*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

Let's try it this way. Say there was a genie who could make anyone die, and they were doing an experiment to see how much monetary value people gave to a human life. What they do is approach someone and say here's what will happen. I'm going to name someone somewhere in the world. You might know them, you might not. Then, I'm gonna start an auction on their life. I'll start at (say) $10 and keep going up until you think that makes it worthwhile to you, where you think that's the lowest amount you're willing to accept to have them die."

And the first name they give you is Wally Wong in Beijing, someone you don't know at all. That's the first trial.

Let's say he repeats this experiment around the world, always where the first person is a complete stranger to the participant. He gets the data and finds out that for a stranger to die, the average person only needs some small amount (say $1000) to be ok with it.

Then he starts the second trial. The genie says to you "Mary Killarny who lives on the next street." You still don't know her, but she does live close to you, so somehow her life seems to be worth more. And after he asks everyone in the world the same question, there's some average figure that's somewhat higher than the first one.

Great, he thinks. The closer they are to someone the more they value that person's life.

Then he starts thinking about friends and family. So he starts by naming some distant acquaintance of yours, he names your second cousin, who you've met a few times in your life but aren't in regular touch with, he names one of your old schoolteachers, or whatever. The average value goes up.

He keeps going along and eventually he gets to your closest relatives.

So, he asks about your child. How much to let little Bobby die?

You tell him to go fuck himself. He says no, that doesn't fit into my analysis, I need a number. You tell him to go fuck himself again. You won't trade little Bobby for infinite riches. That's how much you love your kid.

So he has various figures for all sorts of people you don't know, and distant acquaintances or relatives, etc., but he can't get a number for people who are close to them because 99.99% of people tell him to go fuck himself for even posing the question. How is he then going to figure out the average value of a human life? Where does he plug 'go fuck yourself' into the equation?

[CoccoBill]

You're trying to find if there are any use cases where our current understanding wouldn't enable us to accurately price every possible eventuality.

Say there was a genie who could make anyone die...

Well yeah, anyway, if that were the case, he would know where the average threshold for monetary compensation would be, and could continue instead auctioning people for people, or groups of people. Maybe after that to other things such as world peace, cure for cancer, pink unicorns, free steak & bj etc., all along gaining more knowledge to punch into his equations.

[Poopadoop]

I think you missed the point, or I didn't make it clearly enough.

In the case where someone values another's life so much they wouldn't trade it for an infinite amount of money, there's no mathematical model that can be devised that captures that, because there's no universe in which an infinite amount of wealth exists. Just like there's no universe in which we can convert meters to kilograms.

Yes, there may be circumstances in which we can equate money values to lives, but as long as there are any where we can't, the whole notion that somehow there is some universal equation that exists that we just haven't been smart enough to figure out yet is mistaken.

[MadMojoMonkey]

btw: even if we never agree, MMM, this is a fun exercise, you're certainly making me consider things I hadn't fully explored.

We're social creatures, we're talking about the functioning of society. It is by all of our authority. By what right can you tell me not to walk around in public naked, the way I was born, my natural state? Well, you (if not you, the royal you) do tell me that, and enforce that norm-- first through shame, then through force. Some norms we codify into law, some we leave unwritten and discourage outside of the legal system.

I'm not sure if you're asking me
A) for the history of public decency laws,
B) whether it's moral that we have public decency laws, or
C) whether public decency should be a moral topic at all.

FWIW, public indecency hurts no one and IMO, it's immoral to have something that is non-threatening be illegal.
FWIW, if the reality is that people are so scared of having sexy thoughts in public because they saw someone's sexy bits, and that causes more trouble than it solves, then whatever. If you tell me that I have to cover my sexy bits for the public good, what can I say? They're powerful sexy bits, and I agree that the greater public probably could not contain themselves if I was showing them off.

Seriously, though. Who cares if it's moral? You have more opportunities if you wear pants in public. If that's because of mass hysteria, then so what? It's simple enough to put pants on.

Again, I don't think either person is behaving badly universally. Morality is contextual. And it's perfectly normal for people to misread the context and therefore act immoral. As I've said, camera lady is a nosy busy body if you shift a few variables, and naively out of step with the looming disaster if you shift a few more. Each person is rolling the dice with their action.

I really agree. I'm not saying either is a threat to anyone.
They're just both generally annoying in that way that people tend to be.

