He’s angry the CCP was blaming the American military for the pandemic.

Jesus. That’s greater than China’s reported death toll.

Doesn’t make them right either. But I’ll drop it nonetheless.

The CCP is also saying the use of such terms is racist. We should be careful not to promote their propaganda in order to quell our own. But I will stick to the accepted terms.

You think Chinese is a race? That’s racist. Either way, we should do our best to counteract the narrative of the CCP.

To everyone offended, I apologize for using that term. It wasn’t an indictment on a race (China is a multi-racial country), but was supposed to be an indictment on the government of China, who have censored and suppressed their own doctors, ultimately leading to the current world pandemic.

Trump just announced that the FDA approved chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to treat the Chinese flu. The drug is usually used to treat malaria.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-020-0156-0

I have not seen any data that would have ever led me to the response I see now, but what I instead see is an illness that is mild in the vast (>90%) number of cases and is fatal only among the already very compromised. The cure we've arrived at, to the extent it at all represents a cure, is far worse than the disease.

That’s my feeling as well. The fear—mostly our collective absence from the economy, but possibly the implementation of a police state—might have worse ramifications than a pandemic. We’ve been through pandemics before, but we have hardly seen a world-wide lockdown of this magnitude. This event is setting the precedent with which future governments will justify seeking more power for them at the expense of less freedoms for us.

I’m still waiting on the “full story”, and that “conclusive evidence” you were talking about. One day, I suppose?

I’m well aware of that. On the other hand he is leaving much of the response to the states, which suits me just fine. I think that’s the best way to go about tackling the issue. But I fear his opponents and the press are trying to goad him into taking some drastic measures.

I’m hot and cold on the response. I think he’s been quick to respond, but I also think he’s taking it too serious. Now he’s talking about sending cash to working American’s, and bailing out entire industries. These measures make me cringe each time I hear them.

Get with it Nos4A2! It's not "Russians" who are the defendants here, it's Russian companies.

Why are they Russian? Because Russians own them and run them.

It was this very real crime I believe:

It’s not illegal to create fake social media accounts.

It wasn't a fake crime. And as the quote above says, the classification change happened post-indictment.

Isn’t that convenient?

Then why charge someone you could never take to trial, and for an arguably fake crime? The Mueller team fucked up, big league.

That's what the court papers say. Do you have an alternative explanation?

Do you believe the defence has a right to see the evidence of what they are charged with?

You really believe that, don’t you? The US government cannot charge Russians for national security reasons?

Take Michael's quote up with Michael. My point stands. You function here as a government spokesman/Trump spin provider. Nothing more. You're not in a position to talk about unbiased judgements.

Had I not corrected the record some would have went on believing misinformation, which you tried to defend.

What's ironic about this is that while calling for others not to trust "one side" of the story, you immediately describe it as "fake news". As far as I'm concerned, it's very plausible, but I wouldn't commit myself one way or the other.

You went on repeat quotes that either did not appear in the article or was removed. Were you sharing real news?

Contacted by Reuters, a spokeswoman for the German Health Ministry said: "We confirm the report in the Welt am Sonntag."

“ A German Health Ministry spokeswoman, confirming a quote in the newspaper, said: "The German government is very interested in ensuring that vaccines and active substances against the new coronavirus are also developed in Germany and Europe."

"In this regard, the government is in intensive exchange with the company CureVac," she added.
Welt am Sonntag quoted an unidentified German government source as saying Trump was trying to secure the scientists' work exclusively, and would do anything to get a vaccine for the United States, "but only for the United States."

CureVac issued a statement on Sunday, in which it said: "The company rejects current rumors of an acquisition".

The firm said it was in contact with many organizations and authorities worldwide, but would not comment on speculation. It rejected "allegations about offers for acquisition of the company or its technology."”

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/03/15/world/europe/15reuters-health-coronavirus-germany-usa.html

It’s not an unidentified source. It’s the German health minister. His name is Jens Spahn.

That’s not what the article you posted said.

“ Welt am Sonntag quoted an unidentified German government source as saying Trump was trying to secure the scientists' work exclusively, and would do anything to get a vaccine for the United States, "but only for the United States."

I did read the article. The government dropped the charges against the only Russians to show up for trial. It’s a deep failure.

CureVac say one thing, the German health minister another. Which is the fake news? How am I, the independent third party, to figure that out?

Don’t listen to just one side of the story, especially from unidentified sources.

Contacted by Reuters, a spokeswoman for the German Health Ministry said: "We confirm the report in the Welt am Sonntag."

Welt am Sonntag quoted an unidentified German government source as saying Trump was trying to secure the scientists' work exclusively, and would do anything to get a vaccine for the United States, "but only for the United States.

Such a great guy. :confused:

Such Fake News and misinformation.

So the secret is to break the law in such a way that the government can't prosecute you without hurting itself. Good to know.

Yeah, it’s brilliant. Show up and they drop the charges. Another failure for Mueller and the DOJ.

DOJ moves to drop charges against Russians accused of funding troll farm

https://www.axios.com/justice-department-russian-trolls-internet-research-agency-9bf95c0d-2f6a-4377-84a5-c5f3eb8c4abb.html

The government drops the charges against the only Russians to show up for trial.

So if we know the outcome of the gun getting put together, and we know the outcome of the parts of the person coming together, you should understand why you can talk about preventing people from being born.

Perhaps what I don’t understand is the language being used. I cannot see how deciding not to have children is to prevent them from being born, just like I cannot see how deciding not to assemble a gun is preventing yourself from committing murder.

