4 ms·
The whole premise of protecting the replication of a virus at the expense of human life is an argument from ignorance. What if this and what if that and whining
by westcort 5y ago
The whole premise of protecting the replication of a virus at the expense of human life is an argument from ignorance. What if this and what if that and whining about not wanting a little inconvenience to protect my job and my life and my neighbor’s life…what a bunch of entitled snowflakes
- gruez 5y ago[flagged]
- westcort 5y agoProtecting the virus is an argument from ignorance because the arguments used are provocative what if’s like: “What if mandates are used this way or that way” or “What if it’s not safe.” It’s a lot of hand wringing and cowardice when there is a clear right course of action here to get us out of this crisis. To be against the mandate on moral grounds cannot be moral, because killing people is wrong and perpetuating the virus is anti-human. It seems like there are a lot of people out here whose morals involve choosing to kill their own grandparents because there is an asterisk in an obscure legal document they can use to cover their cowardice.
- gruez 5y ago>Protecting the virus Again, I don't think people are anti-mandates because they're pro-virus. Characterizing that side as "pro-virus" makes as much sense as characterizing the anti-surveillance crowd as "pro-terrorist". >To be against the mandate on moral grounds cannot be moral, because killing people is wrong and perpetuating the virus is anti-human. Consider the following: you're a consequentialist, your opponents are deontologists. You think the ends justifies the means. They don't.
- _ddzr 5y ago[flagged]
- dang 5y agoPlease do not perpetuate flamewars on HN. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html