Ok but help me understand the distinction and what word you might use.


- you are approaching a scene where a body bag is on the floor and it has been confirmed to you only person was hurt and died
- you know a gunman and your loved one were the only two in the room and it is one of them in the body bag
- as you approach you hoping it is not your loved (and thus by default must be the gunman)
- you then confirm it is the gunman, when you see his face and you feel elation knowing that your loved one is therefore alive

As you walk towards the body if you are saying it is wrong or not necessary for you to have a preference for who is in that body bag given the information you know already transpired, what word would you use?

More back on track...

----------------------------


Is this wrong?

One Province turning down help to another to take in, what will inevitably be a preponderance of Muh Freedum derps to their ICU beds and thus denying that care to others in their Province?

Take this to the extreme and ask if one Province (State) full of Derps should be allowed to over flow facilities in many neighbouring Provinces (States) while all the others can do is take them in and suffer the fall out??

Who would agree with that?


Howard Stern takes a much more radical view thinking the Derps should just stay home and die at home secure in their Freedums and convictions.

Thoughts?

This is more an ethical debate type question that really would only be an issue in the extremes where you know taking in the Derps (my Freedum to get sick and take up beds and die) will cost you the lives of some of your local citizens.

I answered that in the earlier post.

Generally unless there's an actions to decide on then preferences are optional. As they are optional I prefer not to prefer someone else is dead. Also when someone thinks they know that it has to be A or B they are usually wrong.

I proundly disagree with Howard Sern

Which is fine as long as no-one insists it's the only correct thought.

Now if he saying we dont want radio talk hosts anymore then that's another matter

No really, at least as i can follow it.

Sure, but in this hypothetical there IS an action and I don't think you can help but take a position.

Do you not agree that in no instances will be neutral here and not care whether it is your family member or the killer who is dead and under the blanket?


Right. Agreed. Given the option to 'prefer no one is dead' is NOT AN OPTION in this hypothetical. You are standing atop a hill, someone is dead and you can see it.

You enter denial of reality zone if you just keep repeating 'ya but i prefer a reality where no one died, thus I cannot answer that question you keep asking'.



Sure, perhaps.

In this hypothetical they are not wrong though. This hypothetical makes them right by definition and unless you argue hypotheticals are the wrong way to explore ethical questions you should be able to stick to THIS hypothetical.

The linked article is mainly talking about Ivermectin as a bad treatment for C19. You disagree with that?

Stomp your hoof one time for Yes, twice for No.

(((Stern does not list the dead radio jocks...the author does)))

I do enjoy these type of hypotheticals so I will prompt to explore it, not because I am talking a position...



There is some belief by some that we are entering a new era of Pandemics.

But there is also a strong belief that MRNA technology could empower us like never before to respond quickly with vaccines and thus limit the damage and extent of Viruses and other challenges.


So what if (in this hypothetical) we are faced with a deluge of Pandemics that in fact MRNA fast response Vaccines could severely limit the damage to societies but the number of anti Vax Derps holds steady at a number that does not allow any herd immunity to take place and they cause consistent failures in the hospital system resulting in all sorts of collateral deaths?


Would not society, at some point have a right to say 'Take the approved vaccines or we won't continue to treat you'? Not out of punishment for them but to preserve the rest of society under threat due to their personal choice to not participate in the vaccines?

This whole thing about "Anti-vaxx nutjobs shouldn't take a hospital bed. Stay home and die!" is so, so gross. No surprise uber-overrated dumb old hack Howard Stern thinks this way.

Are we competing with the Republicans to see who can be the most spiteful and resentful?

Of course, hospitals would not be clogged if we simply instituted a real vaccine mandate. Problem solved. Oh I forgot, that would be infringing upon freedoms, nevermind.

I don't think the thought process is that black and white TBH.


I have immense sympathy for the Front Line Hospital Workers in particular, who are forced to engage with the anti Vax derps and who will continue to suffer deaths in their ranks and that of their family due to selfish Derp choices.

If this is just one of many future rotating viruses, all of which end up being very treatable in a way that can all but end hospital trips and the collateral death those cause and yet this Derp segment of society says 'NO' to al vaccines, is there not a point where society can say 'we respect your right to opt out' but then 'we also expect you not to flood the hospitals and spread your death to them'??

But Nicki Minaj says my balls might get swollen and white?

