Coronavirus

I have been very clear about my opinions. I do think that their choice is selfish, though, like I said before, I appreciate that he takes a lot of precautions (masking, desk shields, and distancing).

Like I said before: there are people who CAN'T get vaccinated. I feel for them. I'm also not without sympathy for people who are nervous about the vaccine. Heck, I even have a certain amount of sympathy for the woman who goes to my gym who believes that COVID is a hoax so that we can all get microchipped and also the vaccine is made of pig blood and if you've had the vaccine you are now corrupted by pig DNA.

But the limit of my sympathy (in this and in most other situations) is when personal choices endanger the lives of other, more vulnerable people, even if those personal choices arise from sincerely held beliefs.

And the label "bad" was only something I applied to people who choose not to get vaccinated AND refuse to practice any other behaviors to reduce risk to others. That is something I find immoral and gross behavior.

Just heard on the radio something about the vaccination mandate being enacted in Massachusetts. I'm not sure if I agree with it but I am very happy with it.

Cancel that, I guess it's only for nursing homes. Never trust sports radio.

The fact that you think posting a "summary of your feelings" explains things is pretty much the whole problem, unfortunately.

My reasoning is laid out and is perfectly transparent. If there was something wrong with it, it would be quite easy to explain why. Way easier than replying over and over explaining why you don't have to, at least.

That's precisely why such terms are substantially useless and those people who employ them as they do are doing so less to clarify an issue than to build a rhetorical boogyman around it. That's why I criticized this writer for engaging in this paltry false binary.


There is no such thing as "pure" capitalism or socialism, not on this planet where every major economy is a blend of public and private investment. Most adherents of either would not support a pure version of either. Caricaturing capitalism in its pure sense as syndicated corruption is a farcical point of contention, as much so as anyone who caricatures pure socialism as inevitably leading to "gulags" (as you pointed out). It's equally absurd, and it isn't any more acceptable when one side does it than the other. All it serves is to let you know which political tribe this writer belongs to. The conservative tribes call this kind of profitable exploitation of culture war issues as the "grievance industry". All this proves is that no one seems to be above exploiting pain while blaming the other side for doing more of it. But I would ask this writer, again, does she not feel that it is profitable to cover these culture war issues? The answer is clearly: "of course it is".

I will say that I'm confident that I am, in fact, morally superior to Sen. Rand Paul. Antibodies from covid infection last at least nine months, though probably not a year, making this coronovirus more like a similar coronavirus, like the common cold, where infection does not produce infinite immunity, than a non-coronavirus like chicken pox (which the above opthamologist insists on comparing this to) would otherwise do. And, indeed, the antibodies from the vaccine may not last much longer than that, giving rise to speculation over booster shots. Given the steady numbers on people who have gotten more than one covid infection already, it's a good and safe assumption that any covid survivors should likely get the vaccine to protect against future infection.

Treat them as directional arrows, and it will make sense. And yes, there are proponents of "following the arrow to the very end", for whom any State regulation -be it of economy, medias, ecology- is absolutely intolerable. They are perpetually pushing for "more capitalism", making those who oppose them "anti-capitalist" (anti-"capitalism as an arrow to follow to the very end", or pro-"the arrow pointing in the other direction because damn we went too far"). It's a relative term. Two directions in a moral armwrestling over a sane balance that isn't reached.

And you can find many clues that it isn't reached. From power differentials to the ecological annihilation of our planet. And another clue is how deadly misinformation enterprises flourish and freely make a profit out of covid denialism. If, on the opposite, we had one unaccountable state media (spreading lies such as the French government did, when it didn't have enough masks at disposal and therefore claimed they weren't very useful anyway) and the silencing of any investigating voice, then it would be a clue that the armwrestling went way too far in the opposite direction.

My point is that these "deadly misinformation enterprises" are not exclusive to capitalist societies or governments, and we've seen plenty of instances of "socialist"-facing governements, such as the CCP, using a vast infrastructure of fake media in order to fabricate a political narrative. Or various bots pushing lines about how covid came from Brazialian frozen packaging or the US military or maybe Assad didn't gas-bomb his people or maybe Russia didn't hack Solarwinds or maybe they didn't actually shoot down MH-17 despite all of the forensic evidence. Maybe all of this doesn't qualify as "clickbait capitalism" per se, but it nonetheless is profitable to their bottom line. The point being that this kind of disinformation manipulation and exploitation is not exclusive to capitalist interests, and that the writer of that article clearly enjoys capitalizing on this issue.

