3 ms·
Sure, just explain why it's a false dichotomy so I can understand. There are more options available than the two absurd options you presented. They may require
by dvtrn 7y ago
Sure, just explain why it's a false dichotomy so I can understand.
There are more options available than the two absurd options you presented. They may require more will from elected leaders and public health officials, but I take serious exception to immediately suggesting that we either suspend civil liberties or let people die.
There are several more options available before Martial Law should be allowed in the same room as options still on the table.
- earthtourist 7y agoYou still haven't explained an alternative to my "false dichotomy". What exactly do you propose as a third option? What option requires "more will" from health officials that would actually stave off a mass infection? They all seem to be explaining how powerless they are to stop the spread. Experts seem pretty unanimous in explaining that this is going to become a mass infection. They don't seem to be considering a martial law option, and yet it seems the only thing that could prevent it. I'm actually not cavalier about suggestion martial law. This just seems like one of those rare public safety situations that might warrant it. We could try asking people to stay home but this seems like it would result in huge compliance problems, which would elongate the stay-at-home period. Whereas the vast majority of people would stay home under threat of arrest.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]