If you think liberty has anything to do with "waiting by while people die" then you deserve your chains. — NOS4A2

No NOS, that's what I'm saying YOUR belief in what this administration (and apparently the limits of federalism in a crisis) amounts to.

The US is invoking the full powers of the federal government—deploying FEMA, the military, the CDC, the FDA and signing the biggest bailout in history. They are pulling out all the stops, and far too much in my opinion. — NOS4A2

It doesn't seem enough actually, and he's only sparingly done this. I've heard that he is distributing supplies to states based on how much they are sucking up to him. That is practically criminal to say the least. Too much in your opinion, doesn't mean shit when people are dying. If you think liberty is waiting by while people die, then that definition of liberty isn't worth it.

Yeah I'd have to agree with that assessment as far as I'm seeing.

This is certainly a common understanding of what it means to be ‘feminine’. It is also what drives the commentary that wonders what we’re still complaining about in relation to feminism. And again, I hold what ↪fdrake has to say as an excellent example of what is missing from this understanding - that qualities and capacity often dismissed as ‘feminine’ has VALUE in relation to all of humanity. Things like patience and kindness, connection and collaboration, as well as the realisation that dominance is not what we should be striving for, either individually or collectively. — Possibility

I guess the question is why have these qualities of care, collaboration, domesticity been associated with the feminine in the first place? Maybe that is what Athena is getting at.. or not.

Communities are better able to serve their members than some distant authority by sheer proximity alone. The American revolution was founded on such a premise. — NOS4A2

No rather, the American Revolution was mainly about representation in British Parliament. The interests of the states were not represented in Parliament in England, and therefore they were out of the decision-making process via Parliament's insistence on "virtual representation". Thus issues like the Royal Proclamation of 1763, Sugar and Stamp acts etc. disproportionately affected colonists without their consent. The British Parliament under the Prime Minister Grenville thought that the French-Indian war was on American soil, so they should have to pay the majority of the bill. The American colonists thought this was unfair, especially since they helped British standing army during that conflict. Anyways, we all know the story.

However, the federal government officials are elected democratically by the citizens of each state, and thus reflect the direct vote of the interests of the elected. With the federal government able to provide more money by pooling more resources from the various states, and with a crisis that is NATIONWIDE, why would you not invoke the full powers of the federal government? Who cares at what level the money is raised? The pool is much larger at a federal level than at a state level. Since the advent of technology, communication, and transportation, the concerns of localism has become much less over time since we are a globalized interdependent nation that depends much more on the different regions than in previous generations.

Two years from Dec. 1941. That's when the US entered. At that time, US soldiers practiced with broomsticks because they had no rifles. — frank

That's false.. there were battles in the Pacific in early 42.

It took the USA two years to ramp up to effectiveness for WW2. That's not very agile. — frank

With less technology and the government wasn't fully committed to the war until December 1941.

This is why when Trump mentioned that they were considering quarantining New York, Cuomo said it would be a federal declaration of war, and he’s right. New York is out of the jurisdiction of the federal government, and as such, so is its response to the crisis. So if you want to look for people to blame, look no further than state and municipal governments. — NOS4A2

This is a strawman to the real point here- how much should the federal government do to help states? In general, why not have more money to help those more needy? I think the Civil War, the Great Depression, WWII, and the like has shown that when a crisis occurs, people would rather have help from a federal level than not. People who need help don't give a shit what level of government the money is coming from. Someone dying of a conditions from a natural disaster or a pandemic isn't going to be like "Oh no, don't help me, I'm a states righter, and I don't take no darn tootin' federal handouts!".

Some people will never look at evidence and see what is going on. I'm not sure if it is willful ignorance, a personality thing, and upbringing thing, or what. When someone is repeatedly shown to be inept as a leader, and people look the other way or don't acknowledge it, they are either not acting in good faith or can't admit their original pick was wrong. Most likely it is upbringing. Political persuasion is often strengthened by the family and social groups one was enculturated in while growing up. Either that or some piece of legislation affected someone in such a way as to waiver little with the party that enacted it.

Poor little primate..yeah ending exotic animal trade ends more than one problem, but its now imperative for public health along with things like animal rights.