Everybody knows Covid came from outer space! As predicted in 1971 in The Andromeda Strain. That's why I live in an underground bunker, code level RED.

It's nice that you said he has some decency. If he remains unvaccinated, is there a time that could come when you would be fine with him not wearing a mask?

Crazy women are the best.

But when you say these are bad people, that's not all encompassing right? You did give an exception for the example I gave before, and there probably could be exceptions for other reasons.

I think about what you said regarding nobody at Jury Duty wearing a mask, and your skepticism that they were all vaccinated. I'd imagine that's something that could wear on a person. At least someone in this group is statistically likely to be a bad person, and you have no idea who it is. If they are truly bad then you don't know what else they might be capable of. You must have contemplated having a court employee escort you to your vehicle afterward just in case. It's like a real life horror movie, except instead of wearing masks, the monsters wear faces. The only way to tell who is who is to look into their eyes and see into their soul. And then you have to weed out the ones with the exceptions. There's a lot to it.

I've noticed over the years that you have a lot of these overlong go nowhere conversations with people. I wonder if you had the ability to step outside of yourself and view these conversations from a distance, could you see anything that you could do better. Looking at it objectively, you probably wouldn't think it's always the other person who makes a mess of these things, not that it always ends up that way. From my perspective I do see issues with the way you handle some things, and it's not always when I'm the other person you're conversing with. You may not agree with my opinion and that's fine, but it's the way I see it sometimes.

I think occasionally you over analyze what people say.

Sometimes when you don't agree with a person, you can't fathom the idea that they are not wrong. This could be an occasional reason why you often accuse someone of not explaining their position. If they don't see it the same way that you do, there may not be any explanation that you find sufficient.

You don't seem to allow for normal and healthy inconsistencies, or you confuse them with inconsistency of argument. I'll explain what I mean coming up, and I'll try one last time to explain my position to your satisfaction.

1. My wife and I have both been vaccinated.

Obviously no explanation needed.

2. I wish everyone would get vaccinated.

No explanation asked for, I assume because you agree.

3. I will not disparage anyone who decides not to get vaccinated.

I don't know why you would need an explanation for this but I'll give you a bit.

I do not want to judge anybody just on general principle. I think there's too much of it in the world already. I wouldn't want to be judged myself, and I would not want to misjudge someone which I see as inevitable. I also do not think any good comes from it. That being said, I judge people all of the time. I am aware of this and what I'm trying to do is be a better person. I am able to avoid it when I am thinking about it, such as in this thread, and that leads to me refusing to do so upon request. In conversation this can lead to some apparent inconsistencies, but it's inconsistent application of my principle, not an inconsistent belief in my principle. This can apply to many principles and they say every rule has an exception. When you see this happen it seems like you jump on it to call out the person. It's like you'd rather a person be a consistent judgmental jerk than someone who is trying not to be but can't do it all of the time. This happens much more when the other person is over analyzing things which is one of the reasons I've tried to keep my feelings concise.

4. If a stranger asked me if they should get vaccinated I would tell them-

A. It's what I chose to do.

B. Do some research.

C. Consult your physician.

Again, I'm not sure why this needs explaining. On general principle, I do not like telling people what to do, and that applies even more when it pertains to their own body. I don't like being told what to do and I'm far from the only one. Of course there are exceptions to this rule like your example of someone about to jump off a bridge. Besides that, everything I'd tell the person would lead them to believe that they should get vaccinated. How that's not good enough for you I cannot understand. You react to me as if I'm telling someone not to get vaccinated, and that I'm choosing one tragedy over another. I think that's ridiculous. Paraphrasing, I believe you said that social pressure should be applied to the unvaccinated. If you had a child, would you tell them to listen to social pressure? I understand that in this circumstance, you are pushing for the right thing, but what if it were a different issue and you weren't around to advise them? If I had a child, I would want them to take advice from a person like me, because even if I disagreed with that person, I would know they are leading my child to the resources to help them make the correct decision.


I see my views here as simple and uncontroversial. I truly cannot understand why you need explanations or have issues with them. It's not always your questions that are frustrating, but rather the fact that you're even asking them. I was not looking for this conversation to go on this long, and I don't know why you don't get to the point when you just accept my point of view without the need for further digging.

Even with aggravation, it's always a pleasure to talk to you. It keeps me on my toes.

