Pro-Lifer says, "Let them die if it costs me money"

[atrib]

Next time I'll try not to make up argument windmills and tilt against them, okay?

You couldn’t even if you tried.

Wow, such an in depth, thoughtful answer. Thank goodness you take the time to consider your arguments and don't just fall back on insulting people one sentence at a time.

He hasn't made one argument in this thread that was supported by facts and reason. Not one. All he does is claim that the virus really doesn't kill people, or that it kills very, very few people and that those people were on death's door anyway, that people are hysterical because they are taking this threat seriously, that letting the virus run free will give us herd immunity, and that lifting mandatory lockdowns will bring the economy back to life as if nothing had happened. He has not responded to any facts presented in this thread that counter his claims, or made any attempt to explain why his idea of lifting the social isolation measures is better than the measures being recommended by most experts. He keeps repeating his claims like a mantra, without actually engaging in meaningful discussion, possibly because he doesn't understand what the fuck he's talking about.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is my god given right to endanger the lives of all the people around me. I do it every time I get in my car, and damn well be certain no virus is going to stop me from spreading it. Anything less is hysteria and tyranny!

 

[Patooka]

It is my god given right to endanger the lives of all the people around me. I do it every time I get in my car, and damn well be certain no virus is going to stop me from spreading it. Anything less is hysteria and tyranny!

A more accurate analogy would be "I haven't killed anyone yet driving after downing a bottle of Bundy Rum, don't enforce your Nanny state regulations on me! If I want to drive it's my choice!"

 

[TSwizzle]

And the straw men keep coming.

 

[Rhea]

Do you know how many Americans suffered for years during the Great Depression?

My parent both lived through the depression, so I’ve heard many stories. But I also read, and it looks like there was not an appreciable change in mortality rate during the depression, EXCEPT from a source that looks like it has roots in Russian propaganda farms.

S

Keeping the economy closed for too long means our descendants could suffer for years as well.

Are you saying this is bad?
Are you for reparations to black families the US for all that they have been deprived of?

If not, then maybe it’ll all be okay, and it’s not anyone’s problem.

If we open it soon, the deaths will be big now, but less than if we closed the economy indefinitely and millions of families all of a sudden experience extreme poverty for possibly a decade.

You’re going to need to show your work here, Junior, since you got an F on your last paper, and the one before that, and the one before that.
There is absolutely no supporting evidence for a claim that more people will die from poverty than are dying from COVID.

Also, we could address this with legislation that helps these people out. It’s not either death or starvation. As easy as that straw man is to knock over.

If you value human life, you do open it up.

But as to your "40,000 deaths" argument, if the choice is "40,000 deaths" and "millions of deaths over a depression induced decade,"

Whoop whoop whoop
There’s that Russian source again, my how crazy it is that their words so often come out of your mouth. It defies reason!
You need to stop watching Russian propaganda. It make you into a tool.

then any sane sensible rational person would choose the 40,000 deaths. Obviously, we wish it to be 0 deaths. But, if those are the only 2 options you can choose,

Oh! LOOK! Those ARE NOT the only two options!

then anyone is lying if they say they wouldn't choose the 40,000.

We are not lying, you can stop accusing us of that.
There are more than 2 choices. Obviously.

 

[Toni]

You're still not getting it:

Farmers are dumping milk because they cannot sell it. Same thing with fresh produce and even meats.

Stores are dumping milk because it is unsold after expiration date. Same thing with fresh produce and even meats.

There are literally millions of people, many of them children, who are too poor to buy nutritious food such as milk and produce.

There are the same number of people (minus those tens of thousands who have died from COVID 19) who need to eat but fewer of them have the cash to purchase nutritious food.

The problem isn't that the farmers are producing too much food.

The problem is that too many people lack the resources to purchase food, many of them for the first time because they have lost their jobs due to the virus.

Good nutrition helps people avoid getting ill and also helps stop the spread of this virus and other illnesses.
Good nutrition helps people stave off obesity, diabetes and heart disease all of which make one more prone to becoming seriously ill from this virus and other viruses and diseases and drives up the cost of health care and also drives down the productivity of the work force.

Opening up businesses too soon exposes too many people to the virus.

Keeping businesses closed down helps prevent the spread of the virus.

The rational person would conclude that the government should subsidize farmers and especially poor people and newly unemployed people and make it easier for them to purchase nutritious food such as milk and fresh produce before it spoils. This is particularly true during any kind of epidemic and especially a pandemic. Don't get me wrong: it's the right thing to do any time, period. We can afford to do it. It is the moral thing to do. It would help lower the costs of health care (and education as well nourished children learn better) and boost productivity as fewer workers need to call in sick because of their own illnesses or the illnesses of their children.

