6 ms·

I didn’t mention anything about gene therapy or whatever other bananas theory that can be inserted into literally any conversation nowadays. What I did bring u

I didn’t mention anything about gene therapy or whatever other bananas theory that can be inserted into literally any conversation nowadays. What I did bring up is the fact that people are willing to deny themselves, their families and neighbors the ability to leave their own homes to get food and medicine in order to “own the libs.” While this sort of Markov-chain sounding word salad about… whatever, must indicate that people are passionate about… whatever, the fact of the matter is that sabotaging your own infrastructure out of ideology sounds kind of suicidal. I honestly don’t get how I could personally rally behind people that would celebrate my righteous death from being stranded in the snow because I’d died owning the libs because uh… my ideology will have prevented theoretical vaccine deaths in the future? My actual, concrete, current life is literally worth less than… what? Some bogeyman that I read about on Facebook? If I were genuinely that concerned about all these conspiracies and thought that my thoughtless death would make a difference, I’d self-immolate like the monks during Vietnam. Somehow curiously, these folks rather than doing that are taking the mighty stand of keeping kids from going to school, their neighbors going to work or their doctors, local business owners from opening etc. Ironically, not plowing the streets creates the exact same (if not considerably worse) lockdown situation that these people have been mad about for 18 months. Ironically, it’s not the reduction of peoples freedoms that matter to these conservatives, it’s who gets to be the ones taking the freedoms away. People will literally kill themselves and everyone around them in order to feel Right About Stuff. “Love” isn’t an answer here. It’s a completely meaningless word put in a context to sound nice on a podcast to sell books to people who will never change their minds about any of this.

etherael 5y ago
All you're doing here is re-stating your original argument, seemingly without actually understanding my criticism of it. I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish by that, but it strikes me as very strange. Look, let's say we observe an employee and employer undertaking a discussion that goes something like this. "Take this medicine" "No I don't want to" "Take it or else you're fired" "I'm not going to take it, fire me if you have to." "OK, you're fired" "That's going to turn out poorly for the people who must now suffer the consequences of not having people available to do my job" I don't understand how you jump to the conclusion that the reason the employee refuses to take the medicine is so they can have that last line of dialogue, rather than that they don't want to take the medicine. Enlighten me?
- newbie789 5y ago
  >All you’re doing here is restating your argument without actually understanding my criticism of it. My criticism of your argument is that it’s silly to decide that nobody in town can leave their houses during the winter because you don’t want to get a shot. Furthermore, it’s downright ghastly to gloat about the upcoming, totally avoidable, suffering that they’ll be imparting on people that _AGREE WITH THEM_ in order make their point and own the libs. Pro tip: We might actually be having a two way conversation if your next response included words like “snow” or “plow” or “stranded in your house by no fault of your own.” But please go on with your regurgitated Facebook nonsense about experiments or whatever. The only thing that’s important is that you’re right!
  - etherael 5y ago
    > My criticism of your argument is that it’s silly to decide that nobody in town can leave their houses during the winter because you don’t want to get a shot. Once again, that's not what they're doing. "I'm not going to take the medicine so everybody has to stay inside" you will note was not part of the dialogue. > Furthermore, it’s downright ghastly to gloat about the upcoming, totally avoidable, suffering that they’ll be imparting on people that _AGREE WITH THEM_ in order make their point and own the libs. People have a history of hostility to those they perceive, whether rightly or wrongly, as unnecessarily depriving them of their livelihood. > We might actually be having a two way conversation if your next response included words like “snow” or “plow” or “stranded in your house by no fault of your own.” But please go on with your regurgitated Facebook nonsense about experiments or whatever. Sure, It doesn't matter what tasks the people under discussion are saddled with, up to and including dealing with snow, plowing, etc, and it doesn't matter what consequences the absence of their actions will result in, up to and including leaving people stranded in their house by no fault of their own. The logic still applies. Not wanting to take medication is not the same as actively wanting to inflict misery on other parties, and equating the two as you are continuously trying to do is false. Displaying hostility to parties responsible for hostile actions is about as newsworthy as "sun rises in morning". In fact the hostility you're displaying to them here is just as unsurprising and not the problem at all. The issue is purely one of logic; you're equating motivation to refuse a medicine with wanting to provoke misery for an opposing party. Clearly no such motivation exists. If it did exist, they would not have needed to say "I don't want to take this medicine, fire me if you have to." they could just jump straight to the end and go on strike to "own the libs" and no other reason.

etherael 5y ago

All you're doing here is re-stating your original argument, seemingly without actually understanding my criticism of it. I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish by that, but it strikes me as very strange. Look, let's say we observe an employee and employer undertaking a discussion that goes something like this. "Take this medicine" "No I don't want to" "Take it or else you're fired" "I'm not going to take it, fire me if you have to." "OK, you're fired" "That's going to turn out poorly for the people who must now suffer the consequences of not having people available to do my job" I don't understand how you jump to the conclusion that the reason the employee refuses to take the medicine is so they can have that last line of dialogue, rather than that they don't want to take the medicine. Enlighten me?

newbie789 5y ago
>All you’re doing here is restating your argument without actually understanding my criticism of it. My criticism of your argument is that it’s silly to decide that nobody in town can leave their houses during the winter because you don’t want to get a shot. Furthermore, it’s downright ghastly to gloat about the upcoming, totally avoidable, suffering that they’ll be imparting on people that _AGREE WITH THEM_ in order make their point and own the libs. Pro tip: We might actually be having a two way conversation if your next response included words like “snow” or “plow” or “stranded in your house by no fault of your own.” But please go on with your regurgitated Facebook nonsense about experiments or whatever. The only thing that’s important is that you’re right!
- etherael 5y ago
  > My criticism of your argument is that it’s silly to decide that nobody in town can leave their houses during the winter because you don’t want to get a shot. Once again, that's not what they're doing. "I'm not going to take the medicine so everybody has to stay inside" you will note was not part of the dialogue. > Furthermore, it’s downright ghastly to gloat about the upcoming, totally avoidable, suffering that they’ll be imparting on people that _AGREE WITH THEM_ in order make their point and own the libs. People have a history of hostility to those they perceive, whether rightly or wrongly, as unnecessarily depriving them of their livelihood. > We might actually be having a two way conversation if your next response included words like “snow” or “plow” or “stranded in your house by no fault of your own.” But please go on with your regurgitated Facebook nonsense about experiments or whatever. Sure, It doesn't matter what tasks the people under discussion are saddled with, up to and including dealing with snow, plowing, etc, and it doesn't matter what consequences the absence of their actions will result in, up to and including leaving people stranded in their house by no fault of their own. The logic still applies. Not wanting to take medication is not the same as actively wanting to inflict misery on other parties, and equating the two as you are continuously trying to do is false. Displaying hostility to parties responsible for hostile actions is about as newsworthy as "sun rises in morning". In fact the hostility you're displaying to them here is just as unsurprising and not the problem at all. The issue is purely one of logic; you're equating motivation to refuse a medicine with wanting to provoke misery for an opposing party. Clearly no such motivation exists. If it did exist, they would not have needed to say "I don't want to take this medicine, fire me if you have to." they could just jump straight to the end and go on strike to "own the libs" and no other reason.