The only meaningful example you could give to support your position would be that of a human being who would not experience stress under any circumstances.

Or someone unaware of a threat. I was just watching a videos of a woman swimming in the ocean, and underneath her swam orcas. She originally thought they were dolphins, but it wasn’t until she realized they were orcas did the fight or flight response kick in.

But the man would kill, if the gun was made and he has a very realistic chance of doing that because he has all the parts and know how. So, the potential victim doesn't matter because the gun isn't made yet?

I’m having difficulty with the analogy here.

My position is that there are many reasons why one wouldn’t want to have children, but I do not think it needs to be spun into a moral principle towards “potential beings”, which are not beings at all. I think ethics should pertain towards beings.

Cool. My point. A person (gun) doesn't have to exist. It isn't completely analogous, the only point was to prove that the actual person in question doesn't have to exist, just the potential.

Sure, but no ethical behavior or principle can be held towards potential people by the simple fact that they do not exist, just like a man cannot kill with a potential gun.

A guy buys all the parts for a gun, but it's not a gun yet. He intends to use it to kill when he's finished. He puts the gun together and kills someone. The gun didn't exist until he made it. Should someone not try to prevent him before he makes the parts into a gun?

If you know he intends to kill with it, yes.

Yes plenty of reason, that go into the principle. I did not say I had someone in mind that I was protecting. You ignored what I said and made your own (what a sophist does):

“ you are saving someone from existing”. No, you are not saving anyone from anything. It’s a lie. You have saved exactly zero people. Your imaginary “someone” is a no one. It’s nothing.

Yes indeed, but you seemed to be off topic too ranting about your anti-liberal/ pro whatever brand of conservatism. I'm leaving this conversation now.. but if you want to discuss how your sophistry is bullshit, we can continue on my ideology thread.. I'll leave it to you.. Whatever troll thing you answer to this, I will not respond on this thread.

Good.

Stress, as a biological phenomenon, starts in the brain. This is a biological fact. No, this does not imply child abuse is ok or that abuse is not really abuse. No, it does not imply you would be innocent of murder. No it does not imply solitary confinement is not a stressful situation.

You are questioning that people can make decisions that have future outcomes? And you are questioning that by preventing something now, you can prevent a future outcome? Please. This is Sophistic bullshit. And you still sidestepped the actual topic at hand that cons and libs just want to procreate their ideologies on behalf of other people, for them.

No, I’m questioning the absurdity that you have in mind some person that you’re protecting. No need to twist what I say, especially while accusing someone of sophistry. There are plenty of reasons to not have children that need not involve some fake ethical principle.

It goes without saying that people tend to pass their ideologies to their children. So what? The topic is coronavirus.

You didn't even directly answer the charge against ideologies, ego-stroking and all of that. And yes, a potential to have a child is one that could exist. This lateral move into trying to question the idea of potential realities from happening, is simply bad philosophy. If outcomes don't happen from previous actions, step in front of a fast moving car and see what happens.. I mean, we can't predict what could happen, right? You are sparing someone from life by not having something that can potentially be had. No, you are saving someone from existing, not saving a particular already existing person. But you know that and now you want to change the argument.. The argument is that progressives and cons want to perpetuate their demented ideologies into yet a new generation.. Again, you're both wrong.

Sorry for being dismissive but it is somewhat off-topic. But No, you’re not sparing anyone because there is no one to spare. You’re speaking about protecting figments of your imagination and pretending you’re being good for doing so. That’s demented.

It seems that Trump has succeeded in getting into every socialist-in-liberal-clothes' heads. Trump is all they think about to the point where almost every philosophical topic turns into an opportunity to bash Trump. That's pretty sad when that is what dominates the thoughts in your mind.

It’s how they signal their bona fides to one another.

If you think "liberal innovations" are bad.. So are "free-market capitalism". Antinatalism scoffs at both of these as FORCING more people into the world in the first place by having more children. A pox on both your houses. Both liberals and conservatives feel entitled to force their ideologies on yet another generation to live out their demented ideas about ways-of-life.. Oh but great, if the child doesn't like it they can just go kill themselves! What a foolish unsettling system all ideologies are and people who thus create more progeny to have to live out their ideological abstractions. Its all using people for an ideology. Its all ego-stroking thinking YOUR child MUST be created to experience life. All of you can go bugger off with your ideologies and forcing others to live them, honestly.

I’m almost certain that antinatalist rationalization is merely excuse-making for those too scared to have children. Don’t have children, sure, but don’t pretend you’re saving the soul of a child who will never exist anyways.

If it's the regular, habitual human response to certain environmental forces why would it not be a cause? How does the body remain outside, for example, a determinism including it's being affected on by the world. If we want to technical we could say that someone bleeding out from a knife wound is caused by the heart pumping blood to that limb. Or that corona does not cause any deaths. Or that solitary confinement has no effect on a person's pscyhological well being. I don't think we should say those things however.

