6 ms·

People like you are hurting us all. Stop with the ad hominems.

by maxk42 7y ago

jachee 7y ago
A generalization about a group of people affecting another group of people is ad hominem? OP was condoning and calling for explicitly dangerous behavior. People whose attitude is similar to that absolutely will get infected, be asymptomatic for around a week and in turn infect many, many more. I stand by my statement.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  No, op was calling for disobedience to make some civics point. The case could be made that you should go out because you don't believe the disease is as bad as stated, or that you should stay home because it is. The case op made was "you should go out becase @/^$ the police, this is America, I can do what I want" which is of zero value, contributes nothing to the discourse and potentially harms both sides. It's the HN debate version of rolling coal. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal#/media/File:F-450_coal_rolling_Monster.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal#/media/File:F-450...
  - jachee 7y ago
    > The case could be made that you should go out because you don't believe the disease is as bad as stated, or that you should stay home because it is. While I agree with your last sentiment, the scientific facts don't care about what one believes. Arguing against the considered advice of medical experts is counterproductive and absolutely dangerous.
    - NotAnEconomist 7y ago
      > Arguing against the considered advice of medical experts is counterproductive and absolutely dangerous. How often have those experts been wrong?
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      > While I agree with your last sentiment, the scientific facts don't care about what you believe. Arguing against the considered advice of medical experts is counterproductive and absolutely dangerous. There isn't enough data out there to have an authoritative source of truth on what's happening. That will come in time. Until then, there's opinions from many sources coming at it from all angles -- we saw a paper posted that indicated the mortality rate could be one sixth of the CFR. There's a few things we do know: CFR decreases over time towards fatality rate, so no matter what, any numbers you see going by now are higher than the final answer will be. TBD how much. We know that so far in Korea the CFR under 29 is 0%. We also know old folks are hit way harder than young folks. We also know the disease is very contageous. It's not out of the realm of possiblity that we've already seen mass spread of the disease and what we're seeing now in terms of exponential increase is measuring the availability of tests, not spread of disease. We won't know anything for sure, for a while.
- Cyberdog 7y ago
  Explicitly dangerous behavior? Going out to a burger joint or a bookstore or anywhere a free person wants to go and was able to go to yesterday is suddenly explicitly dangerous behavior? Governments using times of crisis to stifle civil rights is far more dangerous in my opinion. Let's wait and see how many permanent new laws and regulations get created because of all this.
  - jachee 7y ago
    Yes. It's explicitly dangerous to everyone for anyone non-essential to congregate. This virus is no joke. Look at Italy, where people did things like you suggest, and now doctors are literally having to decide who lives and who dies. Stop your showboating in the name of "liberty" and do whatever it takes to mitigate this threat.
    - s1artibartfast 7y ago
      Not OP, but leaving your house has always been explicitly dangerous. You could give someone a flu or kill someone in a no fault auto accident. The risk is always a matter of degree. What is a reasonable threshold should be open to debate.
  - thereare5lights 7y ago
    > Explicitly dangerous behavior? Going out to a burger joint or a bookstore or anywhere a free person wants to go and was able to go to yesterday is suddenly explicitly dangerous behavior? Reminds me of what people in Italy said. > Governments using times of crisis to stifle civil rights is far more dangerous in my opinion. Let's wait and see how many permanent new laws and regulations get created because of all this. Like 9/11? Don't see many Republicans clamoring to revoke the powers granted as a result of 9/11.
    - Cyberdog 7y ago
      > Like 9/11? Don't see many Republicans clamoring to revoke the powers granted as a result of 9/11. Yes, exactly. Thanks for reminding me of the similarities. A crisis happens and everyone clamors for the government to do something to make them feel better and now we have the TSA and the Patriot Act. Why aren't more people concerned the same thing is about to happen again? Have they forgotten already?

People like you are hurting us all. Stop with the ad hominems.

by maxk42 7y ago

People like you are hurting us all. Stop with the ad hominems.

A generalization about a group of people affecting another group of people is ad hominem? OP was condoning and calling for explicitly dangerous behavior. People whose attitude is similar to that absolutely will get infected, be asymptomatic for around a week and in turn infect many, many more. I stand by my statement.

arcticbull 7y ago
No, op was calling for disobedience to make some civics point. The case could be made that you should go out because you don't believe the disease is as bad as stated, or that you should stay home because it is. The case op made was "you should go out becase @/^$ the police, this is America, I can do what I want" which is of zero value, contributes nothing to the discourse and potentially harms both sides. It's the HN debate version of rolling coal. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal#/media/File:F-450_coal_rolling_Monster.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal#/media/File:F-450...
- jachee 7y ago
  > The case could be made that you should go out because you don't believe the disease is as bad as stated, or that you should stay home because it is. While I agree with your last sentiment, the scientific facts don't care about what one believes. Arguing against the considered advice of medical experts is counterproductive and absolutely dangerous.
  - NotAnEconomist 7y ago
    > Arguing against the considered advice of medical experts is counterproductive and absolutely dangerous. How often have those experts been wrong?
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    > While I agree with your last sentiment, the scientific facts don't care about what you believe. Arguing against the considered advice of medical experts is counterproductive and absolutely dangerous. There isn't enough data out there to have an authoritative source of truth on what's happening. That will come in time. Until then, there's opinions from many sources coming at it from all angles -- we saw a paper posted that indicated the mortality rate could be one sixth of the CFR. There's a few things we do know: CFR decreases over time towards fatality rate, so no matter what, any numbers you see going by now are higher than the final answer will be. TBD how much. We know that so far in Korea the CFR under 29 is 0%. We also know old folks are hit way harder than young folks. We also know the disease is very contageous. It's not out of the realm of possiblity that we've already seen mass spread of the disease and what we're seeing now in terms of exponential increase is measuring the availability of tests, not spread of disease. We won't know anything for sure, for a while.
Cyberdog 7y ago
Explicitly dangerous behavior? Going out to a burger joint or a bookstore or anywhere a free person wants to go and was able to go to yesterday is suddenly explicitly dangerous behavior? Governments using times of crisis to stifle civil rights is far more dangerous in my opinion. Let's wait and see how many permanent new laws and regulations get created because of all this.
- jachee 7y ago
  Yes. It's explicitly dangerous to everyone for anyone non-essential to congregate. This virus is no joke. Look at Italy, where people did things like you suggest, and now doctors are literally having to decide who lives and who dies. Stop your showboating in the name of "liberty" and do whatever it takes to mitigate this threat.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    Not OP, but leaving your house has always been explicitly dangerous. You could give someone a flu or kill someone in a no fault auto accident. The risk is always a matter of degree. What is a reasonable threshold should be open to debate.
- thereare5lights 7y ago
  > Explicitly dangerous behavior? Going out to a burger joint or a bookstore or anywhere a free person wants to go and was able to go to yesterday is suddenly explicitly dangerous behavior? Reminds me of what people in Italy said. > Governments using times of crisis to stifle civil rights is far more dangerous in my opinion. Let's wait and see how many permanent new laws and regulations get created because of all this. Like 9/11? Don't see many Republicans clamoring to revoke the powers granted as a result of 9/11.
  - Cyberdog 7y ago
    > Like 9/11? Don't see many Republicans clamoring to revoke the powers granted as a result of 9/11. Yes, exactly. Thanks for reminding me of the similarities. A crisis happens and everyone clamors for the government to do something to make them feel better and now we have the TSA and the Patriot Act. Why aren't more people concerned the same thing is about to happen again? Have they forgotten already?