It's the right thing to do: Feed people who are hungry rather than waste food. It's what decent, rational people do.

Yes, we know that your side's solution is always to "let the government take care of us like mommy and daddy!" No, WE are responsible for ourselves. Government is inept. When will you guys learn this?

Republicans despise big government. Democrats want the government to coddle us like babies. That is how my father always put it to me in simple terms when I was growing up.

Did you know that in the green new deal they want to give money to people who refuse to work? Yep, you can just say, "I don't want to work" and the government will give you free money.

Talk about leeches. What happens if everyone says they don't want to work? Oops!

Good for your daddy.

You know what my daddy used to tell me? Think for yourself.

My observation is that Republicans are all for big government when it comes to telling women what they can do with their bodies. They hate hand outs and bail outs—unless they are the recipient.

 

[Rhea]

Contrary to a depression causing widespread deaths - it turns out that deaths decline.


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...on-had-little-effect-on-death-rates-46713514/

"Our study provides evidence that even major depressions do not imply mortality crises," says study lead author David Stuckler, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. "Whether health improves or worsens during hard times depends mainly on how governments choose to respond."

 

[lpetrich]

Yes, we know that your side's solution is always to "let the government take care of us like mommy and daddy!" No, WE are responsible for ourselves. Government is inept. When will you guys learn this?

I love it when right-wingers sound like anarchists.

Republicans despise big government. Democrats want the government to coddle us like babies. That is how my father always put it to me in simple terms when I was growing up.

Evidence: {}

So Republicans are in favor of disbanding government military and police forces? Because protecting people is a form of coddling them like babies.

Did you know that in the green new deal they want to give money to people who refuse to work?

That was from an accidentally-leaked early version and it is not in the final version. Here is that version: Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Half-Life, read that version for yourself and see for yourself what it contains. If you continue repeating that falsehood about the GND, there will be consequences.

 

[Ford]

Wow, such an in depth, thoughtful answer. Thank goodness you take the time to consider your arguments and don't just fall back on insulting people one sentence at a time.

He hasn't made one argument in this thread that was supported by facts and reason. Not one. All he does is claim that the virus really doesn't kill people, or that it kills very, very few people and that those people were on death's door anyway, that people are hysterical because they are taking this threat seriously, that letting the virus run free will give us herd immunity, and that lifting mandatory lockdowns will bring the economy back to life as if nothing had happened. He has not responded to any facts presented in this thread that counter his claims, or made any attempt to explain why his idea of lifting the social isolation measures is better than the measures being recommended by most experts. He keeps repeating his claims like a mantra, without actually engaging in meaningful discussion, possibly because he doesn't understand what the fuck he's talking about.

His "arguments" are the equivalent of saying "I don't understand what the big deal is with this whole Chernobyl thing. There was no need to evacuate Pripyat! There's prime real estate there just waiting to be opened up again!"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What could be more asinine than "sure, tens of thousands have died, and tens of thousands more will die soon, but we have to reopen the economy anyway because profits are more important than a few tens of thousands of lives!"?

What could be more asinine than "doctors and epidemiologists across the board have said that social distancing is necessary, staying home will save lives, and gathering in crowds is playing Russian Roulette, but we're going to get a bunch of people together and protest!"

What could be more asinine than the President bragging that his actions have probably saved "billions" in a country of 330 million?

I could go on, but the answer is that these are all asinine, but the worst is "send everyone back to work and fuck the risk."

No doubt you could (and definitely will) go on and on and on attacking the straw men that you build yourself. Crack on fella.

Here you go, T. Don't forget to have it witnessed.

View attachment 27186

Not adequate, they also need to wear a big scarlet C so we know to stay away from them and that we should regard deliberate attempts to intrude into our space as attempted biological attack. (Potentially lethal attacks may be met with legal force.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My parent both lived through the depression, so I’ve heard many stories. But I also read, and it looks like there was not an appreciable change in mortality rate during the depression, EXCEPT from a source that looks like it has roots in Russian propaganda farms.

I have run into claims but no numbers, troll farm or not.

We provided enough aid that people didn't die. We can certainly do that now, also, although there's more of a problem now with drugs. An awful lot of the hungry are kids--because the parents spent what they had on drugs/cigarettes/alcohol rather than food.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow, such an in depth, thoughtful answer. Thank goodness you take the time to consider your arguments and don't just fall back on insulting people one sentence at a time.