For instance, two people can be in the same environment, with one perceiving a threat while the other doesn’t. Only one will experience the stress. If they are both in the same environment and in the presence of the same environmental forces, why don’t they both experience stress? Because one perceived and interpreted a threat and one didn’t—because stress begins in the brain.

I know some hopes are dashed, but Trump tested negative for coronavirus.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/14/politics/trump-press-conference-coronavirus/index.html

The body becomes stressed, due to environmental (in the broadest sense) effects. Obviously cognition is involved.

I’m pretty sure stress is a response to an environment rather than an effect of an environment. It’s more a method of coping than the necessary result of being in this or that environment.

Environmental factors are part of the causal story, no?

I may be quibbling here but I think a stressful situation is different than what causes stress. Stress itself begins and ends in biology.

I’m pretty sure the body causes stress, not governments.

Oh boy. Here we go again. What liberal institutions are you talking about?

“Liberal innovations” such as Keynesian economics and the modern welfare state.

Cases of Coronavirus are rapidly spreading in Africa, which could be the big tragedy of this pandemic given the lack of health services there.

However, Europe has, ultimately, less to fear from this pandemic because socialist institutions are in place to more easily deal with it.

“Socialist institutions” are gulags, breadlines and collective farms. Europe has no such institutions. But then again, stealing liberal innovations and stamping it with the “socialist” label is par for the course.

As for the rest, point taken.

As countries enact strict lockdowns and quarantine, the world should keep a watchful eye how they do it.

According to the WHO the Chinese efforts were particularly effective, but another human toll arises in such strict conditions.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/03/12/human-toll-chinas-coronavirus-control-efforts

I get it, Trump doesn’t speak well. He fumbles his words, contradicts himself, exaggerates and uses “salesman rhetoric”.

Is speaking well and using the right combinations of words in the correct order leadership to you? Because any actor, any lawyer, any speech writer, any talking head can do that.

Talkers are a dime a dozen. Meanwhile, Trump was quarantining foreign nationals, barring Chinese entry into the country, evacuating Americans from Wuhan, and started developing vaccines back in January while he was in the midst of a fake impeachment scandal—back when Italy, with it’s eloquent law-professor of a PM, had its first 2 coronavirus cases. Around the same time, Germany, France, and Spain had their first few cases, all led by people who can speak with eloquence and gravitas. And now Europe is the epicenter of the Coronavirus.

Just to be clear, I do not think their leadership led to the spread of the virus in their countries—it’s no one’s fault—but look what their political niceties and placating lullabies got them. Nothing.



We can debate the “implications” of Ziemer leaving until the cows come home. I’m well aware that a “critical thinker” would imagine a bureaucrat leaving out of some sense of a higher calling, quitting because of Trump’s mismanagement. All bureaucrats have a sense of duty and principle. Isn’t it that so? But often the story isn’t as romantic as we make it out to be.

At the time, critical thinkers read their Twitter tea-leaves and suggested Ziemer’s departure would lead to a reduction in global health security, especially with the Ebola virus picking up steam in Africa around the exact same time. Unfortunately for the nay-sayers the United States stepped up to the plate on that one; and guess who was involved in the administrations efforts there? Ziemer, in his brand spanking new position with USAID, and working with the same NSC officials he was with before. All that funding that was supposed to fall into Trump’s corrupt hands went to combat an Ebola crisis in Africa, much to your chagrin I imagine.

While Trump was being falsely impeached he was reacting swiftly to the coronavirus, back in January, before Italy, France and Germany’s cases reached past 5. This is public knowledge. So the schadenfreude isn’t necessary because your prediction has already been proven false.

But you’re right. This pandemic will be a good test to the various systems in place designed to protect citizens. I think you should be thankful to find yourself in a Nordic country.

Just doing some poking around and had clear up some misinformation. You even had me convinced for a second there.

The cuts started in 2018, as the White House focused on eliminating funding to Obama-era disease security programs.

https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/cdc-budget.jpg

In March of that year, Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer, whose job it was to lead the U.S. response in the event of a pandemic, abruptly left the administration and his global health security team was disbanded.

“Just because Ziemer’s position was discontinued does not mean everyone who was part of the team was fired or that all of the functions of the directorate ceased. According to reporting by the Atlantic and the Washington Post, some team members were shifted to other groups, and others took over some of Ziemer’s duties. An NSC spokesman at the time said that the administration “remains committed to global health, global health security and biodefense, and will continue to address these issues with the same resolve under the new structure.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/democrats-misleading-coronavirus-claims/

That same year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was forced to slash its efforts to prevent global disease outbreak by 80% as its funding for the program began to run out. The agency, at the time, opted to focus on 10 priority countries and scale back in others, including China.