I don't think any of these people are bad, or evil, or any thing like that. I don't even know what that means tbh. What I do think is that they're performing social functions-- when they're well used, our reaction rewards them, and when they're misused, our reaction discourages such use.

Evil is choosing to ignore what you know is best, and doing what you know is not best.
Oh, and moderation keeps us all sane, so ... y'know... sometimes what's best is a little self-rebellion.
Just, if you know something is bad, then... really try to not do it... unless you have to... OK?
EZ PZ, right?


Sure, but they're just people. The emergent nature of their presence in a greater society is not understood at all by me. So I can't really analyze anything on those terms.

I know you're right.. but that stuff happens at or to me.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Precisely what the dictionary means.



https://www.dictionary.com/browse/profiteering?s=t

Then no.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Fear not, I'm chill.

From those I've seen, utilitarianism comes the closest. We'd of course would been to start with defining what the framework is supposed to describe, such as something like "maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering of all organic life on earth". Or something, I don't know. If I knew I'd be much more famous. The point is I don't see a reason why it couldn't be done, in theory. And if it can be done in theory, it suggests there exists a provable calculable definition for right and wrong.

Provable was the operative word in my question.

Is any of that provable?

Don't get me wrong, when it comes to ethical systems, utilitarianism is very appealing to me.
BUT
How can you prove that what's good for humans is what's "Good?"
Seems a pretty lucky coincidence that the moral right has what's best for humans as a fundamental premise, no?

All organic life on Earth..?
Then COVID-19 has same the moral rights as humans.
Bacteria have moral rights.

I'm not saying you're wrong. Just making sure that I understand what you're saying.

What do I know? Maybe the only moral good humans have served is to be the host for bacteria and viruses.

Correct.

Wrong.

Awww, c'mon. You said you were chill, man.

We "only" need to define the worth of well-being and suffering on a scale with enough parameters for it to workable. And obviously, I don't know how to do that, and most likely neither can anyone else right now. Mostly because of the outrage of even attempting it would cause, with people clamoring how life is priceless. Well, it isn't, and the public and insurance sectors among others have routinely been using them in decision-making for ages. There's nothing mysterious or unknowable about them, we just lack the will and courage to work them out.

I don't see why this is a relevant first step to a provable moral statement, but maybe you're right.

How would having this change anything?

More than assuming that's what you thought I was more just commenting on your phrasing:

"Which is fine and all, and I'm not opposed to Utilitarianism on the whole, but in this case, it's promoting socialism."

That's a weak argument, and the rest of it seemed to amount to "we can't know".

You're right. It was a weak argument.

Really I was saying:
You're promoting a system whereby individuals don't get to decide for themselves what is good for them, but that some other agency gets to dictate what is good for each of us.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Again, empty TP shelves means people will visit multiple stores unnecessarily, thereby working against flattening the curve. There is a cost to this. I don't think I've seen you interact with this idea. What gives?

That's a weak argument, and I'm not taking the bait.

You could argue that by hoarding now, she wont have to leave later when social distancing is really needed.
Then we're back to the assertion that it's not her moral right to act in her best interests as she sees fit.
Again... it's TP.

If you want to change the topic to ventilators or something with immediate life and death consequences, then my opinions change.
So long as we're talking about some people hoarding TP, which is in fact in plentiful supply, then I really don't care what people do.

Publicly shaming someone over such trivialities is probably not what's best for society as a whole, IMO.
That ends us living in a world where it's illegal to have a no pants party, and no one wants that world.

[MadMojoMonkey]

MMM, which extreme is better, everyone suffering as much as possible, or everyone suffering as little as possible? Both maximum suffering and agnosticism are unworkable answers, as these answers, like nihilism, are betrayed by one's actions. I understand that the details get murky (that's where the fun is), but that's the basis for utilitarianism.

Did you answer your own question, there?

I'm a fan of utilitarianism. Gets me right in the feels.
Still not provably more good than anything else.
It's just really good at appealing to the feels.

Aristotle's Philosophy of the Mean is pretty appealing, too... until you read what he actually wrote, then you're all... OK..? back away slowly.
Exact opposite for Buddhism. You read what the Buddha said and you're all.. yeah... It's not about God, and it's not about what other people want me to believe... it's about me and what I already know is Good. Yeah.
Then you see Buddhism on the street today and you're like... you know that guy you have statues of everywhere? You know that his whole message was that it's not about him, right? OK...? and back away slowly.