There may come a time when vaccination rates are high enough and positivity rates are low enough (ie not much spread) that I will feel okay being around unmasked, unvaccinated people. The fact that I am vaccinated obviously protects me.

But part of me will honestly always be a little judgey that he contributed to a situation in our country (and specifically in our county) that has killed a lot of people.

My definition of people I find to be immoral is those who are medically able to be vaccinated but refuse AND who also refuse to take other actions (masking, distancing, hand-washing) that would mitigate the risk of other people.

"I'm exercising my freedom to fire a gun! WOO!"
"Okay, could you, like, aim that gun away from the road so that you reduce the risk of hitting someone?"
"NO!"

I feel the sarcasm here, but, yeah, it did make me nervous. But mostly it made me angry that (in all probability) someone in that room was willing to endanger other people because they didn't want to put a piece of cloth over their face.

Ironically, I think that a lot of people who would say that they'd never hurt a person or commit an act of violence are willing to engage in passive endangerment of others.

I still think that this is a good question that's worth answering.

@Yoda @cricket both of you guys rock! and are way cool...So I hate to see a discussion go sour, can we just please say enough has been said already and shake hands (cyber-electronically that is) and end this current debate between you two?...Pretty please

I wondered why I’ve been grunting since April.

Crazy men are the worst.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

Nothing to worry about. He knows I think very highly of him. If I didn't, there wouldn't be the passion to argue with him in the first place.

Sorry, been a bit busy.

Broadly, I'd like to say that it's very unfortunate that we're talking about me so much. That's not really how an argument is supposed to go, and it also makes it impossible for me to let any of this go, since suddenly it's touching on things like community moderation, albeit a little indirectly. Hopefully we can shift the focus back onto the actual words and ideas, where it belongs.

Oof. I'm just gonna assume this came out more condescending than you intended. I hope so. Anyway yes, of course: this ability is a huge part of being an open-minded person, and it's a challenge for everyone. Particularly the people who don't realize it's a challenge for them.

This is kind of like saying "boy, Mr. Firefighter, you sure end up around a lot of fires. Looking at it objectively you probably wouldn't think you were never the one starting them."

I end up in a lot of these exchanges because I look for them and don't shy away from them. In most places, online or offline, I let most stuff slide. I let a lot of it slide here, too (by definition you won't notice the conversations I don't have). But this is my home base, a place I care about and am responsible for, so I defend certain ideals and standards of discussion more here than anywhere else. I insist on certain things here the same way I insist on certain standards in my own home that I wouldn't out in the world. Pulling back from any disagreement has totally different implications for a mod. If you want to question that choice, you can, but it's a deliberate choice.

Maybe occasionally. But it's my experience that "overanalysis" usually just means "more analysis than I, personally, am interested in or prepared for."

Correct. But if you've been paying attention to the arguments you'll have noticed I almost never start at this point. It starts out with humility, and lots of opportunities for clarification. But yeah, after a whole week and/or a dozen posts, I become more confident in my assessment.

Also, this is kind of a galling thing to hear from someone who's just called me flatly "wrong" maybe half a dozen times in this thread. You can check, but I don't think I've said anything that stark to you even once. Instead, I've given you the benefit of the doubt and said you simply haven't explained some things yet. Maybe in your head you're entertaining the idea that you might have made some errors, but if so I'm not sure it's found its way into any of the posts.

The problem is not people seeing things differently. It's people seeing things differently and not explaining that difference.

I don't buy the idea that I can weave these elaborate deceptions the other person can't parse or explain the problem with, and even if I could, I go out of my way to make it as easy as possible to correct me. That's what I'm doing when I break the logic down, step-by-step. So you or anyone else can say "this step, right here, that's the problem." At one point you called this "patronizing," I believe.

That someone might disagree or have another perspective is totally reasonable. But there's no reason they shouldn't be able to elaborate on that, particularly when I'm bending over backwards to make it as easy for them as possible. Without that elaboration, "different perspective" just becomes an empty platitude, and a conversation dead end.

Again, I have no confusion about your position. I've said this explicitly a couple of times now. But people say things while explaining their position that can make more or less sense than the position itself. Example:

"I think the earth revolves around the sun because a giant space man whips them around on a string!"
"What? That's ridiculous."
"Look, my position is that the earth revolves around the sun, what's wrong with that?"
"Well, nothing, but that space giant thing..."
"Geez, I'll explain my position again: the earth revolves around the sun! What more do you want from me!"

