I thought @Banno had moved towards solving his own problem and was about to congratulate him. Have I got this wrong?

:lol:

The political threads are rather rough and tumble anyway. The philosophical threads, we generally keep cleaner. I think that's the way it should be. Btw, @schopenhauer1 has taken an enormous amount of stick for his philosophical hobby horse and @Gnostic Christian Bishop has been heavily criticized too. @Shawn (formerly Wallows) hasn't been pushed around by the community much but has been ban-threatened several times. It is possible to go too far with this and as I said the flag function can be used. Best I can do.

I wasnt singling you out in the post you responded to. — DingoJones

I realize that.

Fuck it, add the UK, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and dozens of others to that. The political pestilence is almost as widespread as the biological one.

Sorry, missed some of this, are we boycotting America and Israel for torture, false imprisonment, apartheid, failure to comply with UN resolutions and electing an odd orange thing, possibly human, as President? Happy to throw in China if necessary.

There were almost 40,000 new cases of COVID in the US yesterday. I think that's a new daily high. I'm ready to call that the revised-down 60,000 deaths calculation was way off and we're looking at 100,000+ deaths in the US by the end of the summer. Another wave in the fall looks likely too. Meanwhile in Ireland shitloads of masks are arriving in the country and some kind of announcement is due on May 5th re phased opening. I hurt my leg and can't fucking go anywhere anyway so I guess I can wait.

No, it's not mythical TDS in my view, it's because he almost exclusively posts about, and in support of, Trump with often a high degree of apparently calculated spin. Nobody else in the history of this site has spent even close to the proportion of time, energy, and number of posts to support their political personality of choice. It's unprecedented and naturally draws suspicion as do some of his inconsistent statements about himself and his background. But he doesn't usually break the rules and when he does, corrects course as far as I can see, so as long as that holds, he's entitled to the same privileges and protections as any other member. Anyone can use the flag function if they think he's being mistreated.

Go on then. Quote me and tell me why I'm wrong. That's all I expect of anyone here.

I've no interest in these silly face-saving comments. I'm not anti-American and you can give yourself a pat on the head for everything your country has achieved. Now you either have an argument based on something I said or you don't, Frank. So far, you don't.

Apparently, in a "civilized democracy" not voting for a candidate who doesn't represent your values or the policies you want to see enacted is an unacceptably ideological and nihilistic position that would cause chaos. Democracy means doing what you're told and propping up a failing and corrupt system until a philosopher-king gets into power. Sounds legit, as they say.

I am not sure what your "position" is... — Frank Apisa

I just wrote four paragraphs on it. See above. One issue is that if you define yourself entirely negatively with regard to the opposing side, you don't put any pressure on your side to give you what you want. This plays into the hands of politicians who aren't actually interested in what you want because their focus is providing policies for their donors. That's what their political survival depends on, not you, who they rely on simply to fall in line as long as they find a reason to distinguish themselves from the opposition while not sacrificing their ability to please who really matters to them. Personality politics is one way to do this. So, I get you'll support Biden, but do you think I'm wrong on any of the above. And, if so, why?

@180 Proof ?

I think you may be on the opposing side here and be ready to kick my ass. :razz:

Sad neither of you can support your position. It's all just, other side bad. Read more maybe. I bet there are others who can give cogent arguments for what you're proposing.

*Shrug* Insofar as you don't have any arguments, it doesn't matter what you think.

What's absurd to me is to expect the left to vote for a right-winger who doesn't support universal healthcare and on foreign policy leans more imperialist than Trump. Not only that, but who's fully integrated into a corrupt system where both parties compete for special-interest money.

If you ask yourself who Biden's major donors are, what their price for supporting him is, and how much that price gels with the left's priorities, you should realize there's virtually no overlap there. So with Biden, not only does the left not get what it wants (like with Trump), it's actively responsible for not getting what it wants. It's the difference between being punched in the face vs punching yourself in the face. In only one of those cases can some honor be salvaged.

@frank On socialism. From where I'm standing, it's not about socialism, except maybe to combat excessive corporate socialism. The left will never get anything like socialism in the US, though moderately social-democratic policies might be achievable. Fact is, even European conservatives are to the left of Joe Biden on, for example, healthcare. Far-right economics has been normalised in the US. And that's a global anomaly among major developed nations. So, it's more about the systemic corruption that explains that anomaly and makes your elections irrelevant except on culture-war issues. You're allowed to have Identity politics because special interests can make money from it. It's not a threat. You're not allowed to have a rational healthcare system or a fair tax system. You're allowed generous government welfare for corporations, but not for the average person. You're allowed to question American foreign policy, but not the military industrial complex as a whole. And on it goes.

