Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#90,801
#90,801
evillawyer said:
No, I'm plumbing the principle upon which his argument is based. He says always error on the side of freedom. If he truly subscribes to that principle, he should believe that all safety and environmental regulations (which, through the force of law, constrain somebody's freedom) should be done away with (as we should "error on the side of freedom").
Click to expand...

I can do it to

so you only favor regulations that do not consider impact on freedom?

or

so you believe regulations should be designed to minimize risk regardless of impact on freedom?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, NorthDallas40, Sea Ray and 1 other person
#90,802
#90,802
Remember that preview of a WHO report saying it's highly unlikely the virus came from a lab? Well

WSJ News Exclusive | WHO Investigators to Scrap Plans for Interim Report on Probe of Covid-19 Origins

If you can't read this due to the paywall the gist is a group of the investigating scientists is saying the investigation was not credible due to resistance from the Chinese and now the report is being delayed.

"Since returning from China, however, some of the WHO investigators have qualified their conclusions, saying they didn’t have the mandate, expertise or data for a full audit of any laboratory. The team also lacked important data on the first confirmed cases, or on patients hospitalized with similar symptoms beforehand.

A laboratory accident is “definitely not off the table,” Dr. Ben Embarek told a seminar last week. Dr. Tedros said in February after the team’s trip that “all hypotheses remain open and require further analysis.”"
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and mr.checkerboards
#90,803
#90,803
volinbham said:
I can do it to

so you only favor regulations that do not consider impact on freedom?

or

so you believe regulations should be designed to minimize risk regardless of impact on freedom?
Click to expand...

To show that an argument is bunk is not to advance any positive argument of my own, right? To argue that "only freedom matters" is a misguided principle, does not commit me to any position on the relative value of freedom (other than maybe it lacks absolute value), much less to the view that freedom has no value.
 
#90,805
#90,805
evillawyer said:
Completely inexcusable that, when faced with a novel virus killing hundreds of thousands, many people would want to error on the side of safety before knowing what the science says. What a bunch of poons!
Click to expand...

It’s a tragedy that so many people are conditioned to be told what to think by the government.

The inconsistencies early on made it clear decisions were not being steered by “the science”.
 
#90,806
#90,806
volinbham said:
Remember that preview of a WHO report saying it's highly unlikely the virus came from a lab? Well

WSJ News Exclusive | WHO Investigators to Scrap Plans for Interim Report on Probe of Covid-19 Origins

If you can't read this due to the paywall the gist is a group of the investigating scientists is saying the investigation was not credible due to resistance from the Chinese and now the report is being delayed.

"Since returning from China, however, some of the WHO investigators have qualified their conclusions, saying they didn’t have the mandate, expertise or data for a full audit of any laboratory. The team also lacked important data on the first confirmed cases, or on patients hospitalized with similar symptoms beforehand.

A laboratory accident is “definitely not off the table,” Dr. Ben Embarek told a seminar last week. Dr. Tedros said in February after the team’s trip that “all hypotheses remain open and require further analysis.”"
Click to expand...
My only argument from all that is, im not sure it was an accident that it got released.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and davethevol
#90,807
#90,807
evillawyer said:
To show that an argument is bunk is not to advance any positive argument of my own, right? To argue that "only freedom matters" is a misguided principle, does not commit me to any position on the relative value of freedom (other than maybe it lacks absolute value), much less to the view that freedom has no value.
Click to expand...

you know what a strawman argument is right?

you made up the argument that another poster was advancing so you could attack it.

you could have simply asked the poster how freedom fits into his/her calculus but instead you stated his/her argument as an extreme then attack the extreme
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#90,809
#90,809
DC_Vol said:
It’s a tragedy that so many people are conditioned to be told what to think by the government.

The inconsistencies early on made it clear decisions were not being steered by “the science”.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that just substantiate the point I'm making? People are generally more risk averse when they have less reliable information.
 
#90,810
#90,810
evillawyer said:
Completely inexcusable that, when faced with a novel virus killing hundreds of thousands, many people would want to error on the side of safety before knowing what the science says. What a bunch of poons!
Click to expand...
Many, including myself, were ok with the initial reaction given what info we had. The issue now is we understand what's happening yet some want to continue to control us using the same nonsense. We are a year in and the same bogus arguments and appeals to emotion are being trotted out by the same idiots. Sadly there are still some, like you, who buy into the hysteria and want others controlled. Thankfully many are tired and waking up to the fact we don't have to accept your fear porn any longer.

I get that freedom is scary for you but it's for the best
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002, MG1968, rjd970 and 4 others
#90,811
#90,811
evillawyer said:
Completely inexcusable that, when faced with a novel virus killing hundreds of thousands, many people would want to error on the side of safety before knowing what the science says. What a bunch of poons!
Click to expand...
Err on the side of caution?
Tell that to all the abortion victims
 
#90,812
#90,812
volinbham said:
you know what a strawman argument is right?

you made up the argument that another poster was advancing so you could attack it.

you could have simply asked the poster how freedom fits into his/her calculus but instead you stated his/her argument as an extreme then attack the extreme
Click to expand...

It's a common dialectical move. You show the absurdity of the position advanced by showing what it entails in the hope that the person advancing the position will revise it.

I would be attacking a strawman only if I attacked a claim he did not really make. But my argument expressly rested on his own statement.
 
#90,815
#90,815
LouderVol said:
What's the percentage?

And considering you never get 100% of all positives it seems like we accept that part.
Click to expand...
If you’re concerned about the numbers skewing because of false positives, certainly you’ve looked into false negatives as well... right?... just so you can get the full breadth of information available in order to obtain the truth. We are after the truth here, correct?
 
#90,820
#90,820
  • Like
Reactions: BisonVol, mr.checkerboards and RikidyBones
#90,822
#90,822
utvolpj said:
Yeah that would imply your arguments are sensical. Your link shows this is not the case
Click to expand...

"Always error on the side of freedom" really means "don't always error on the side of freedom"? Cool language you got there.

Charity does not require according a meaning to words they do not have.
 
#90,824
#90,824
evillawyer said:
"Always error on the side of freedom" really means "don't always error on the side of freedom"? Cool language you got there.

Charity does not require according a meaning to words they do not have.
Click to expand...
That was not my argument. You seem confused but I would bet an airtight echo chamber does that to people
 
#90,825
#90,825
evillawyer said:
To show that an argument is bunk is not to advance any positive argument of my own, right? To argue that "only freedom matters" is a misguided principle, does not commit me to any position on the relative value of freedom (other than maybe it lacks absolute value), much less to the view that freedom has no value.
Click to expand...
But erring or "erroring" (interesting freudian slip perhaps by all involved) doesnt preclude any thing. Its typical if things are equal you err on the side of X.

Hog didnt say "damn the torpedos full speed ahead", which is the strawman you are making.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top