He hasn't made one argument in this thread that was supported by facts and reason. Not one. All he does is claim that the virus really doesn't kill people, or that it kills very, very few people and that those people were on death's door anyway, that people are hysterical because they are taking this threat seriously, that letting the virus run free will give us herd immunity, and that lifting mandatory lockdowns will bring the economy back to life as if nothing had happened. He has not responded to any facts presented in this thread that counter his claims, or made any attempt to explain why his idea of lifting the social isolation measures is better than the measures being recommended by most experts. He keeps repeating his claims like a mantra, without actually engaging in meaningful discussion, possibly because he doesn't understand what the fuck he's talking about.

His "arguments" are the equivalent of saying "I don't understand what the big deal is with this whole Chernobyl thing. There was no need to evacuate Pripyat! There's prime real estate there just waiting to be opened up again!"

Bad example--most of Pripyat is fine to live in by now.

 

[Rhea]

His "arguments" are the equivalent of saying "I don't understand what the big deal is with this whole Chernobyl thing. There was no need to evacuate Pripyat! There's prime real estate there just waiting to be opened up again!"

Bad example--most of Pripyat is fine to live in by now.

"now."

 

[Toni]

My parent both lived through the depression, so I’ve heard many stories. But I also read, and it looks like there was not an appreciable change in mortality rate during the depression, EXCEPT from a source that looks like it has roots in Russian propaganda farms.

I have run into claims but no numbers, troll farm or not.

We provided enough aid that people didn't die. We can certainly do that now, also, although there's more of a problem now with drugs. An awful lot of the hungry are kids--because the parents spent what they had on drugs/cigarettes/alcohol rather than food.

People did literally die of starvation during the Great Depression. Including my family members.

People also died of opportunistic diseases associated with malnutrition and poverty, such as tuberculosis.

 

[SLD]

My parent both lived through the depression, so I’ve heard many stories. But I also read, and it looks like there was not an appreciable change in mortality rate during the depression, EXCEPT from a source that looks like it has roots in Russian propaganda farms.

I have run into claims but no numbers, troll farm or not.

We provided enough aid that people didn't die. We can certainly do that now, also, although there's more of a problem now with drugs. An awful lot of the hungry are kids--because the parents spent what they had on drugs/cigarettes/alcohol rather than food.

People did literally die of starvation during the Great Depression. Including my family members.

People also died of opportunistic diseases associated with malnutrition and poverty, such as tuberculosis.

Interesting aside, but during the WWII draft, numerous people were classified as 4-F, medically unfit, because of the effects of malnutrition during the Great Depression, and in particular dental issues were a big problem. Keeping the population healthy can have a big national security impact.

SLD

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Taking a stay at home order and turning it into a recommendation to appease the mouth breathers will further endanger those of us who have enough sense to stay at home when we do have to go out for groceries and other necessities.

Mouth breathers or not, people are suffering extreme hardships because they have had their livelihoods taken away from them unnecessarily. It's enough already. It's time to ease up and start allowing some businesses to open. Keeping the "stay at home/shelter in place" order because of mass hysteria is unnecessary and unjust.

Almost 40 THOUSAND people are DEAD.

Granted, the Trumpster has said no words of empathy or sorrow.
But if that's "Hysteria" to you also, then you appear to have a pretty cold heart.

COVID-19 has become the #1 cause of death in the U.S. Tswizzle is simply totally delusional.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

How many people die because of immigrants, vs how many people have died from COVID-19? There you will find where the real "hysteria" is.

 

[SLD]

After some simple google research, it appears that mortality increases during prosperity and decreases during recessions.

https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-economy-life-expectancy

In the first four years of the Great Depression life expectancy grew from 57 to 62. That’s a huge jump for such a short period. But the reasons are still unexplained. From another website I found this:



What’s noticeable is that a lot of infectious diseases such as flu and pneumonia drop significantly. I would suspect that with less people working in crowded factories these diseases had a harder time spreading.

I couldn’t however find any good data on malnutrition though or starvation during that time in the US. Most commentators said that there was malnutrition, but few instances of actual starvation as was happening in the Soviet Union on a massive scale.

SLD

 

[ZiprHead]

I think you meant "decreases during recession". Let me know if you'd like me to edit.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

After some simple google research, it appears that mortality increases during prosperity and increases during recessions.

https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-economy-life-expectancy

In the first four years of the Great Depression life expectancy grew from 57 to 62. That’s a huge jump for such a short period. But the reasons are still unexplained. From another website I found this:

View attachment 27194

What’s noticeable is that a lot of infectious diseases such as flu and pneumonia drop significantly. I would suspect that with less people working in crowded factories these diseases had a harder time spreading.

I couldn’t however find any good data on malnutrition though or starvation during that time in the US. Most commentators said that there was malnutrition, but few instances of actual starvation as was happening in the Soviet Union on a massive scale.

SLD

My guess is that a lot of people die due to being overworked during times of prosperity. During a recession they lose their job so they're not being overworked anymore.