Saying all this, I accept I'm an observer. There's a lot more at stake for you. I can stand back and smile wryly if it all misfires for American liberals / moderates. You have to deal with four more years of having your country run by a baboon. So fwiw my sentiments are firmly behind American progressives who've had enough and will be fighting both parties, and the two party system that spawned them, in November. However, I'm open to arguments from the other side as long as they address the issues I've raised. Just saying "pragmatism" doesn't cut it. I see your pragmatism and raise you principle.

The point about leverage is well made. The Dem establishment has given Anerican progressives a choice between self-castration and four more years of Trump. Essentially, cut your own balls off or we all eat shit. The best response to that is probably, "no, you eat shit and keep eating it until you realize you need us and give us what we want." Progressives/the left ought to organize and unite behind a third party.

Out the window goes the GOP line that Trump's more mentally competent than Biden. No matter how far Joe declines, he's never going to beat disinfectant-gate for stupidity. Expect this to be plastered over attack ads everywhere come Fall. Good news for Dems.

Birx's face is priceless.

Got my vote.

He's just trying to cover for his stupidity and is, unfortunately, adding to it. Look at the tape, he was talking to the doctors not the media.

[Crosspost]

This is very well put and worth a listen:

Constructive stuff. Be interested to hear more. :up:

@Hanover There were a couple of days when you were being reasonable on this whole thing and now it's a big attack on everything scientific and almost conspiracy-theory like stuff on the economy being shut down. The vast majority of Republicans agreed the economy needed to be shut down too, Trump has been behind it, it's been largely bipartisan. And now, slowly things are opening up. What's all this acting out about? I mean, we on the leave-it-shut-down-until-its-safe side aren't personally gaining from this. For me, my partner is out of a job that she may not get back. I run a business and haven't received any recompense, largely because it's online and not brick and mortar. I presume most folks on the left are in similar boats. But it's about showing a minimum level of civic duty towards the most vulnerable in society. Get back on that boat. You know you want to.

It depends what we do. If we open up in an unphased and unplanned way, e.g. Georgia (which even Trump is complaining about because they're not adhering to the national guidelines), we could go back to square one.

Otherwise, we buy ourselves time to do several things:

1: Train people into widely accepted social-distancing rules that allow the economy to run while keeping people safe.
2. Stock up on enough protective equipment (especially masks) to provide to the general public.
3. Develop an effective vaccine and/or more effective treatments.
4. Develop early detection and track-and-trace systems to ensure quick and selective quarantine.
5. Put other measures in place to protect the old and the vulnerable.

So, our choice is this:

A: Let everyone get infected quickly and maybe 1% of our population die. Then we get herd immunity and it's over.
B. Shut things down temporarily, get the above in place, and manage the situation until a long-term solution is found. In this case, maybe 0.1% of our population dies.

We literally get to save tens of millions of lives worldwide by going for B. So, why we wouldn't we do that?

If they killed people, we'd stop using them. — Hanover

You're not thinking straight. Ventilators are necessary to keep people who can't breathe for themselves alive (regardless of what illness they suffer from). There may be some risk involved in their use but there is no evidence that there is any general risk that outweighs the benefits and the benefits are clear. See the studies listed.

Plus:

1) We shut down economies primarily to enforce social distancing to suppress the spread of the virus.
2) Ventilators are the treatment of last resort when patients can't breathe for themselves.
3) We don't know the exact percentage, but a significant number of people worldwide who otherwise would have died have survived after being put on ventilation.
4) Whether or not we had ventilators, we would have had to shut down the economy to suppress the spread of the virus. Countries with very few ventilators have still needed to shut things down Stop conflating the two things.
5) Shutting down the economy has in fact helped to suppress the spread of the virus.
6) If we stop using ventilators, more people will certainly die.
7) If we hadn't shut down the economy, more people would have died.

On COVID vs Chloroquine

Question: You have COVID and your lungs tire out, so you can't breathe. You are therefore in danger of imminent death. The doctor offers you ventilation? Do you take it? Answer = Yes. No-brainer.

Here's the difference put simply:

Not taking Chloroquine cannot kill you and there is no evidence it will help you.
Not being put on a ventilator when you can't breathe almost certainly will kill you and there is ample evidence it helps.

Did I mention:Stop conflating the need for the general suppression of the virus to the availability of ventilators. The former needs to be done regardless.

