4 ms·

> Trump JR never said covid wasn’t real, he said “it would disappear the day after joe Biden was elected” the suggestion from the context being “Democrats are b

> Trump JR never said covid wasn’t real, he said “it would disappear the day after joe Biden was elected” the suggestion from the context being “Democrats are blowing the situation way of of proportion for political gain”. And that's factually wrong. COVID is a BIG DEAL and has not been blown out of proportion; the countries that didn't treat it as such, like Sweden and Brazil, are now feeling the pain. > but not very dangerous to healthy people who are relatively younger. This is a valid subjective interpretation of the science. All available science suggests that COVID can cause permanent issues with cardiovascular function, even in healthy adults. Just cuz polio didn't kill you doesn't mean it couldn't, say, leave you wheel-chair bound. Additionally, the hospitals are full. You may not have much to worry about COVID, but if you're in a car crash or fall off a roof or get stabbed you won't be able to get treatment -- they just don't have the space / time / bodies. > the conservative argument was that they were too extreme given the costs, something like “destroying the global economy disproportionately hurts the people least affected by the virus: labor, small business owners, children, students, and so on More bollocks. What in the past 30 years has the conservative wing of the GOP ever done for labor, small businesses, children, and students? This is the party that is openly and aggressively stomping on all those groups -- and now is arguing in their favor? What BS. They're not concerned with these people in any way, save for using them as a political cudgel to force re-openings -- re-oepnings that were unambiguously asked for by big business. > I don’t agree with most of this, but you’re so far off the mark with the strawman of these arguments that I don’t think you’ve seriously understood them beyond immediate dismissal on partisan grounds. It sure sounds like you do. If you're rehashing questionable talking points for the sake of discussion (the Alex Jones "I'm just asking a question") -- you're effectively just advocating for it.

tjs8rj 5y ago
This is exactly my point: none of your response is factually correct. You’re making value judgements and demanding others agree. Don JR says covid is being blown of out proportion, you say it’s a big deal, these are subjective. Conservatives say young people are relatively safe, you say they aren’t. What is the objective standard for relatively safe exactly? You’re convinced conservatives stomp on all those groups, conservatives don’t see it that way and plenty of those in the listed group vote conservatively. What is the objective standard for advocating vs “stomping on”, and regardless of that: the conservatives argument is the above, attacking the conservatives who make it as disingenuous doesn’t contend with the actual argument at all. I’m simply explaining to you what “the other side” with a different perspective actually says and believes, and you’re insistent that your value judgement is correct on the basis of zero evidence and more of “this is how I feel about the facts”. That’s precisely my point: all of this boils down to value judgements, and like I predicted: you’re so insanely ideological that you can’t stop to recognize that and consider these arguments to successfully refute them. I’d suggest you go talk to a conservative and genuinely listen. You probably won’t change their mind and vice versa, but at least know what the real arguments are instead of the filter you seem to hear them through. Besides, you’ll likely find that your key differences are “same facts, different values”. Covid is dangerous in that it can kill or harm you or others. Perhaps you say that risk of harm demands closing done. Perhaps a conservative with the same facts makes their own risk assessment that softer measures are better. You drive your car everyday even with the risk of harm, others refuse to because of the risk of harm, who is objectively correct?

tjs8rj 5y ago

This is exactly my point: none of your response is factually correct. You’re making value judgements and demanding others agree. Don JR says covid is being blown of out proportion, you say it’s a big deal, these are subjective. Conservatives say young people are relatively safe, you say they aren’t. What is the objective standard for relatively safe exactly? You’re convinced conservatives stomp on all those groups, conservatives don’t see it that way and plenty of those in the listed group vote conservatively. What is the objective standard for advocating vs “stomping on”, and regardless of that: the conservatives argument is the above, attacking the conservatives who make it as disingenuous doesn’t contend with the actual argument at all. I’m simply explaining to you what “the other side” with a different perspective actually says and believes, and you’re insistent that your value judgement is correct on the basis of zero evidence and more of “this is how I feel about the facts”. That’s precisely my point: all of this boils down to value judgements, and like I predicted: you’re so insanely ideological that you can’t stop to recognize that and consider these arguments to successfully refute them. I’d suggest you go talk to a conservative and genuinely listen. You probably won’t change their mind and vice versa, but at least know what the real arguments are instead of the filter you seem to hear them through. Besides, you’ll likely find that your key differences are “same facts, different values”. Covid is dangerous in that it can kill or harm you or others. Perhaps you say that risk of harm demands closing done. Perhaps a conservative with the same facts makes their own risk assessment that softer measures are better. You drive your car everyday even with the risk of harm, others refuse to because of the risk of harm, who is objectively correct?