Read on Twitter
imagine being so epidemiologically illiterate as to believe mitigation efforts would or could have been materially effective while so arrogant as to invert the morality of inflicting vast harm on those who were never threatened to virtue signal concern for those who might be. https://twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/1342934211645370369
this is a grotesque pastiche of ethics used in dishonest fashion as a form a self aggrandizement.
"not wishing to be placed under house arrest = you want granny to die" is a false equivalence passing off shrill moral absolutes as policy rational and justice.
"not wishing to be placed under house arrest = you want granny to die" is a false equivalence passing off shrill moral absolutes as policy rational and justice.
rachel's tweet is not merely wrong, it's full blown moral inversion used to justify panic and authoritarianism.
there is nothing morally repugnant about stating the facts that most are not at significant risk and that targeting protection is better policy than a blanket one.
there is nothing morally repugnant about stating the facts that most are not at significant risk and that targeting protection is better policy than a blanket one.
what is morally repugnant is to suppress such a discussion by using moral absolutes as vile rhetorical tricks and emotional propaganda to stop us asking:
"why not let people chose?"
what's morally repugnant is using the panic of the crybully class to keep kids out of school.
"why not let people chose?"
what's morally repugnant is using the panic of the crybully class to keep kids out of school.
what's morally repugnant is the presumption that you possess the right to force your conception of risk reward and cost benefit on everyone while disallowing them not only choice and personal agency, but the right to even raise the issue of such things.
that's what this feat of rhetorical straw-manning and false equivalence is meant to do.
"you don't care!" no one said that.
"you're carving them up into tiers!" well, that's how medical risk plays out. it's called "science." what should we do? ignore it?
"you don't care!" no one said that.
"you're carving them up into tiers!" well, that's how medical risk plays out. it's called "science." what should we do? ignore it?
can anyone seriously deny that risk from covid is not evenly distributed?
and given that clear fact, why then should anyone presume that one size fits all coercive policy is going to be effective or in any way just or moral?
esp when it so clearly does not and has not worked.
and given that clear fact, why then should anyone presume that one size fits all coercive policy is going to be effective or in any way just or moral?
esp when it so clearly does not and has not worked.
guilty even if proven innocent is not much of a philosophy.
folks like ms clarke really need to learn to engage in actual reason and ethics, not this hysterical faux-moralism rooted in nested fallacies and dishonest projection.
it's not helping; it's what's made this mess.
folks like ms clarke really need to learn to engage in actual reason and ethics, not this hysterical faux-moralism rooted in nested fallacies and dishonest projection.
it's not helping; it's what's made this mess.
