everything I've said. We've rarely directly interacted, but you're someone I've seen on and off on various messageboards, for more than two decades. You've always seemed quite reasonable. And you have been, in the past, here. But in the last couple years, you've adopted some of the rhetorical techniques which were first popularized by the SJW crowd, but are now common in most corners of the internet.

I can't stop from you doing that, but I'm trying to make you aware that, by doing so, you're killing any chance of a real conversation. The reason I'm specifically addressing you on this point, and ignoring some other people, is because I think you're generally a rational and reasonable person who thinks things through and makes good points. We need more of that, and less of this adversarial, attack everyone, win at any costs, tell people what they think, claim everyone who disagrees has evil motives, kind of crap that has turned so much of the internet into a cesspool.

You've expressed interest in having substantive conversations. That's exactly what I'm trying to address. Most of the conversations I've had with you lately crash up against the rocks because you do something like tell my what I feel, or ascribe to me beliefs I don't hold. Which, to repeat myself, is a conversation ender. I have to spend most of my time telling you what I don't believe, repeating what I do believe, and unpacking and refuting the various nasty implications your wrap into your statements. When that happens, aAny discussion immediately stalls, and usually crashes and burns.

Pat is upset that another claims to be a victim...and then goes on to claim Pat is the bigger victim. Pat belongs on RPGnet.

[HappyDaze]

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.

The problem with people being shitty to each other is how do you fix it? Volcanoes are easy. People are so messy often the best thing you can do is walk away, because whatever you do will make it worse.

You can't fix the fact that nature hurts people either.

[Pat]

HappyDaze's fee-fees are hurt. So sad.

[HappyDaze]

HappyDaze's fee-fees are hurt. So sad.

Nah. No hurt feelings on my part. I'm quite happy to point out what a lying fuck you are with your fake ass information that you'll try to spin over and over in some idiotic attempt to never admit you're wrong.  Of course, for you, such is simply another Tuesday.