4 ms·

That "we" in "we survived" is doing an awful lot of work. "We" also survived many rounds of bubonic plague and suchlike. Those who didn't, though, presumably do

That "we" in "we survived" is doing an awful lot of work. "We" also survived many rounds of bubonic plague and suchlike. Those who didn't, though, presumably don't get to count themselves among that "we". For the purposes of these kinds of conversations, I think I might prefer some sober estimates of costs and benefits over platitudes.

ethbr0 4y ago
If the goal is 0% mortality, then your life is going to suck. Personally, I prefer low-enough mortality and a life well-lived.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- msla 4y ago
  > Personally, I prefer low-enough mortality and a life well-lived. A nice euphemism for a life that ends with massive diarrhea.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    Might as well go out with a bang.
- mumblemumble 4y ago
  I didn't suggest 0% mortality, nor did I ask for a strawman response to my comment. I specifically suggested "sober estimates of costs and benefits".
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    You absolutely asked for a strawman by appealing to emotion. ;) Those poor hundreds of millions dead from bubonic plague, a valuable lesson on the importance of food safety standards!
    - mumblemumble 4y ago
      That was not an appeal to emotion. That was pointing out that observing that some portion of humanity survives is blatantly talking past the stated purpose of these kinds of measures, which is to reduce the size of the portion that doesn't. If your floor on what is acceptable is, as the "we survived" standard implies, the base continuance of the species, then you're effectively allowing that even a situation like what happened in the movie Threads is acceptable and it would not be ethical to try and prevent such a situation from happening. On the other hand, if that isn't actually what you believe, then you should construct rhetoric that is consistent with your actual position.
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        That's absolutely what you intended, or you wouldn't have reached to such a visceral example. You could have picked influenza to make the same point, but that wouldn't have been as theatrical. So if you want to play the high-standards-of-discourse card, it goes both ways. And now you're reaching for your own straw man by stating my "we survived" implies your "base continuance of the species", which is obviously an easier framing of my argument to argue against. My rhetoric is exactly what I said: we survived.

ethbr0 4y ago

If the goal is 0% mortality, then your life is going to suck. Personally, I prefer low-enough mortality and a life well-lived.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
msla 4y ago
> Personally, I prefer low-enough mortality and a life well-lived. A nice euphemism for a life that ends with massive diarrhea.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Might as well go out with a bang.
mumblemumble 4y ago
I didn't suggest 0% mortality, nor did I ask for a strawman response to my comment. I specifically suggested "sober estimates of costs and benefits".
- ethbr0 4y ago
  You absolutely asked for a strawman by appealing to emotion. ;) Those poor hundreds of millions dead from bubonic plague, a valuable lesson on the importance of food safety standards!
  - mumblemumble 4y ago
    That was not an appeal to emotion. That was pointing out that observing that some portion of humanity survives is blatantly talking past the stated purpose of these kinds of measures, which is to reduce the size of the portion that doesn't. If your floor on what is acceptable is, as the "we survived" standard implies, the base continuance of the species, then you're effectively allowing that even a situation like what happened in the movie Threads is acceptable and it would not be ethical to try and prevent such a situation from happening. On the other hand, if that isn't actually what you believe, then you should construct rhetoric that is consistent with your actual position.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      That's absolutely what you intended, or you wouldn't have reached to such a visceral example. You could have picked influenza to make the same point, but that wouldn't have been as theatrical. So if you want to play the high-standards-of-discourse card, it goes both ways. And now you're reaching for your own straw man by stating my "we survived" implies your "base continuance of the species", which is obviously an easier framing of my argument to argue against. My rhetoric is exactly what I said: we survived.