How to deal with a friend who thinks COVID 19 is a hoax

[Lacewing]

...

Yes, of course, of course, of course! I agree!!!

I'm ALSO considering the insufficient infrastructure for dealing with something of such a magnitude, and the impact on human medical workers, who through no fault of their own, are dealing with extraordinarily challenging situations in some cases.

Yes, I think a lot has been overblown... and there has been a lot of panic... but I can also understand that dynamic! It's not that much different than those who rant about their freedom being imposed upon, or supposed hoaxes, or whatever extreme platform a person takes. Blah, blah, blah! It's extreme when it's one-sided and/or completely self-focused. How about trying to look at the bigger picture? What it's like from all sides, and trying to have some compassion and understanding and logic and clarity for all sides??

This platform vs. platform shit is very small-minded. And it plays right into the hands of those who wield some power. We gotta get off the platforms and try to consider a broader scope -- the WHOLE elephant, not just the tail of it. The truth is, I think, that a lot of people are grasping for something they can take a position on, as some kind of way of imagining they have clarity and control. And they might be willing to fight to the death for it. That's ignorant. They need to get smarter, not kill opposition. Embracing a broader scope brings broader understanding.

Unfortunately, a lot of people have their egos tied up in these narrow platforms, so THAT is what they're protecting. Embracing a broader scope means the ego has a lesser role. A lot of people don't know how to be at peace and be effective without their noisy-ass ego. But they'll never understand or support broader clarity if they don't choose it.

[henry quirk]

So wearing a mask to protect others isn't virtuous?

When there's no real evidence maskin' up does diddly-squat against beer virus, no, that ain't virtue, that's virtue-signalin' and a sign that one is easily ordered about.


What if a person gets another person fatally ill when it could have possibly been prevented by wearing a mask?

If I shoot Joe in the ass without just cause: what happens?

Same thing.


Wouldn't that make it a moral imperative to wear a mask so long as it's of no serious detriment to the wearer?

Who decides imperative & detriment: the mask wearer, the person cravin' protection, or a third party?


And if one does something that is immoral, wouldn't that also tend to detract from one's virtue?

Even if maskin' up did blunt beer virus transmission, you'd be hard pressed to to lay the moral onus on mask wearer. I could argue the beer virus-vulnerable bears the burden of self-preservation.

[RCSaunders]

So wearing a mask to protect others isn't virtuous? What if a person gets another person fatally ill when it could have possibly been prevented by wearing a mask? Wouldn't that make it a moral imperative to wear a mask so long as it's of no serious detriment to the wearer? And if one does something that is immoral, wouldn't that also tend to detract from one's virtue?

See Henry's comments. They are virtually the same as mine.

[RCSaunders]

So wearing a mask to protect others isn't virtuous?

When there's no real evidence maskin' up does diddly-squat against beer virus, no, that ain't virtue, that's virtue-signalin' and a sign that one is easily ordered about.


What if a person gets another person fatally ill when it could have possibly been prevented by wearing a mask?

If I shoot Joe in the ass without just cause: what happens?

Same thing.


Wouldn't that make it a moral imperative to wear a mask so long as it's of no serious detriment to the wearer?

Who decides imperative & detriment: the mask wearer, the person cravin' protection, or a third party?


And if one does something that is immoral, wouldn't that also tend to detract from one's virtue?

Even if maskin' up did blunt beer virus transmission, you'd be hard pressed to to lay the moral onus on mask wearer. I could argue the beer virus-vulnerable bears the burden of self-preservation.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of answering this. Right on!

[RCSaunders]

...

Yes, of course, of course, of course! I agree!!!

I'm ALSO considering the insufficient infrastructure for dealing with something of such a magnitude, and the impact on human medical workers, who through no fault of their own, are dealing with extraordinarily challenging situations in some cases.

Yes, I think a lot has been overblown... and there has been a lot of panic... but I can also understand that dynamic! It's not that much different than those who rant about their freedom being imposed upon, or supposed hoaxes, or whatever extreme platform a person takes. Blah, blah, blah! It's extreme when it's one-sided and/or completely self-focused. How about trying to look at the bigger picture? What it's like from all sides, and trying to have some compassion and understanding and logic and clarity for all sides??