Interesting stat the NHL says they will have 98% compliancy from their players. Few teams have already confirmed 100% vaccination rate. Hmm what seems to be the common thing among hockey teams

I think you are trying to be cute but the answers are 1. - 'they are Canadians', 2. - they have been given a mandate of get vax'd or pay a steep price...


This is a very big stick hanging over the carrot method.

No hockey player wants to be the one (or few) excluded from doing everything fun on the road. The guys I know who have played live for those side perks.

Nope not CDN's

I can and I do. I also think it's quite an important part of mind an morality rather than a nitpick but it is fairly philosophical.

We keep coverign this. I hope, i might even invoke a deity I dont believe in that it's not my loved one. i dont have to go beyond that and I prefer not to. I could if I wanted to.

Sure I get that.

Not denying any reality. I'm just not considering this preference when I have no action. We do it all the time - in fact i's the norm.

Sure. The only ethical decision is the cognitive one. Very important imo (i.e not a nitpick). It is for moral/ethical reasons (which includes my inclinations) that I prefer not to. I also dont consider preferences of a sohpie's choice nature. I will consider a preference for fillet steak or salmon tonight even though I'm having neither (steak - it's always steak unless we're considering a top restaurant in which case salmon)

I'm vaccine and science chap. No inverectin for me unless the UK approves it as a treatment (which seems highly unlikely.)

Correction: Sept. 13, 2021
An earlier version of this article misstated the percentage of recent calls to the Mississippi poison control center related to ivermectin. It was 2 percent, not 70 percent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/h...criptions.html

Did I miss a post from you chez? Why do you disagree w/Stern who's statement on horse deworming medicine seems to be legit pro-vaccine/pro-science?

I just don't believe you.

Or better yet I don't believe you are anwering my question and instead are anwering one you replaced it with in your head.

In our normal pattern we would go 10 pages with me stating over and over 'but i never said or suggested that and YOU replied to my post, so you are replying to my hypothetical and not whatever you replaced it with it' and eventually you say 'fine if that is what you are saying, I agree but I was never discussing that'.

When you say "you can not take a position" I call BS on that. You are wrong.

Walking towards a body where you know there is only two options, a family member and a criminal you cannot help but hope it is not your family member. You will always take that position.

That is all I am saying and while I am sure you agree you would think that as you approached instead you will replace the situation I am talking about with a tangent one and say you would not.



IN this case

It's this i proundly disagree with

I allow for plenty of hyperbole and I accept it's quite posible that it's more venting than wht he really believes. However it's a sentiment ad attitude towards others than is real and that I profoundly disagree with.

That's about you not me.

I never said I cannot take a position. I explained why I prefer not to.


We've agreed on that numerous times

No you're asking me to go beyond hoping it's not my loved one and I dont. It's a morality/mind thing as I thought we making progress on.

I dont think the reason for the decision is being portrayed accurately here, if I'm understanding your post correctly. BC is saying no because our resources are stretched a bit now as well. I expect that if AB is in trouble and numbers begin dropping here, we will take Albertans whether they are "derps" or not.

That's not right either - Canadians make up the largest % of NHL players by nationality. But if your point is simply that this isn't a huge factor in the vaccination rate, that may well be true. Over 55% of the players are not Canadian.

Have you been surrounded your entire life by ~half your country thinking you deserve to die for having crazy commie views like being pro m4a?

No. Have you?

In any case I'm very resistant to the idea that becoming something I dont like because some other people I dont agree with are like that, is somehow a good thing.

I doubt Freedum etc. is as big a factor as you're making it out to be since covid deaths as of late are distributed fairly evenly among races/ethnicities.

I think Canada makes for a pretty clear case study.

We really only have one Province with US style Muh Freedums Derps and that is Alberta Canada with its cowboy hat wearing, Texas wannabe religious folk.

Alberta now stands out in Canada with regards to a hospital system on the brink of collapse and looking for other Provinces to take in their continued flow of Covid patients to help them not collapse.

So John you have a Province with 15% the population of the Top 3 but almost as many active cases as those 3 combined when there is very little difference other than the derps. Within the coming days and weeks they may surpass the entire rest of the country for new cases if they cannot bend that curve.

uh yes we have had ~half the country wishing every left-leaning person dead for our entire lives(only good d is a dead d etc). And fighting against things like nat. healthcare etc as Literal communism

I'm not saying it's a great excuse--but I can definitely wrap my head around why some people feel that way with the way things are playing out currently.