@Hanover

Would we stop using defibrillators if we found out they only worked 20% of the time? If your heart's not beating, without intervention, you die. If you can't breathe, without intervention, you die.

By the way, the worldwide figure for survival of those on ventilators is closer to 50% than 80%, e.g.: https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1164/ajrccm/140.2_Pt_2.S8

Ventilators may not be as effective as thought re COVID, depending on the type of patient. What's the solution to that? Ans = More research so better decisions can be made on which COVID patients should be prioristised on ventilators (as per the link above) if there's a shortage thereof, not a broad stop to ventilation. And you have no justification for using this to hammer medical science. If someone can't breathe, doctors aren't going to sit around and watch them die, they're going to do everything they can to get oxygen into their lungs because that is the only hope they have of saving them.

:rofl:

...brainstorm — NOS4A2

It's not a brainstorm, which implies there's thought involved. Try this: Speculate on injecting disinfectant into someone's lungs as a treatment for COVID with a nine-year child. Here's the response I got: "That's stupid! It would make them die quicker!" The fact that you're not concerned that your president is considerably intellectually less able than a nine-year-old says everything we need to know about your level of political analysis.

Sadly, many of Trump's supporters will view the increasingly obvious truth that you can never be too stupid to be President of the United States as a good thing. In fact, it's getting to the point in the US where a large section of the population see stupidity itself as a good thing, a sign of not being part of the "elite" or some such. What can you do? Enjoy the memes.

She's the type of person who will say one thing and do the complete opposite. I think she has integrity issues — Wolfman

That's the impression I got. In any case, I reckon Biden should go with Warren. I have my issues with her, but she's very sharp and might help balance his softness. And who can get enough of Trump saying 'Pocahontas'? It'd be a fun ride.



:lol:

@ZzzoneiroCosm

Denying that humans are apes is just as wrong as denying dolphins and whales are mammals and calling them fish instead. The problem is just the connotations of the word "ape". But, hey, we made a dude who thinks we should inject bleach into each other to cure us of COVID, the leader of the free world, so let's not overestimate ourselves.

Shoot, that was just a joke. Then, I forgot. Professor Death coming up.

To throw in another tangent: The emotions I'd initially be most interested in in the context of this model would be pride and shame, which are the most salient in terms of social hierarchies. You're a winner and proud of it; I'm a loser and ashamed of it, and vice versa, with on the micro-level that dynamic determining not just the practical aspects of our relationship, but also, obviously, its subjective feel. And on the macro-level, society requiring both micro- and macro-aspects of the dynamic to feed its reproduction (the process of becoming a "winner" and being motivated in that direction by the pride/shame carrot/stick being the process of moving from a mere cog in the social machine to an operator of one of its many subroutines, which operations are critical for continued functioning). Viewing emotions through the constructionist lens, the production of these emotions in the individual (and their sociopolitical results) has something of an emperor's-new-clothes feel to it. What determines these self-categorisations and why? To what degree are the core effects even physiologically opposed? Is it possible that basic needs taken care of, the quality of experience of being a "winner" and a "loser" can only be distinguished to the degree a certain social narrative is consciously/subconsciously accepted and so on. Interesting political ramifications there.

Sorry predictive text malfunction. And can't change again for 12 months.

The election is over unless Joe drops out and someone else comes in. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Biden currently leads Trump by 6 points on RCP. If the election were held today and that's accurate then Trump would be crushed. Biden's mental decline is certainly an issue, but at least half of America would vote for a cardboard box rather than the Donald, so no matter what happens, Biden is probably the slight favourite to win.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

Good to hear you're (relatively) ok. :up:

You come up with some mad shit sometimes.

Congratulations and thank you for your contribution. :flower:

:up:

Here's a hero for ya:

Sort of an interesting post I think? — Hanover

Only as an exposition of how to conflate responsible behavior with timidness and stupidity with heroism. I think you know that though because, unlike your governor, you're not a complete shit-for-brains. Feel free to save that. :kiss:

In order to maintain the trend they'd have to continue doing what they're doing though. Otherwise the cycle will just restart.

"Key model assumptions: (1) The observed and projected numbers reflect confirmed COVID-19 deaths only. (2) The model estimates the extent of social distancing using geolocation data from mobile phones and assumes that the extent of social distancing does not change during the period of forecasting. (3) The model is designed to predict deaths resulting from only a single wave of COVID-19 transmission and cannot predict epidemiological dynamics resulting from a possible second wave."