[CoccoBill]

I think you missed the point, or I didn't make it clearly enough.

No I didn't miss it, I'm just saying it's in most cases irrelevant or can be worked around.

Yes, there may be circumstances in which we can equate money values to lives, but as long as there are any where we can't, the whole notion that somehow there is some universal equation that exists that we just haven't been smart enough to figure out yet is mistaken.

No one said equation, and no one even said we need to assign dollar values on everything. We don't have a unified theory or physics, but we still get pretty good mileage out of physics regardless. We don't need an equation, we need a data model, and that's for this to be usable, applicable, and that wasn't even a requirement in all of this, just that it's in theory possible.

[CoccoBill]

Is any of that provable?

Certainly not by me.

How can you prove that what's good for humans is what's "Good?"
Seems a pretty lucky coincidence that the moral right has what's best for humans as a fundamental premise, no?

We first need to define "good" before we do anything else with it. You're proposition is that we can't ever know what's good because it's subjective, that everyone should be able to judge for themselves and no one else should have any say. To me that's debatable, I'm sure you agree many people act against their own interests, and the interests of everyone out of ignorance, selfishness, pressure. To say they're just as "correct" with their definition of good is nonsense. For the majority of things we can objectively determine what's best overall, within a defined set of criteria.

All organic life on Earth..?
Then COVID-19 has same the moral rights as humans.
Bacteria have moral rights.

Do bacteria and viruses have the same emotional and physical responses to well-being and suffering as humans? We don't know (yet) but if they did, yes they should have the same "rights".

How would having this change anything?

Apart from how we see things and how we should determine enacted social policies, I dunno, maybe it wouldn't?

Really I was saying:
You're promoting a system whereby individuals don't get to decide for themselves what is good for them, but that some other agency gets to dictate what is good for each of us.

Well we already have that. I'm just suggesting it could be better.

[Poopadoop]

We don't need an equation, we need a data model, and that's for this to be usable, applicable, and that wasn't even a requirement in all of this, just that it's in theory possible.

We already have these equations used by insurance companies, etc. My point is that those equations become useless when the lives in question are loved ones.

[CoccoBill]

Is that descriptive of all problems within this framework, or an exception to the rule?

[Poopadoop]

As long as your framework only includes people no-one cares about personally, then your good.

[CoccoBill]

Let's be generous and say every person has 50 loved ones. That is, 50 people where they'd rather personally kill everyone else than any of them. That'd mean the framework works for 99.9999993% of the cases for everyone.

[Poopadoop]

You're saying they have to kill everyone else but their loved ones. So you're equating lives with other lives, not with money.

Ask someone if they'd accept some amount of money to have one random person in the world die. It may be a loved one, it may not. If you can get everyone to accept a dollar figure for the x/world population chance they'll lose a loved one, you've got a starting point for your economic life <--> money converter model. Otherwise, I think youre stuck.

[CoccoBill]

Ask someone if they'd accept some amount of money to have one random person in the world die. It may be a loved one, it may not. If you can get everyone to accept a dollar figure for the x/world population chance they'll lose a loved one, you've got a starting point for your economic life <--> money converter model. Otherwise, I think youre stuck.

Why the insistence on assigning dollar figures? No one is after a life-money converter, we're talking about a moral framework. There are practical situations where there's a need to assign some value on life, but like you said we're already doing it now. That's a specific rather fringe use case, not a foundation to everything.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Certainly not by me.

Me, neither. It's not the nature of this category of questions to have provable statements.
If it was, then morality would be a science, and we would have a testable system to solve moral dilemmas.

We first need to define "good" before we do anything else with it.

Exactly. You hit the nail square on the head.

Is there any conceivable way to objectively define what is "good?"
The answer is no. Or at best, none of the smartest ethicists who have ever lived have been able to even scratch the surface of that one.

You're proposition

I am not.

[...] is that we can't ever know what's good because it's subjective, that everyone should be able to judge for themselves and no one else should have any say. To me that's debatable, I'm sure you agree many people act against their own interests, and the interests of everyone out of ignorance, selfishness, pressure. To say they're just as "correct" with their definition of good is nonsense. For the majority of things we can objectively determine what's best overall, within a defined set of criteria.

Re bold: no, that's not my position. We're knees deep in this discussion, all having our say.

