4 ms·

You're insane. Jaw dropping ignorance justifying world ending cruelty. You understand that they're delaying the flu vaccine in a way that will kill 10,000 elde

You're insane. Jaw dropping ignorance justifying world ending cruelty. You understand that they're delaying the flu vaccine in a way that will kill 10,000 elderly people next year?

msandford 2y ago
You've made at least 2-3 personal attacks against me while seemingly not even trying to address the problem that I highlighted. If that's your goal, OK. It definitely goes against the spirit of the rules here if not the letter. Delaying the flu vaccine? Ok that's bad, sure. It's also a real goalpost move and also doesn't address the technical problem "insiders going to inside" I raised in answer to the parent's paraphrased "I can't understand this, why is this necessary?" I don't know that doing things this way is strictly necessary. But I also don't think it's reasonable to just hand-wave away or worse completely fail to even acknowledge much less actually address the insiders problem.
- RHSeeger 2y ago
  It _seems_ like the question was Q> Can you explain why the sledge hammer approach, removing funding for things wholesale and causing large amounts of destruction (both economic and health) is reasonable? And your answer was A> It looks like there is a problem with the current system, and changing something would be beneficial. And, while I agree that the sentiment ("changing something would be beneficial") is fair... as an answer it falls squarely into "We should do something, this is something, so we should do this", which is categorically ridiculous. The way to approach these types of issues, where changing things can (and does) have real, significant impact on lots of people, is to come up with a plan and discuss what the impacts/tradeoffs are. It is _not_ to just do the first thing that comes to mind and then ignore the people who's lives your destroying.
- lawlessone 2y ago
  > But I also don't think it's reasonable to just hand-wave away or worse completely fail to even acknowledge much less actually address the insiders problem. ok but burning down a house with a family in it because of a hypothetical burglar usually isn't a good solution.
- kaiuhl 2y ago
  We spend a large portion of the federal budget on human death prevention. It sounds like hyperbole, but anyone dying from administrative changes is literally “world ending” for them. If a plan to cut bureaucracy was somehow analyzed to find that we could save 5% of the US budget in exchange for 10,000 lives, reasonable people might consider otherwise. To take these changes against life-saving organizations without first analysis of consequences is pretty reckless.

You're insane. Jaw dropping ignorance justifying world ending cruelty. You understand that they're delaying the flu vaccine in a way that will kill 10,000 elderly people next year?

msandford 2y ago

You've made at least 2-3 personal attacks against me while seemingly not even trying to address the problem that I highlighted. If that's your goal, OK. It definitely goes against the spirit of the rules here if not the letter. Delaying the flu vaccine? Ok that's bad, sure. It's also a real goalpost move and also doesn't address the technical problem "insiders going to inside" I raised in answer to the parent's paraphrased "I can't understand this, why is this necessary?" I don't know that doing things this way is strictly necessary. But I also don't think it's reasonable to just hand-wave away or worse completely fail to even acknowledge much less actually address the insiders problem.

RHSeeger 2y ago
It _seems_ like the question was Q> Can you explain why the sledge hammer approach, removing funding for things wholesale and causing large amounts of destruction (both economic and health) is reasonable? And your answer was A> It looks like there is a problem with the current system, and changing something would be beneficial. And, while I agree that the sentiment ("changing something would be beneficial") is fair... as an answer it falls squarely into "We should do something, this is something, so we should do this", which is categorically ridiculous. The way to approach these types of issues, where changing things can (and does) have real, significant impact on lots of people, is to come up with a plan and discuss what the impacts/tradeoffs are. It is _not_ to just do the first thing that comes to mind and then ignore the people who's lives your destroying.
lawlessone 2y ago
> But I also don't think it's reasonable to just hand-wave away or worse completely fail to even acknowledge much less actually address the insiders problem. ok but burning down a house with a family in it because of a hypothetical burglar usually isn't a good solution.
kaiuhl 2y ago
We spend a large portion of the federal budget on human death prevention. It sounds like hyperbole, but anyone dying from administrative changes is literally “world ending” for them. If a plan to cut bureaucracy was somehow analyzed to find that we could save 5% of the US budget in exchange for 10,000 lives, reasonable people might consider otherwise. To take these changes against life-saving organizations without first analysis of consequences is pretty reckless.