But that is a question of Justice. I don’t think such a question could extend to matters of health, for instance cultural eating practices, because it is not an unjust practice, and is often a matter of basic survival. — NOS4A2

But the circumstances of these eating practices leads to pandemics. The animals clustered in cages at markets apparently spreads viruses quickly. It's a vector point.

This thread misses the point. The problem isn't wet markets and wild food but the increased capitalisation of wild food and the physical pressure on hunting grounds due to mechanical agriculture requiring arable land. This forces hunters to hunt deeper in unknown areas and catch more to stay competitive. It's these twin pressures that simply increase the likelihood of pathogens transmitting to humans.

We've hunted as a species since we could draw and had wet markets for millenia. The problem isn't wet markets. — Benkei

Clearly the hunting of the bats and such are causing mass pandemics when sold in cramped cages in busy market places. All these things make me think indeed, one MAJOR vector point is wild animal market places. I also did acknowledge in the OP that other factors at work and should also be stopped, like deforestation and climate change. At the end of the day, it is the DEMAND of the wild animals that is driving the hunters and the markets. Hunting by itself per se, as you point out is not the major issue.

What kind of question is this? As if practices that affect the health of the whole world would be culturally sensitive and go against multiculturalism? It sounds like you would assume someone would use the multiculturalism card on this case. I don't think so. I think that as the whole World, once containment hasn't worked, has opted to wreck the economy in order to save lives tells that the World takes the pandemic seriously. Human life is valued even in the worst places in this World. — ssu

As stated to BitconnectCarlos, this came out during a discussion with @StreetlightX who seemed to equate the notion of regulating exotic wild animal trade to being racist. So this got me thinking that maybe others thought the same way and was gauging if this was just a kneejerk reaction from StreetlightX or not. It made me a bit perturbed actually as I was coming at it from a public health issue, and then unfairly had it equated with individual acts of racism, which only had connection in a very surfacy way. Being against a practice that has caused a world pandemic is neither

a) Supporting Trump in any way, and his bungling and ineptitude of this crisis. Nor
b) being in any way racist or being culturally insensitive.

Wanting to shut down wet market wild animal trade has no entailment nor affiliation with a or b. Do you see what prompted this?

Not so. Likely wild animals go far earlier extinct because of climate change than the last domesticated cow or chicken is eaten. The Chinese diet has gone the other way (more meat). And let's remember that human kind will likely hit Peak population soon as with prosperity fertility goes down. — ssu

Point taken.

ou cannot ban people from being poor. Exotic animals are different starting with the economic scale of the problem. — ssu

What do you mean on this one?

Sure, we could do a trade embargo in protest of a cultural practice. I think that's fine. In the case of China the disease arouse from wet markets and the some of the animals being used there. In any case sanitation has always been a problem and it's not clear how to fix that. Sure we can talk about regulation, but we're talking about countless of these markets all across the world in both rural and urban areas. I don't think we can just shut down wet markets because that's how millions of people earn their living. — BitconnectCarlos

There's got to be some answers to deal with the underlying, long-term issues. The crisis right now is certainly overshadowed by the many cases/deaths occurring. But when this is all done, is ANYTHING going to change regarding how these diseases start in the first place? Certainly, it is great to have better emergency action if a contagion spreads, but how about preventing as much as possible the origins of the contagion?

Trump has clearly failed, and now he knows it (since the stock market crashed and the economy is shutdown).

So, he's trying to blame the Chinese, but not through any coherent argument, either because he simply can't formulate a coherent argument or because he knows that just leads to emphasizing that a lot of time has passed since the Chinese cover-up (so, if he complains about the Chinese actions in December, it's not really a good argument as he did nothing in January and February). — boethius

Agreed.

Likewise, the Chinese tolerance of trade in "exotic" (i.e. endangered) animals is also damnable, and should also be met with policies by the rest of the world who don't like it to coerced compliance. Even before the pandemic there was a problem of "ghost forests" where nearly all wildlife had been harvested for Chinese wild meet and wild pet markets. — boethius

Agreed. Interesting.