This platform vs. platform shit is very small-minded. And it plays right into the hands of those who wield some power. We gotta get off the platforms and try to consider a broader scope -- the WHOLE elephant, not just the tail of it. The truth is, I think, that a lot of people are grasping for something they can take a position on, as some kind of way of imagining they have clarity and control. And they might be willing to fight to the death for it. That's ignorant. They need to get smarter, not kill opposition. Embracing a broader scope brings broader understanding.

Unfortunately, a lot of people have their egos tied up in these narrow platforms, so THAT is what they're protecting. Embracing a broader scope means the ego has a lesser role. A lot of people don't know how to be at peace and be effective without their noisy-ass ego. But they'll never understand or support broader clarity if they don't choose it.

There's a lot of truth in what you say here.

If you find something you think will actually improve the objectively bad aspects of the Corona virus then you should pursue it if you choose. I really think the only, "solution," will have to come from the biological sciences [because they really can do something so long as some government doesn't interfere in their work], and that there cannot be either a social or political solution [like any of those being promoted from various platforms]. But I have no interest in discouraging anyone from doing what they choose and believe they ought to do, so long as they do not insist anyone else must support their view.

[RCSaunders]

I have no objection to others taking all the precautions they like and never tell others how to live their lives. It's all absurd, and we are still free for the moment in this country to express are view of things. I certainly don't mind all those who judge my views and practices as some kind of evil, but they would all like to shut me up? Why?

Who is trying to shut you up and how are they doing it?

Here, for example:

Skeptics should STFU ...

[Gary Childress]

I have no objection to others taking all the precautions they like and never tell others how to live their lives. It's all absurd, and we are still free for the moment in this country to express are view of things. I certainly don't mind all those who judge my views and practices as some kind of evil, but they would all like to shut me up? Why?

Who is trying to shut you up and how are they doing it?

Here, for example:

Skeptics should STFU ...

Well, I suppose the rationale behind wanting skeptics to stop is that refusing to follow the guidelines probably emboldens more people to flout the guidelines. The fewer people who wear masks the more easily the disease will spread unabated. However, I suppose there are more diplomatic ways of conveying the message that might win more converts, I don't know.

I've seen similar attitudes among scientists who are wary of the influence anti-vaxers can have on others to stop using vaccines. Apparently, having a few stubborn exceptions doesn't do a whole lot of harm but if the idea of not using vaccines catches hold more, then the project of vaccinating people becomes more and more ineffective in direct proportion to how many people withhold their children from being vaccinated.

[Sculptor]

OK. That's a fair point. But, just to play devil's advocate (I'm no saint by any measure myself) without shaming people, what incentive is there to act virtuously? We often do things because we want to feel good about ourselves for doing them but sometimes we do things because we don't want to feel shame. Sort of the carrot and stick of morality, as it were. Take away the carrot and stick and what promotes morality? Although, I believe you had mentioned that you are "amoral" so perhaps it doesn't really apply in whatever sense to you. I don't know. But I'm curious about the answer from someone who is amoral.

Virtue requires no incentive. Its about self respect for one thing.

I don't know. I suppose that's one way to look at it. I believe Aristotle talked about happiness or flourishing as having intrinsic worth and that virtue brings about such a state. So that seems like an incentive to me. Conversely, if someone is wicked, then they pay a price for their lack of virtue through shame or having a bad reputation.

But even for a person who is amoral, taking a few simple precautions is of benefit not only to others but to yourself. Hand washing has general benefit against a massive range of pathogens.

I think wearing a mask is somewhat of an exception, though. Supposedly, masks don't do much to protect the wearer, but rather to protect others to a limited extent from germs from the one wearing it. So it requires a little bit of altruism and cooperation, perhaps, sacrificing comfort (or whatever else it is that urges a person not to wear one) for the sake of others' safety.

I not sure you are talking about an "exception".
If used properly a mask will protect the wearer and others. But you need to keeo your hands off it.
But I suppose if people can't see the sense in wearing a mask, then like drinking and driving a law needs to be enacted to give a bit more encouragement.

