17 ms·

You seem to be missing the point. Sure, years of life are lost, but what kind of years? Someone in an old age home near the end of their life dying isn’t equi

by refurb 4y ago

You seem to be missing the point. Sure, years of life are lost, but what kind of years? Someone in an old age home near the end of their life dying isn’t equivalent to a young child dying. You can make good public health policy without measuring the gains and costs of any particular policy. Saying “were going to save every single life no matter what” is a path to ruin.

lapcat 4y ago
> You seem to be missing the point. > Sure, years of life are lost, but what kind of years? No, I understand your point very well now. It is what I always thought it was. Someday you may feel differently. If you live long enough, you may finally understand. But then it'll be too late, and the generations younger than you will also want to send you on "Logan's Run".
- refurb 4y ago
  Now you're not even arguing in good faith. Usually you need to argue for a better theory than what's being done, not make quip remarks about a movie.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > Now you're not even arguing in good faith. I'm not even arguing, either in good or bad faith. How do you argue with someone who places no value on the lives of older people? My intention was, and still is, to end this conversation.
    - refurb 4y ago
      You’re definitely not arguing in good faith with the personal attacks.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        Where's the personal attack? I suspected that you had a certain view, so I prompted you to clarify your view, and you did indeed clarify your view: > Sure, years of life are lost, but what kind of years? Someone in an old age home near the end of their life dying isn’t equivalent to a young child dying. By your own words, you devalue the lives of older people. I think it was good for everyone to see what you really believe, but I don't expect to be able to change your mind, so there's nothing to argue. The only "personal attack" in this thread was: > You’d make a poor healthcare statistician getting upset over words like that.

by refurb 4y ago

lapcat 4y ago

> You seem to be missing the point. > Sure, years of life are lost, but what kind of years? No, I understand your point very well now. It is what I always thought it was. Someday you may feel differently. If you live long enough, you may finally understand. But then it'll be too late, and the generations younger than you will also want to send you on "Logan's Run".

refurb 4y ago
Now you're not even arguing in good faith. Usually you need to argue for a better theory than what's being done, not make quip remarks about a movie.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Now you're not even arguing in good faith. I'm not even arguing, either in good or bad faith. How do you argue with someone who places no value on the lives of older people? My intention was, and still is, to end this conversation.
  - refurb 4y ago
    You’re definitely not arguing in good faith with the personal attacks.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      Where's the personal attack? I suspected that you had a certain view, so I prompted you to clarify your view, and you did indeed clarify your view: > Sure, years of life are lost, but what kind of years? Someone in an old age home near the end of their life dying isn’t equivalent to a young child dying. By your own words, you devalue the lives of older people. I think it was good for everyone to see what you really believe, but I don't expect to be able to change your mind, so there's nothing to argue. The only "personal attack" in this thread was: > You’d make a poor healthcare statistician getting upset over words like that.