It's only "almost" because obviously Trump is not actually trying to decouple production from China and engaged in "taxing the hell out of Chinese exports until the CCP follows basic ethics"; Tump's feud with China has just been a political stunt, to get an easy win by getting a better "deal", which is just small tweaks on the previous deal and changes nothing. Trump sold his base "the idea" of bringing back manufacturing jobs, so feuding with China is part of maintaining that idea (without pointing fingers at his beloved CEO's and wall street traders and financiers, and the Republican party, that started the offshoring to China policy), while also throwing shade on Asians which is coherent with the white power (the "also good people") pillar of Trumps base as well as a small victory in the double racism and envy against Asian American's (who aren't as poor as other minorities so the racist thirst cannot so easily be satiated through abuse in a police state; therefore, feuding with China is a spectacle that satisfies that itch to, at least believe, Asians are suffering economically due to the glorious power and cunning of a white man). — boethius

Interesting, pretty much agree.

ithin this incoherent noise, it's impossible to make simultaneously the points "yes, China committed an international crime by covering up a potential pandemic; yes, Trump committed a treasonous offense in diminishing the US's capacity to meet a pandemic, "defend the fatherland", for corrupt motivations of filling the government with compliant sycophants and also a treasonous offense of ignoring the intelligence once it was available in order to protect a foreign entity, the stock market, from harm (however shortsighted that attempt was); yes, Trump is trying to tap into that frothy fountain of irrational racism to distract his base from looking at Trump's actions and words during this situation; yes, China has been committing international crimes by tolerating trade in endangered species, which may or may not be tied to this pandemic; yes, the leaders of Europe are simply clueless duffusses (who also could have acted when Trump was not acting, and could have invested in pandemic prevention when Trump was cutting, and could have put economic pressure on communist China to not undermine the entire capitalist system ... like, almost as if they want to own all the means of production, outflank shortsighted greedy capitalists pigs and, like, almost hold the world for ransom in some sort of neo-colonialist inversion or something, like, almost as if) when those European bureaucrats aren't corrupt, which is often, but luckily a whole bunch of our European leaders are just spineless idiots and can be corralled into doing something not so stupid every once and a while." — boethius

Agreed.. Trump cut funding from Obama years to disease prevention programs. He has no understanding of long-term planning or sense of history whatsoever. He is dangerous and does not know how to lead at all. He is the opposite of a good leader and it has shown in times of real crisis. He's a narcissist to the end.

Maybe current world events are no longer of interest to you, and you are earnestly trying to work out subtle points of ethics for slight improvements to regulatory frameworks over the long term, assuming they are or have been made to be honest and effective in order for such analysis to be meaningful, in which case, my post is for others who are wondering why "cultural sensitivity" is even an issue during the crisis. — boethius

Yes, this came out during a discussion with @StreetlightX who seemed to equate the notion of regulating exotic wild animal trade to being racist. So this got me thinking that maybe others thought the same way and was gauging if this was just a kneejerk reaction from StreetlightX or not. It made me a bit perturbed actually as I was coming at it from a public health issue, and then unfairly had it equated with individual acts of racism, which only had connection in a very surfacy way. Being against a practice that has caused a world pandemic is neither

a) Supporting Trump in any way, and his bungling and ineptitude of this crisis. Nor
b) being in any way racist or being culturally insensitive.

Wanting to shut down wet market wild animal trade has no entailment nor affiliation with a or b. Do you see what prompted this?

It's more fruitful to take the focus away from whether something is okay in the abstract to instead ask "how is this issue best addressed in a way that can keep intact the pride and dignity of the culture we're asking the change from and how is it best approached?" and this is just speaking to cultural criticism in general. — BitconnectCarlos

I think trade embargoes and such can be enforced perhaps? Shut down wet markets or higher tariffs? Or, perhaps UN third-party sources monitor the monitoring of the trade. Guidelines and enforcement could be overviewed.

Lastly, the cure mustn't be worse than the disease. Are wet markets an essential source of food for poor people? If so, we need to address that problem first. — Echarmion

So I did make a distinction for wild animals for food vs. medicinal purposes. Would there be a difference here in its import of banning?

