Yeah that's the standard line. Unfortunately, governing (like every other activity) benefits from experience. Those without it just aren't as good at it. Let me know if you need an example of a government leader without governing experience who was really bad at it.

Dude, you only addressed half of your proposal (letting gramma die), you left out the don't social distance and close businesses part. That's what's going to overwhelm the open beds that the dead over 80s will free up.

I think you answered your own question.

So, you believe it is the intent that matters as opposed to the consequences? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Absolutely. Changing to an electric car after the Exxon Valdiz catastrophe is logical, buying gas from Shell and boycotting ExxonMobil is not.

Wow, where to start? Firstly, the hospitalization rate of adults between 40 and 79 is about one third of those over 80. So letting the virus run rampant and closing hospitals to those over 80 would, of course kill tons of those over 80, but it would also have overwhelmed hospitals with younger COVID patients so regular sick folks (without COVID) would be crowded out and death rates for everything else would have jumped.

Lastly it is an error in my opinion to lay the current epidemiologically based plan at the feet of theism. Statistics would be a more likely driver.

You do get that there are way, way more folks under 80 than over, right?

While true, that is also true of almost every experience.

Right now? Term limits were big news from 1992-1994 and the 22nd amendment passed in 1951. Old news...

Firstly, congrats on the baby. Luckily for me I had 6 weeks of paternity leave and I commonly worked nights so getting up in the middle of the night wasn't a big deal for me . Clearly your baby is getting way, way more than 3 hours of sleep a day, so sleep when the baby sleeps.

Politics is the one area where acquiring work experience is considered to lead to a lesser work product. Completely illogical. Imagine using the same thought process to pick a surgeon. "Oh, you've hardly performed this procedure before, I'll pick you to cut me open." Ridiculous.

A couple of things. Firstly I wouldn't classify either as a lie since their audience didn't deserve the truth, ie it is an inappropriate question. Not that it shouldn't be asked, just that one shouldn't expect an answer. As to the relative nature of the two answers, Diana likely was being deceptive out of fear while James likely was being deceptive our of braggadocio. Thus I would be more sympathetic to Diana, though it would be an overstatement for me to describe James negatively.

I get what you are trying to accomplish, I am more practically minded, thus I commonly take the issue of consciousness the next step or two, to the practical implications of such a change. That's more me than you.

No need to invoke the Interweb, this sort of "dilemma" could have been made when agriculture was invented. Did every town dweller understand what went into the food they ate? Likely not. But that isn't the point. Tools free up time for folks to think about things other than sustenance, such as art, culture etc.

One's interest in change is inversely proportional to the level of advantage one wields.

Not necessarily altruistic, but giving or thoughtful, yes. You bring up a good point that it is very possible that helping someone to experience something you found great, may be a mediocre or worse experience for another. And where's the value in that?

The OP brings up several semi-unrelated issues. Namely, abuse of factory farmed animals is by definition not the intention of the business. Thus it is rightly condemned but it is reasonable to purchase products from the business since it is not the intent of the business owner. Separately, it is also reasonable to boycott factory farm products because small farm animals experience a better life, though one could forgo the boycott if the plight of factory raised animals was not of importance to you. Lastly while it is completely reasonable (on many fronts) to be a vegetarian, it is illogical to prohibit the culling of domesticated animals, since that is the purpose of animal domestication.

Artists can do anything, but IMO artists should either reflect life as it is, that is giving voice to an underappreciated opinion, or to display a facet of popular opinion that brings it's audience to a deeper appreciation of an opinion they already have, but didn't know they had. It is very rare that art actually changes opinions.