“ As the COVID-19 disease caused by the new coronavirus has spread around the world, a number of politicians, news organizations and public figures have made the false claim that the Trump administration cut the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s anti-pandemic work in over 40 countries to just 10. The CDC told us that’s not true.

...

With its current funding, Bartee said, the CDC is actually working in “more than 60 countries” — not 10 — to address the threat of global infectious diseases and outbreaks.“

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/false-claim-about-cdcs-global-anti-pandemic-work/

Lol OK :lol:

My apologies.

Yes, so to be consistent, you'd have to be yelling "lock him up" if Trump was guilty of the same. Now all we have to do is gather enough evidence that he is.

Sure. So did he say this? Imply it? What is it? I’ve avoided the news today so I sincerely have no clue what you’re talking about.

Sorry, am I missing something here?

If a Democrat preferred Americans died to risking election loss I’d be yelling “lock him up” as they took him to prison. Is that a better answer?

He disrespects his office when he ignores the genuine concerns of US citizens in his actions. I already told you this and you ignored it.

I'll ask you again, to what extent is the President concerned for the wellbeing of US troops in what is soon going to become a hell hole in the Middle East and Asia?

According to him he is quite concerned, probably more so than any leader before him.

Ok, then how do you know he prefers Americans would die rather than lose an election?

I mean if he said he preferred Americans would die because he didn’t want to lose an election then he would lose my support immediately. But somehow I suspect that isn’t the case. Is it?

Sorry, what was it? You dream of people hurting your wife and child?

I would be disappointed.

My initial thought is that sounds like an untrue claim, but I am willing to be proven otherwise.

I didn't claim every criticism was valid. But you respond to even valid criticisms with Whitehouse spin. Maybe inside the government propaganda shell that you've trapped yourself in tthere's a real person with his own opinions. Maybe.

I have not once used whitehouse spin, Fox News opinion articles, info wars or anything like that. At worst I’ve offered the other side of the story, which is oddly missing from any argument. I honestly thought I was offering more nuance to the general hatred and contempt.

I think it’s my general disposition. As you might suspect I’m a marketplace of ideas kind of guy and I like debate for its own sake. Perhaps that rubs people the wrong way and for that I apologize, but I actually do have conviction in what I say. Anyways, again, I will try harder. Such a topic demands at least a little respect to those who may be affected by the pandemic.

Yes, it's telling you that your "positive take" is propaganda and nobody here is falling for it.

Perhaps you can remind me how you dream of castration again.

I’m not sure in which world name-calling and puke emojis and wishing disease on Trump supporters are “valid criticisms”, but I think I’ve shown that they were not only false, but also ripe with group think and paranoia. I, on the other hand, opposed one of Trump’s policies in this very thread. So the selective and one-sided treatment is apparent. Either way, I will do my best to try harder.

It's quite false there was a testing problem and they fixed the testing problem.

Makes perfect sense. I can see why people get frustrated enough to swear at you.

When you said the testing problem was a fiasco I figured you were adopting the fake news that it was Trump’s fault. I apologize if I was mistaken.



This whole thread is littered with anti-Trump propaganda. I’ve tried my hardest to limit my Trump talk to the Trump thread out of respect for the other posters, but I figured a little push back was necessary since some are using anti-Trump propaganda to wish infection on Trump supporters. That’s fine, but the fact I get berated for offering a more positive take is quite telling.

Amusing that a servile sycophant of the head of government who is on this site almost exclusively to spread pro-Whitehouse propaganda is lecturing us about individual responsibility, liberty, and mistrust of government. You literally do almost nothing here but spin the government line and posts links favourable to Whitehouse positions. Maybe you're being deliberately ironic or something but you're an absurd parody of everything you pretend to believe in.

Do they teach you to attack the player and not the ball where you’re from? Because this sort of harassment is not very convincing to say the least.

Better late than never, but we're going to see Italy-level pain here shortly. The testing fiasco will go down in history as one of the great American blunders. So will Trump's tone-deaf promises early on:

That’s quite false, according to Tony Fauci. The system didn’t allow for mass testing, he said, that we needed to include the private sphere, which they just announced during his most recent press conference. The administration fixed the testing problem.

You can see it at the 39 minute mark here:



Of course the press misinterpreted his earlier statements to say it was this administration that was failing. Simply untrue.

Did I say I was for it? Because I cannot see where I did. Perhaps you just made it up.

Just now Trump declared a national emergency in the US. He also mentioned a variety of public-private partnerships to tackle mitigation, which contrast with the approaches taken by the rest of the world. It will be interesting to compare the effectiveness of each approach once the pandemic is over.

Two birds, one stone.

Guess Trump was right. Godspeed, EU.