Cultural sensibilities can play a role in deciding what is and isn't proportionate. And this is certainly happening even in industrialised countries. — Echarmion

When does the unintended consequences of a culture's practices become so great as to require outside intervention?

Alcohol is again a good example here. It's largely accepted as part of the culture, and this is one reason why there haven't been many attempts to ban it. — Echarmion

That brings to mind what happened when the quarantine was about to close down liquor stores, and the lines the day before were so long, they lifted that part of it :lol:.

Even @Athena, @boethius and @csalisbury can join!

Even @NOS4A2 can join :roll:

Stop supporting China financially by stopping to move our production there. Tax the hell out of Chinese exports until the CCP follows basic ethics. In others, de-coupling. Another policy where orangeman is fundamentally correct. None of this means interfering internally with China, these are all decisions that we can make. — Nobeernolife

Fair enough answer. This of course will cripple parts of the economy. Then we must ask what is more important at that point. People in both China and other countries will suffer. The hope of course is that the practices of the trade would stop sooner than later and then you would have to provide what steps count as stopping the trade. It won't all stop at once. Also this is international. Many countries are contributing to the sale and trade of the animals.

I'll invite @Baden@BitconnectCarlos and this thread did spin off from a discussion with @StreetlightX. Even @Isaac can join.

I tend to agree with that. That is why I wrote "discourage" and not "prohibit". Concrete example is Afghanistan, where the Americans have been babysitting an unstable government for what, 20 years now. When they leave, the Taliban will introduce literal Shariah. I say the Americans should leave nevertheless. — Nobeernolife

Fine, but now we have wet markets that are known vectors/originators for mass pandemics. What action should other countries and China take against these, if anything at all? Is that enough impetus to tell another culture what to do? Is there ever an impetus for this? Chinese medicinal beliefs have been going on for generations. It is part of the culture, tradition, and religion.

I would fundamentally agree with that.... unless you want to bring the alien cultural practises into your own society. — Nobeernolife

Well, the argument is kind of the opposite of that view. Even though toleration is generally good, it may become detrimental if one allows cultural practices that cause mass harm.

Now the question is, what counts as mass harm? Global pandemic probably yes. In almost all cases Westerners would agree, cannibalism and Shariah law that leads to hanging people for their sexual orientation is also bad. However, some people might think that doesn't warrant intervention, as it is not on a mass scale. In other words, some might argue the line is drawn at NIMBY (not in my backyard!). In other words, they might argue "I might not like what you do, I'll even advocate against it, but I won't step in unless this comes to my sphere of life".

That idea might be good or bad though. It provides for maximum toleration, but at the cost of people in the foreign communities being affected (the people being eaten and hanged).

This also plays into the rights of cultural reletavism and Western notions of rights. What are rights in a society that never believed or even known about that idea? If in New Guinea rights are seen differently, or not at all for individuals, who is to say they are wrong in ritual murder or cannibalism? This would be the cultural relativist view at least. And even if they are wrong, the cultural relativist would say, who are foreign peoples to step in to tell them differently? That is the flaw of missionizing for example. Common decency and justice isn't so common, perhaps in some cultures, thus negating that idea of common ideas of ethics and norms as an absolute of human culture or nature.

But if the answer to either of those questions is "yes", then "but my tradition!" is no rebuttal. — Pfhorrest

Yes, this is often invoked for both cases. Where is the line drawn then? Who gets to draw the line? When can one culture tell another one what to do? Is it being culturally insensitive and when does that not matter anymore?

The correct approach to being tolerant and multicultural etc is simply to not disallow things just because they are different. People from different cultures can continue to do things their way all they want... unless something can be shown harmful about them, just like we should be doing within our own cultures. "It's not our tradition" is not a good reason to disallow different customs, but "it's their tradition" is also not a good reason to allow any custom. — Pfhorrest

Okay, let's switch this up. In America, guns are known to be harmful. Thousands of deaths occur from accidental deaths from guns. Should they be banned completely? I'm playing a bit of the devil's advocate here. We know some amount of deaths will occur from guns, but it is a cultural practice nonetheless for many to own, carry, and fire guns. It is part of people's way-of-life. Should their way-of-life be altered from an outside governmental entity because some harm comes from accidental deaths?

