Re: Coronavirus Craziness
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2020 9:41 pm
Does it give you some weird pleasure to see the title remain changed to your lame topic, simply because people are replying and they don't think about changing it?
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Does it give you some weird pleasure to see the title remain changed to your lame topic, simply because people are replying and they don't think about changing it?
Spoiler alert: depending on where the line is drawn, I am either mature or superannuated.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 7:59 pm Is this really about saving people, or irrational gerontophillia? If not about the latter, then why the constant harping about 'protecting the elderly'? I mean, it's not as if the elderly die all the time or anything Is it because the elderly control much of the planet's wealth and media? Think Rupert Murdoch.
I'm not even necessarily against the measures taken, I'm just trying to make sense of it, and wondering what would have happened if young children and babies were the primary victims. I have a feeling that yes, schools and pre-schools would have been closed and CHILDREN told to stay home, but would the entire planet have shut down?
I know there are a lot of olds on this forum (being no spring chicken myself). What do YOU think? Hmm?
The effect of this virus on young people is less than seasonal flu. And yes, I actually 'do' think that children would be 'thrown under the bus' for precisely the reasons that you point out--much power and wealth is in the hands of the old, and it's generally the kind of wealth that isn't shared around. The vast majority of the elderly are a burden on young people. Here, 75% of the welfare budget goes on the old age pension--yet some of the worst offenders complaining about 'lazy beneficiaries' are the old. And who ordained that young people have to care about the elderly?commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:45 pmSpoiler alert: depending on where the line is drawn, I am either mature or superannuated.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 7:59 pm Is this really about saving people, or irrational gerontophillia? If not about the latter, then why the constant harping about 'protecting the elderly'? I mean, it's not as if the elderly die all the time or anything Is it because the elderly control much of the planet's wealth and media? Think Rupert Murdoch.
I'm not even necessarily against the measures taken, I'm just trying to make sense of it, and wondering what would have happened if young children and babies were the primary victims. I have a feeling that yes, schools and pre-schools would have been closed and CHILDREN told to stay home, but would the entire planet have shut down?
I know there are a lot of olds on this forum (being no spring chicken myself). What do YOU think? Hmm?
I already know that you’ll disagree with me, but that’s what makes the Forum interesting.
I believe that the septa-, octa- and nonagenarians have enough disposable income that they are needed as consumers.
Of course, without the senescents themselves, their money would still be injected into the global economy by their heirs. And their income, such as it is, comes from the labors of the youth who remain active in the workforce.
So, perhaps the senile are not necessary to the world’s economy at all, but rather they are a drain on the wealth of others.
Yet I would argue that if society breaks the implicit promise of longevity—that humans will live into their 100s as healthy and active people—to our current superannuateds, then what can Gen-Xers and Millennials expect for their retirement years?
Furthermore, I don’t think we would ever consider throwing our children and adolescents, our future, under the bus. They, too, are a drain on society’s wealth, and they have no disposable income other than what is allowed to them by their parents.
For the preceding reasons, I think society should value its senior citizens. Therefore, we should do what we can to protect our elders from Covid 19.
But is it humane to save seniors at the expense of the world economy and the effect of a collapsed economy on our comparatively younger workers and spouses/partners and offspring?
I say yes, for 2 reasons. The virus also sickens and kills (though in lesser degree) humans of young ages. Devastation of the global economy will be disastrous for decades, however death’s disaster persists forever.
Well said. I would only suggest that the wealth of retirees is actually spread around, in as much as once money is spent (on anything) it is indeed being spread.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:57 pmThe effect of this virus on young people is less than seasonal flu. And yes, I actually 'do' think that children would be 'thrown under the bus' for precisely the reasons that you point out--much power and wealth is in the hands of the old, and it's generally the kind of wealth that isn't shared around. The vast majority of the elderly are a burden on young people. Here, 75% of the welfare budget goes on the old age pension--yet some of the worst offenders complaining about 'lazy beneficiaries' are the old. And who ordained that young people have to care about the elderly?commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:45 pmSpoiler alert: depending on where the line is drawn, I am either mature or superannuated.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 7:59 pm Is this really about saving people, or irrational gerontophillia? If not about the latter, then why the constant harping about 'protecting the elderly'? I mean, it's not as if the elderly die all the time or anything Is it because the elderly control much of the planet's wealth and media? Think Rupert Murdoch.
I'm not even necessarily against the measures taken, I'm just trying to make sense of it, and wondering what would have happened if young children and babies were the primary victims. I have a feeling that yes, schools and pre-schools would have been closed and CHILDREN told to stay home, but would the entire planet have shut down?
I know there are a lot of olds on this forum (being no spring chicken myself). What do YOU think? Hmm?
I already know that you’ll disagree with me, but that’s what makes the Forum interesting.
I believe that the septa-, octa- and nonagenarians have enough disposable income that they are needed as consumers.
Of course, without the senescents themselves, their money would still be injected into the global economy by their heirs. And their income, such as it is, comes from the labors of the youth who remain active in the workforce.
So, perhaps the senile are not necessary to the world’s economy at all, but rather they are a drain on the wealth of others.
Yet I would argue that if society breaks the implicit promise of longevity—that humans will live into their 100s as healthy and active people—to our current superannuateds, then what can Gen-Xers and Millennials expect for their retirement years?
Furthermore, I don’t think we would ever consider throwing our children and adolescents, our future, under the bus. They, too, are a drain on society’s wealth, and they have no disposable income other than what is allowed to them by their parents.
For the preceding reasons, I think society should value its senior citizens. Therefore, we should do what we can to protect our elders from Covid 19.
But is it humane to save seniors at the expense of the world economy and the effect of a collapsed economy on our comparatively younger workers and spouses/partners and offspring?
I say yes, for 2 reasons. The virus also sickens and kills (though in lesser degree) humans of young ages. Devastation of the global economy will be disastrous for decades, however death’s disaster persists forever.
I saw a couple of children DARING to play at a deserted playground yesterday. A couple of nasty hags were out walking and yelled at them to get off it. Fuck them.
There have been others who also asked you to stop screwing it up. Meanwhile, you frequently boast how you don't like people messing with anything that affects you, but you think nothing of disrupting something that everyone uses just because YOU like to see your comments repeated over and over as if they are so wise or clever and worth the repetition.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:50 pm Reality is: the subject field is open. That others choose not to use it as a tool it is is also not my problem.
That's what I said.
Finally, I agree with you.
You agree that Henry doesn't care?
But you are the one using them to promote the idea that there is an over-reaction?henry quirk wrote: Take it up with John Hopkins: it's their comparison, not mine.
This is utterly irrelevant.commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:45 pm I believe that the septa-, octa- and nonagenarians have enough disposable income that they are needed as consumers.
I think the response would be pretty much the same if the demographic were reversed as the measures are those recommended for a pandemic.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I'm not even necessarily against the measures taken, I'm just trying to make sense of it, and wondering what would have happened if young children and babies were the primary victims. I have a feeling that yes, schools and pre-schools would have been closed and CHILDREN told to stay home, but would the entire planet have shut down?
I know there are a lot of olds on this forum (being no spring chicken myself). What do YOU think? Hmm?
...hang on.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 1:46 pm Wash your hands, don't touch your pretty face, don't be so touchy-feely, consult your doc if you're worried,