4 ms·

Nobody thinks those things are trivial, but they do think stopping the pandemic is more important. If I told you to leave your house because it was on fire, wo

Nobody thinks those things are trivial, but they do think stopping the pandemic is more important. If I told you to leave your house because it was on fire, would you accuse me of trivializing your daily routine?

eanzenberg 6y ago
False equivalence
- distrill 6y ago
  how/why? it's exaggerated to make a point but it's not altogether wrong
  - eanzenberg 6y ago
    If your house burning down meant 0.3% chance of death and no property damage then sure, its the same.
    - throwout_covid 6y ago
      You're super confident of your number stats while this disease is still not clearly understood. You should see that as a problem.
    - roughly 6y ago
      You know, your house being on fire doesn't necessarily mean it's going to burn down. Quick response from firefighters can really do a lot to reduce the amount of long-term damage. Sure, you'll have some water damage to deal with, but that's manageable too. Of course, if you just arse around in the house and don't get out of the goddamn way of the firefighters, it's gonna be a hell of a lot harder to put out the fire and I imagine there's gonna be a lot more damage before all's said and done.
showdeadtest 6y ago
It’s more like somebody else’s house is on fire, I thought my taxes paid for firefighters, but it turns out those firefighters never bothered to purchase firefighting equipment, so you’re forcing me to spend months putting out other people’s fires using cups of water from my own kitchen while firefighters shout on TV that this is the only possible way things can be.
- objectivetruth 6y ago
  When someone else's house is actually on fire, it IS in your best interest to help them put it out. Two good reasons: a) so the fire doesn't spread to your house, and b) so all the other people in the neighborhood will help you if your house does catch on fire. Now, I'm presuming you're an American here, so the blame is pretty clearly on the one fire chief who swears the house isn't on fire at all. Maybe just a little spark that'll put itself out any day now. THAT is why you have to keep running those cups of water out there. (Also, comparing a viral pandemic to "somebody else's problem" is a little naive, unless you are very sure that you and your loved ones somehow have a solid immunity to this novel virus and that it won't ever affect you.)
- hehsjsbb 6y ago
  I think a more accurate analogy is "there's a wildfire and firefighters asked you to conserve water so they can fight it, but some people decided to run their taps 24/7 out of spite and now there's rationing"
  - sbpayne 6y ago
    I think this is closer, but perhaps needs a slight change. I don't think it's out of spite; it's not like people are taking _more_ risk AFAICT. So maybe something like: "there's a wildfire and firefighters asked you to limit water use to only drinking water, but some people decided to keep taking long showers, washing dishes, etc"
  - showdeadtest 6y ago
    While on paper that analogy is sound, I feel in practice the asks being made are more extreme and disruptive than short-term water conservation. Others may disagree.

eanzenberg 6y ago

False equivalence

distrill 6y ago
how/why? it's exaggerated to make a point but it's not altogether wrong
- eanzenberg 6y ago
  If your house burning down meant 0.3% chance of death and no property damage then sure, its the same.
  - throwout_covid 6y ago
    You're super confident of your number stats while this disease is still not clearly understood. You should see that as a problem.
  - roughly 6y ago
    You know, your house being on fire doesn't necessarily mean it's going to burn down. Quick response from firefighters can really do a lot to reduce the amount of long-term damage. Sure, you'll have some water damage to deal with, but that's manageable too. Of course, if you just arse around in the house and don't get out of the goddamn way of the firefighters, it's gonna be a hell of a lot harder to put out the fire and I imagine there's gonna be a lot more damage before all's said and done.

showdeadtest 6y ago

It’s more like somebody else’s house is on fire, I thought my taxes paid for firefighters, but it turns out those firefighters never bothered to purchase firefighting equipment, so you’re forcing me to spend months putting out other people’s fires using cups of water from my own kitchen while firefighters shout on TV that this is the only possible way things can be.

objectivetruth 6y ago
When someone else's house is actually on fire, it IS in your best interest to help them put it out. Two good reasons: a) so the fire doesn't spread to your house, and b) so all the other people in the neighborhood will help you if your house does catch on fire. Now, I'm presuming you're an American here, so the blame is pretty clearly on the one fire chief who swears the house isn't on fire at all. Maybe just a little spark that'll put itself out any day now. THAT is why you have to keep running those cups of water out there. (Also, comparing a viral pandemic to "somebody else's problem" is a little naive, unless you are very sure that you and your loved ones somehow have a solid immunity to this novel virus and that it won't ever affect you.)
hehsjsbb 6y ago
I think a more accurate analogy is "there's a wildfire and firefighters asked you to conserve water so they can fight it, but some people decided to run their taps 24/7 out of spite and now there's rationing"
- sbpayne 6y ago
  I think this is closer, but perhaps needs a slight change. I don't think it's out of spite; it's not like people are taking _more_ risk AFAICT. So maybe something like: "there's a wildfire and firefighters asked you to limit water use to only drinking water, but some people decided to keep taking long showers, washing dishes, etc"
- showdeadtest 6y ago
  While on paper that analogy is sound, I feel in practice the asks being made are more extreme and disruptive than short-term water conservation. Others may disagree.