I guess the question is where the line is drawn, who gets to control the cultural practices, etc.

I see no problems with with "exchanging" cultural ideas either. My comment was in remark to mass immigration of non-integrating people, and cultural relativism. This is the context in which I see "multiculturalism" bandied about most often. If you are just talking about exchanging ideas, sure, that is fine. — Nobeernolife

This is a separate argument. This is about the toleration of cultural practices simply due to the fact that it is someone else's tradition and it should be respected, is the correct view if that cultural practice (even inadvertently) leads to mass harm.

Not me. I have always said that the idea of "multiculturalism" is simply capitulation in the effort to maintain modern democracy. Tribalism and modernism do not go together. And the slogan "diversity is our strength" certainly deserves a kind of Nobel prize for being the dumbest one ever conceived. — Nobeernolife

I see no problems and only benefits in exchanging cultural ideas. Why would that be a negative? The only exchanges that would be bad would ones that lead to harm for the individual or society (like hate groups or groups that oppress other ones for example). That would be a bad cultural exchange.

@Bitter Crank@Benkei@TheMadFool@180 Proof@ssu@tim wood@Hanover@Punshhh@unenlightened
Any thoughts?

Schopenhauer seemed to imply that our normal mode is self-interest (perhaps similar to hedonistic tendencies of seeking pleasure). A test of true compassion would be to see if one's actions were done despite what one's own self-interest might have wanted at that time. So a non-hedonistic value might be compassion- seeing the suffering in others and being motivated by alleviating it, even if it meant some self-sacrifice of giving up what one would otherwise do if compassion was not the motivating force.

it seems to accurately characterise a healthy attitude to one's own existence: to seek to continue it and develop it, to increase the things one is able to do with oneself, increase one's functional efficacy; — bert1

To me this doesnt necessarily sound positive. It sounds like we are being used by society. The greatest value is rest, peace, sleep. The work and energy of this functional efficacy seems like positive spin on simply being used. More work to stay alive, to maintain, to entertain. Growth, collaboration (which amounts to essentially energy expended from more work) doesnt matter if you are temporarily or permanently asleep. Why the awake part with all its poetic odes of affirmation for its sound and fury?

That's probably true. A fascinating discussion no doubt, but surely outside the scope of this thread. — Alvin Capello

First let me comment that your OP does not distinguish properly between anarchy and anarchism- two different things. Anarchy is a state of chaotic affairs- truly no order. That is what Hobbes was postulating. Anarchism as a relatively modern 19th century idea that we live in collectives, like the end state of communism.

Also, the government taking control does not entail that people rebel against it. Rather the government, by strongly quashing anarchic tendencies becomes accepted as more tolerable than the former state of affairs.

This is empirically false. Political institutions are an extremely recent development. Indeed, for the vast majority of human existence there have not been any states or governments at all. Indeed, we even see stateless societies in our own time, cf. Zomia. — Alvin Capello

I consider a tribal society an institution.. so difference in terms I guess. The point is replicating a person is replicating social conventions. It is also replicating the assumptions of the parents, that people SHOULD be born, and that it is good FOR them.

Well, could you kindly explain that to me please? — Alvin Capello

What chains us is our needs and wants in the first place which is rooted in being born in the first place. The first political act was for a parent to think that another human needs to experience, deal with life (the game of). The human finds him/herself with this scenario. The next step is to enculturate the new person into a way-of-life, which is ANY society (not just a particular kind). This enculturation process is the second thing put onto a person. Enculturation of individuals into a way-of-life, creates the epiphonemona of politico-economic institutions. People become points to be manipulated to keep the institutions going. Each person thinks it is for them, but they are for the systems in place, rather. There is no way out of this. Neither anarchism, communism, free-market capitalism, mixed-market capitalism, socialism, or the like are an answer. Being born entails this process of dealing with the conditions of life (survival, maintenance of one's comfort, and entertainment). Being born entails the process of enculturation which inevitably leads to the epiphonemena of units to keep the institutions of the system in place. This goes for ANY society.

