Johns Hopkins Retracts Newsletter: "They Would Have Died Anyway"(?)

[gowlerk 2,190]

31 minutes ago, markharju said:

The rules keep changing, that's what I have a problem with.

Rules change when circumstances change. It all ties into human adaptability. 

 

32 minutes ago, markharju said:

What I condemn is destroying the lives of the very many in the hope of saving the very few.

There is a lot of dramatic language and claims around this. There is an emergency situation happening. It is temporary. In the meantime there have been far more than very few deaths, and there is going to be a large but not yet quantified number of damaged people who will need help in the years to come. Most people are going to choose to do their part as best as they can. others are not willing, but will mostly be forced to anyway.

Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choice.

[jakee 1,489]

42 minutes ago, markharju said:

I'm not applauding foolishness such as that. What I condemn is destroying the lives of the very many in the hope of saving the very few. It doesn't work that way. I just think the blame-game is pointless. People who can't earn a living and end up in a breadline because a government edict forces them to shutter their business and lose their livelihood even though they've followed all the rules. The rules keep changing, that's what I have a problem with.

Just now when you were blaming fat people you said there was a huge number of fatalities in the US compared to countries which were less fat.

Now that you are again defending your idiot friends who are willfully spreading the virus and causing those deaths, we're only talking about a very few fatalities.

 

Tell me, why should anyone think you are bringing even a shred of honesty to this discussion?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Just now when you were blaming fat people you said there was a huge number of fatalities in the US compared to countries which were less fat.

Now that you are again defending your idiot friends who are willfully spreading the virus and causing those deaths, we're only talking about a very few fatalities.

 

Tell me, why should anyone think you are bringing even a shred of honesty to this discussion?

Because my remarks were speculation; mere theories with nothing much to back them. I don't pretend of have the answers...do you?

[jakee 1,489]

6 minutes ago, markharju said:

Because my remarks were speculation; mere theories with nothing much to back them. I don't pretend of have the answers...do you?

Let me just check that: "What I condemn is destroying the lives of the very many in the hope of saving the very few."

 

No, that doesn't sound like the way any normal person would phrase mere theory with nothing to back it up. So again we're questioning why anyone would think you are bringing any sort of honesty to the discussion.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, jakee said:

Let me just check that: "What I condemn is destroying the lives of the very many in the hope of saving the very few."

 

No, that doesn't sound like the way any normal person would phrase mere theory with nothing to back it up. So again we're questioning why anyone would think you are bringing any sort of honesty to the discussion.

Okay. You win. I give up. I bow before your righteous brilliance.

[olofscience 480]

2 hours ago, markharju said:

What I condemn is destroying the lives of the very many in the hope of saving the very few.

Money is just paper (or plastic or cotton) or numbers in a computer.

We have a very complicated system of creating it, moving it around, assigning it to physical goods - but in the end it's just a medium for transferring value. We can change the system, because we created it.

But if people die, no amount of economic fixing will bring them back. And if they were productive members of society, we lose the benefit of what they could have contributed had they lived.

[billvon 2,990]

3 hours ago, markharju said:

I'm not applauding foolishness such as that. What I condemn is destroying the lives of the very many in the hope of saving the very few. It doesn't work that way.

So you don't applaud people who oppose NPI measures.  But people who propose NPI measures are "destroying the lives of the very many" and make people "end up in a breadline"  due to "government edicts"  And you condemn such measures.  But that's not foolishness?

Quote

The rules keep changing, that's what I have a problem with.

Tell me, are you confused about how the rules change at a DZ during a bigway attempt or during Nationals?  Is it incomprehensible to you that changing needs (like the need to land 100 people safely) results in a change to, say, landing patterns and procedures?  Do you condemn that, too?

Are you confused about how the rules surrounding aviation change when there's a wildfire in the area, and most aircraft are excluded via a TFR?  Does that puzzle and/or anger you too?

Or do you just manufacture outrage and confusion when it's your ox being gored?

[kallend 2,026]

41 minutes ago, billvon said:

 

Or do you just manufacture outrage and confusion when it's your ox being gored?

Rhetorical question.  You only have to count the number of outraged, trolling threads he's started since Trump lost the election.