I feel you're edging over the line of morality and into the realm of jurisprudence.
The question of what is right or what is best or what is good is one thing.
Questions about "what justification is there for the greater society to override an individual's freedom?" seem a step beyond where we've been, but a logical direction to move in.

However, to not say they're just as correct is the real nonsense, IMO. Just because your opinion is popular doesn't mean it's right. Murderers have different opinions about what is right than the rest of us... does that make them wrong because they're in the minority?

Is that all it takes to prop up your definition of what's correct? Popularity?
Was Naziism correct at the time... because it was popular, at least in some small region of the world?

I'm not convinced that we're any good at all at collectively determining what's best overall. In fact, I think you have to actively ignore a wealth of data to draw that conclusion. Humans mistreat other humans every day all the time. That's ubiquitously popular. Does that make it morally right?

Do bacteria and viruses have the same emotional and physical responses to well-being and suffering as humans? We don't know (yet) but if they did, yes they should have the same "rights".

No. We do know. These organic life forms are far too tiny - too chemically simple - to have a nervous system or a complex set of responses that could give rise to emergent consciousness.
They're just too tiny - far too few dynamic parts, molecules, to give rise to complex behavior.
Stuff many orders of magnitude bigger doesn't even have enough going on to give rise to emotional responses, like insects.

Probably poopadoop could say this in a more convincing manner... or tell me I've got it wrong.

Look, you're the one who said,
"We'd of course would been to start with defining what the framework is supposed to describe, such as something like 'maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering of all organic life on earth'"

I answered as though you'd said "humans" instead of "all organic life on Earth," but then clarified - I don't think you were saying that viruses and bacteria deserve moral rights, but you DID say that, so I didn't want to leave your actual statement unresponded to.

Apart from how we see things and how we should determine enacted social policies, I dunno, maybe it wouldn't?

OK. So you're speculating that the missing factor from having a provable moral statement is a definitive understanding of the value of human life, but you're not sure exactly what the ramifications of that definition would be.

I really respect that kind of thinking. It states an open question and implies an avenue of exploration.

Well we already have that. I'm just suggesting it could be better.

Lol.. but what do you mean by "better?" Better for whom?

I'm not saying that there is no point to having laws and jurisprudence, BTW. We're kind of a step below that stuff. I lose my footing fast and easy when we get up to that level. Personally, I don't see that society has a moral right to impose a morality on any individual. However, what is moral for a society is clearly at odds with what is moral for individuals. So we have bigger problems. Even if we could define what's best for societies, it will not be what's best for all members of the society. If we could define what's best for all individuals, that would not be best for the greater society. So there's definitely a gray area of compromise where we have to balance in which cases which system should rule.

[Poopadoop]

Why the insistence on assigning dollar figures? No one is after a life-money converter, we're talking about a moral framework. There are practical situations where there's a need to assign some value on life, but like you said we're already doing it now. That's a specific rather fringe use case, not a foundation to everything.

I thought your aim was to determine all the variables and have a formula you could plug them into to get a dollar figure per life out of.

If you actually want to devise a moral framework, then I've lost the thread of the discussion, sorry.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I thought your aim was to determine all the variables and have a formula you could plug them into to get a dollar figure per life out of.

That's what I thought he was saying, too.

[CoccoBill]

Me, neither. It's not the nature of this category of questions to have provable statements.
If it was, then morality would be a science, and we would have a testable system to solve moral dilemmas.

I don't think defining "good" is impossible either, though we would probably end up with several, all maybe requiring their own models.

Think science as in economics or sociology, not as in physics. I don't see why not. Is it easy? Hell no. Can we "solve" it now? No. Is there something so inherently incalculable about human behavior and feelings that it cannot be modeled? I don't think so. Our brains achieve it, I don't see why computers/algorithms at some point could not.

Is there any conceivable way to objectively define what is "good?"
The answer is no. Or at best, none of the smartest ethicists who have ever lived have been able to even scratch the surface of that one.

I'm with the latter. I already gave one (which is obviously not my original idea) which sucks balls, but is -1/12 better than not having one.

I feel you're edging over the line of morality and into the realm of jurisprudence.
The question of what is right or what is best or what is good is one thing.
Questions about "what justification is there for the greater society to override an individual's freedom?" seem a step beyond where we've been, but a logical direction to move in.