In the UK there is a £100 fine, though we have yet to see if anyone will be charged. People for whom mask wearing is a distinct problem are medically excempt.

I note that Trump as changed his tune about mask wearing, at last. Having attacked Biden as a coward for wearing one, Trump is now claiming that it is a patriotic duty.

" It's a patriotic duty. I am a patriotic president. I am patriotic, there's no one more Patriotic that me. I am the most patriotic president in history. I am so patriotic. And the most popular president in history."

Sadly He is also starting up the daily covid briefing, abandoned when he advised people to use disinfectant to clean your lungs.

[Dontaskme]

The virus is real because it was planned.Psychological rationalisation has been strategically implemented for the next generation to become biological robotic servants to serve the devil.

Any one with half a brain cell knows what's happening here.

The awakened ones will not fear, for they are already dead and living their best life in love and light.

The evil ones will not know where to point their guns at the dead.

.

Bloody nut job.

NamNasty!

The kunt in me honors the kunt in you.

[Dontaskme]

The virus is real because it was planned.Psychological rationalisation has been strategically implemented for the next generation to become biological robotic servants to serve the devil.

Any one with half a brain cell knows what's happening here.

The awakened ones will not fear, for they are already dead and living their best life in love and light.

The evil ones will not know where to point their guns at the dead.

Bloody nut job.

Spot on!

You made my morning, thank you.

Wishing you a fucked up made up morning.


.

[RCSaunders]

In the UK there is a £100 fine, though we have yet to see if anyone will be charged. People for whom mask wearing is a distinct problem are medically exempt.

And now that the entire medical profession is under the thumb of the government, who decides what, "a distinct problem," is?

"Vee vil decide dat, comrad!"

Wear the mask! Pin on the star! Get in the boxcar! Head for the shower!

I feel safer already!

Why should all those who have already had the virus, are no longer infectious, and immune, have to wear a mask?

[Sculptor]

In the UK there is a £100 fine, though we have yet to see if anyone will be charged. People for whom mask wearing is a distinct problem are medically exempt.

And now that the entire medical profession is under the thumb of the government, who decides what, "a distinct problem," is?

"Vee vil decide dat, comrad!"

Wear the mask! Pin on the star! Get in the boxcar! Head for the shower!

I feel safer already!

Why should all those who have already had the virus, are no longer infectious, and immune, have to wear a mask?

You are behaving like an hysterical little girl. Fucking grow up and eat your greens.

[Dontaskme]

In the UK there is a £100 fine, though we have yet to see if anyone will be charged. People for whom mask wearing is a distinct problem are medically exempt.

I wonder if the fine is just another fear based scare tactic. I mean what will happen when people refuse to pay it, will they have to go to jail.


Meanwhile: The coronavirus is spreading quickly in American and British jails and prisons, it's a public health concern, so some of the prisoners are being released into the world outside. Hmm, well I guess that would make room for the non-payers of the £100 for not wearing a mask inside shops. Honestly, you couldn't make this crap up if you tried, oh such tangled webs are woven

.

[henry quirk]

So wearing a mask to protect others isn't virtuous?

When there's no real evidence maskin' up does diddly-squat against beer virus, no, that ain't virtue, that's virtue-signalin' and a sign that one is easily ordered about.


What if a person gets another person fatally ill when it could have possibly been prevented by wearing a mask?

If I shoot Joe in the ass without just cause: what happens?

Same thing.


Wouldn't that make it a moral imperative to wear a mask so long as it's of no serious detriment to the wearer?

Who decides imperative & detriment: the mask wearer, the person cravin' protection, or a third party?


And if one does something that is immoral, wouldn't that also tend to detract from one's virtue?

Even if maskin' up did blunt beer virus transmission, you'd be hard pressed to to lay the moral onus on mask wearer. I could argue the beer virus-vulnerable bears the burden of self-preservation.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of answering this. Right on!

[RCSaunders]

You are behaving like an hysterical little girl. Fucking grow up and eat your greens.

So sorry my behavior annoys you! I never behave well around would-be tyrants.