Thus, it would seem to me that Hobbes has not managed to escape the specter of anarchism. Indeed, what he has done is provided yet another reason why we should want to be anarchists.

What say you? — Alvin Capello

To understand the root of political nature, you have to understand the root of being born in the first place.

Also, on a slight tangent, others might defend the exotic animals trade and markets similar to defending coal. Shutting down the trade, just like shutting down coal mining and coal plants, would be negatively effecting the economy. Are economic considerations more important for the exotic animal traders and sellers?

We're always done it this way" isn't a reason why anybody has to do things that way, but it also isn't a reason why anyone should be allowed to keep doing things that way. — Pfhorrest

Agreed

Everything should be allowed unless there is reason to disallow it. If there is reason to disallow it, appeal to tradition is not a sound counterargument. — Pfhorrest

Agreed. There's an added component here though.. Outsiders who want to embrace all cultures, may say something like "It's their tradition. Thus, it is not just an appeal to tradition, but an appeal to toleration of other people's tradition. That is a different phenomena. It is the super tolerance of others' traditions that would be against this.

Here's the kicker- toleration is almost always seen as a good thing. Yet here is a case where toleration is leading to a bad consequence. And it's not so cut-and-dry like the toleration of a culture that is oppressing another one, or toleration of ritual murder or something. Certainly animals are being harmed, but that might be considered less important than certain cultures not having their traditional values valued. Outsiders who see themselves as multicultural defenders might insist this disallowance is intolerance and small-mindedness to not consider other cultural practices as valid behavior. These multicultural defenders might be saying you are "othering" the foreign culture.

(As an aside, in this particular case driving the practice into rural areas would still be a beneficial outcome, because it is the dense concentration of lots of humans with lots of animals that creates the conditions necessary for pandemics. A disease jumping from animal to human is both much less likely and far easier to contain in situations where a few rural people are keeping a few exotic animals). — Pfhorrest

Agreed

that doesnt sound like my experience, but it does put me in mind of the revolving door of your thinking — csalisbury

I don't know, you said

is it that I'm usually so morose and anxious with no clear cause — csalisbury

But I see now you meant something along the lines of "We are all in this together" maybe.

Way more jobs can be done from home than is allowed. Doesn't make sense except for old ideas of control in the workplace.

They should be shutdown regardless. — darthbarracuda

Agreed.. I gave the example of SARS, COVID, Ebola, and HIV all starting from wild meat/bush meat practices. Was there a concerted effort to shut this down sooner? I don't recall, but clearly not enough.

is it that I'm usually so morose and anxious with no clear cause, which makes me feel isolated, that when everyone feels similarly, I feel more connected? — csalisbury

You perhaps felt more acutely that we are just finding ways to occupy time, survive, maintain. Others who are used to routines and getting caught up in some sort of task, might have to be more introspective than they are used to. This causes mass existential questioning of life itself, purpose, and what the hell is the point of perpetuating it, maintaining it, dealing with it in the first place. Of course, existential reflection will just become a passing fad.. "That was so 2020" they might say.. Back to unreflective living it is.

Darth, what do you think of the idea of a worldwide effort try to shutdown wild animal markets to prevent spread of viruses like COVID-19?

It's hard to imagine why anyone would think China has been 'left off the hook' by anyone. All through Feburary, China was a punching bag for everyone for whom this virus was the lot of exotic foreigners with their bizzare cultural practices. In many cases Chinese people - people I know - where verbally abused on the street, and in some cases physically assulted. — StreetlightX

I didn't really know if there was a wider debate here.. I just saw NOS's last comment and had to agree with at least that part of it. As far as racism and bigotry and such, obviously that is terrible, ignorant, etc. I'm all for multiculturalism but whether you call it "bizarre cultural practices" to showcase the ignorance of the West or not, wherever the source comes from (Western or industrializing societies polluting the globe for example), it should be pointed out where certain problems begin to prevent it.. Apparently it is now well known that the wild animal meat markets are one major source for modern contagions and will probably continue if there isn't an attempt to prevent it. Can we agree on that? Another example of this is Ebola from bats, and HIV starting from the consumption of chimp meat.