You haven't just said "here's my position." You've said "here's my position, it's because of X, Y, and Z." It's the X/Y/Z I've been talking about. I'm certain I've been very clear about this, because I quote the X/Y/Z and explain exactly my issue with it.

If you want to take the position that nothing you say in defense of the position matters, and only the position does, then you can just say that. But you can't take that for granted and label anyone who cares about the stated rationales "wrong."

If all that's happening is that it's hard to apply your principles in practice (a perfectly fair and impressively humble thing to say), why would you tell me I'm "wrong" and "misrepresenting" you for noticing that inconsistency?

Kind of you to say, and despite a few surprising swipes here and there, I mostly appreciate the tone of this last post.

At church yesterday our Archbishop wants us to wear masks again though it’s not mandatory. Makes sense. I’ve been wearing a mask again for about a month now.


Was sitting at Dunkin just now absorbed in my coffee & snack. A guy snuck up to my table without me noticing & he wanted money. Told him I only had a Dunkin card. So he was leaving & wanted to shake my hand. Ugh, realized he wasn’t wearing a mask & was none too clean.

If I'm pestering you I won't take offense if you tell me to piss off.

As you've said, your position is clear, so much so that your definition here is unmistakable. Because it's so unmistakable, I know that this criteria includes a group of people who you already said you weren't including. Just an observation.

Two people work alone in an office. One is vaccinated and one is not, neither wears a mask. Who kills who first?

This is a misleading question since there's more to it, but it has me wondering something. I'll be going food shopping today, and since I'm vaccinated, I won't be wearing a mask. I will do this despite knowing that I can still catch the virus and pass it to someone else, and that wearing a mask could help prevent it. Am I a bad person? If not, is it only because the reduced odds that vaccination created makes me more comfortable? I feel that if I truly cared about other people and the overall greater good, I would wear a mask.

I hear ya

I could be misreading you, but basically once you post, I react to you as a poster, not as a moderator or a website owner. Should we be talking about me and not you when we're going back and forth?

I'm trying to be more sarcastic than condescending. If it comes off in a more negative way, not unusual for me when talking in text, I apologize.

I notice you chose an analogy in which the joining person couldn't possibly have anything to do with the start of something. A fireman could add fuel to the fire, although in this case I didn't realize there was even one lit before you showed up.

Fair, although in some cases it could just be unnecessary.

What's your assessment now? Do you find my thoughts on these issues wrong or unreasonable?

The reason I responded to some of those things as flatly saying you were wrong, instead of saying why they were wrong, is because I was talking about your interpretations. I already saw it as questionable that I needed to explain things that I saw as self explanatory, but now you want me to explain why your misinterpretations are wrong? I think that's too much. If you choose to read into things, I don't have an obligation to tell you why you're wrong. It could go on forever.

Are you sure you make this easy? I felt like you were trying to lead me. Paraphrasing, you said if unreasonable is bad, isn't this bad? I would first have to grant you that unreasonable means bad and I wasn't willing to do that. You're trying to set definitions and then have me answer questions while accepting your definitions. The way you formulated the question would have led to more drawn out BS. I'm trying to prevent a fire from starting. I simply said that I don't care for how you formulated the question and I'll pass on it. That is the most simple thing I could have honestly said to you, and you still wanted to argue about it. I'm sure you're not talking specifically about that instance, it's just an example. You don't have to bend over backwards to get me to explain something, just tell me what I said specifically that you need explained. Just don't give me your interpretation of what I said and ask me to explain that.

Look at the analogies you are giving, not even remotely the same. I don't want to criticize or pressure. We're not dealing with facts. How many explanations could there possibly be for my position? You're on about the need for people to explain their position. Nothing to argue about there. What exactly do you need explained by me regarding the thoughts I've given? It gets to the point when it seems like you want me to explain thoughts that I haven't even given, or you want to connect my thoughts to something I haven't said, or feel are different, and have me explain that. Quote something I said, ask me to explain, and I'll happily oblige. Just make sure it's something I said. Don't tell me your position means this, so explain this.

Because you're trying to expand by stating thoughts or feelings that I don't have, as if to say, well if you think this, then you also think this. I would just say read my words and don't try to interpret. And yea I get it that in some cases it might make sense to do that, but not in this case when we're talking about a very uncontroversial POV. You might say well then why don't you explain, but again, what have I said that really needs an explanation?

I see giving someone a little hell as a form of endearment.