A person who decides not to have children is not performing an action called “preventing”, and he certainly isn’t performing such an action on any objects called “people”. He is not stopping people from being born as if he was standing in their way or performing abortions. He isn’t preventing their suffering as if feeding them or mending their wounds. The action called “preventing” is performed, and the objects called “people” exist, only in his imagination.

Just like it is impossible to obtain consent from a potential human, it is also impossible to perform any other act towards him and for the same reasons—no such being exists. For this reason it is impossible to act morally towards beings that do not nor will never exist. Instead the antinatalist is imagining beings, imagining their suffering, and directing his moral faculties and moral behavior inwards, ultimately towards himself. So I have trouble seeing the argument as anything more than a sort of affectation.

To be fair to you, you are far more well-read on the arguments than I and you’ve probably heard this all before, but I think the absence of any beings is a problem for many moral arguments for antinatalism. The antinatalist should limit the moral case to protecting the environment or to affecting beings that already exist.

Lol Good points. Can’t say I disagree. The last time I was in the US I saw someone with a “Don’t Tread on Me Shirt” shuffling through an airport line-up letting the TSA pat down his genitals.

The pandemic likely will take more time than people will think. It may take a year. But I don't think people will revolt, they will more likely adapt to a 'new normal'. Likely people will start using more face masks than before, start using that elbow bump and not tolerate people coughing or sneezing as before. I don't see any reason for people revolting.

(Perhaps when Trump cancels/postpones the elections because of pandemic or something.)

I think a “new normal” is definitely more likely than a police-state. But there are types of people in the US (militia-types and preppers) who will not take kindly to drastic state actions that might infringe on their rights.

The governor of California hinted as much in a news conference today.

“If you want to set up a framework of Martial Law ... we have the capacity to do that,” he said. “But we are not in that moment feeling like that is a necessity.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/15/california-governor-directs-all-bars-nightclubs-wineries-close-coronavirus

Luckily, as of now, the people are compliant. But given sufficient time that might all change.

Given the increasing amounts lock-downs and closures and quarantines, I believe it is only a matter of time before the rules are defied and as a response a police-state or martial law is implemented. If that happens, a virus will not be our only concern.

The Federal Reserve just slashed interest rates to 0%. Wow.

Can you come up with a real world scenario because your two people are obviously not anywhere near the same. If one reacts to a threat, one is normal. You posit someone not reacting to a threat, or not recognizing it, and that indicates that one is a lot smarter than the other.

Apples and oranges to me.

Regards
DL

Say you are being stalked by a lion while hiking peacefully through the savannah, but are unaware you are being hunted. If you were aware of the lion you would be stressed, but since you are unaware you are not. It isn’t the lion that triggers your fight-or-flight responses; it is the perception and interpretation of a threat that does so. Therefor the cause of the stress response is the perception and interpretation of a threat which then triggers a cascade of biological processes we call stress.

The stress response begins in the brain (see illustration). When someone confronts an oncoming car or other danger, the eyes or ears (or both) send the information to the amygdala, an area of the brain that contributes to emotional processing. The amygdala interprets the images and sounds. When it perceives danger, it instantly sends a distress signal to the hypothalamus.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/understanding-the-stress-response

If self generated and harmful to us, why would a brain or mind subject itself to what is not good for it?

Stress isn’t always harmful. Quite often it is lifesaving.

You seem to be aware of a cause from outside, yet maintain your self-generated view.

The brain does indeed produce the stress, but not without an ouside issue to pull the trigger of the brains self-creating stress.

A cat might create t's own stress, but to ignore that there was a G D dog after it is quite foolish.

People can stress by thought alone, even while in the least stressful of environments. So “outside triggers” aren’t necessarily a given.

So the outside cause is not a part of what has the body create stress.

Watch that link again. is all I can say. If you cannot believe a genius on this issue ------ not to mention logic and reason then -------

Regards
DL

My point is that stress is self-generated, that it begins in the brain. I am not saying that it is not a response to the environments or certain situations, nor was I pooh-poohing the video. I was probably nitpicking when I brought it up and for that I apologize.

but not yes if others (part of an environment) deliberately conditioned a brain?

I can’t make any sense of your question.

This would be the case if there wasn't a quick corporate gift to make a quick buck producing some easy-smeazy test kits. That socialist institution the WHO did it! How hard could it possibly be.

Good things socialist; bad things corporate! Typical socialists, stealing and living off the innovations of others.

Point is that the conditioning is in part responsible for the level of stress. Conditioning can be external to the effected brain, can it not?

If you mean that one can train his brain by exposing himself to stressful environments, and that these environments are external, then yes.

A person is a body, and bodies can be conditioned to do many things, including coping with stressful situations. A person conditioned to swimming with Orcas may have less stress in that situation, but that isn’t because the situation was different, but because the body is.

This isn’t an extreme position, either, but simple biology.

With this repetition of your initial objection, you do seem to have difficulty with the analogy. The analogy applies here because the gun being created will directly affect another person, even though in that particular moment, the gun is not created yet (to affect another person).

At the same token, if someone has a potential to exist (all the parts to do this and know how is there), then certainly, when those parts come together, a person will be affected.

I have difficulty with it for a few reasons. One, it’s not analogous. Two, creating a child is in no way similar to assembling a gun. Three, creating life is the opposite of taking a life.

But as for your argument, I do agree that if and when those parts come together a person will be affected. At that point we are able to apply ethics and morals to them.

Another meaningless example.

An extreme (or stupid) position requires extreme support.

Simply calling it meaningless is itself meaningless without giving a reason why.