You're absolutely right. Jurisprudence would be just one key application for such a framework, probably the most relevant one.

However, to not say they're just as correct is the real nonsense, IMO. Just because your opinion is popular doesn't mean it's right. Murderers have different opinions about what is right than the rest of us... does that make them wrong because they're in the minority?

I don't think any of it should be based on personal opinions, but on objective societal outcomes. We've just been drawn into those, because all discussed examples have hinged on them. I think we can all agree that if option A creates $100 wealth for 1 person, and option B creates $1000 for 1000 people, we don't need to do an in-depth survey about people's feelings about it. We'd need to model all outcomes based on their economic, societal, health, environmental etc factors, and weigh them independently. That'd be a MASSIVE ordeal, and would create centuries worth of debate and fine-tuning, but I don't see any physical barriers to doing it.

I'm not convinced that we're any good at all at collectively determining what's best overall. In fact, I think you have to actively ignore a wealth of data to draw that conclusion. Humans mistreat other humans every day all the time. That's ubiquitously popular. Does that make it morally right?

These are exactly the reason we need such a framework, and why I think moral relativism is bullshit. On individual level we're lolbad at morals, even if we have pure motives.

No. We do know. These organic life forms are far too tiny - too chemically simple - to have a nervous system or a complex set of responses that could give rise to emergent consciousness.
They're just too tiny - far too few dynamic parts, molecules, to give rise to complex behavior.
Stuff many orders of magnitude bigger doesn't even have enough going on to give rise to emotional responses, like insects.

Less interviews to do then!

I answered as though you'd said "humans" instead of "all organic life on Earth," but then clarified - I don't think you were saying that viruses and bacteria deserve moral rights, but you DID say that, so I didn't want to leave your actual statement unresponded to.

Yes, my understanding is that viruses and bacteria are far too simple to have any kinds of experiences, viruses arguably aren't even alive. I didn't say they should have moral rights, just didn't say they don't to not get sidetracked, and well we don't really know that 100% I suppose. If it turns out they have feelings, I'll promise to be kinder to them.

OK. So you're speculating that the missing factor from having a provable moral statement is a definitive understanding of the value of human life, but you're not sure exactly what the ramifications of that definition would be.

Well, sort of. Understanding the value of human life is just one aspect of it needed for certain things. Most of it would be assigning values to more everyday stuff, and use them to implement more sensible policies, like being able to assign fair and proportional penalties for different crimes.

Lol.. but what do you mean by "better?" Better for whom?

Eeeeverybody, although, individualism vs collectivism shouldn't be either-or, they should be weighed against each other. How? No clue, but it should be done.

I'm not saying that there is no point to having laws and jurisprudence, BTW. We're kind of a step below that stuff. I lose my footing fast and easy when we get up to that level. Personally, I don't see that society has a moral right to impose a morality on any individual. However, what is moral for a society is clearly at odds with what is moral for individuals. So we have bigger problems. Even if we could define what's best for societies, it will not be what's best for all members of the society. If we could define what's best for all individuals, that would not be best for the greater society. So there's definitely a gray area of compromise where we have to balance in which cases which system should rule.

Yeah the role of government and defining what it should or shouldn't do is another discussion, but if we could soft-scientifically define the legislation, I think it'd be a massive step forward from the current arbitrary, corrupt and outdated processes.

[CoccoBill]

I thought your aim was to determine all the variables and have a formula you could plug them into to get a dollar figure per life out of.

If you actually want to devise a moral framework, then I've lost the thread of the discussion, sorry.

That's what I thought he was saying, too.

Dudes wtf, goddamit. I said, or at least meant, that there's no reason why morals couldn't be defined objectively. I'm bored but not that bored.

[Poopadoop]

Would you agree for example, that the range of reactions of people losing a loved one is more severe then them losing $10? If you do, would you also agree, that for some, not all, the range of reactions might be more severe for losing everything they have? If you do, we have a tangible piece of information about how some people value life. We can keep adding examples (a lot smarter and more efficient ones) and keep getting more data that can be applied to solve problems, step by step getting to closer and closer approximations of The Truth[tm].

...is this not trying to find an equation where life = dollars x something?

[CoccoBill]

...is this not trying to find an equation where life = dollars x something?

Not really, it's trying to demonstrate it could be done in principle, since you asked. If the value in some cases equals infinity, that's perfectly fine.

[Poopadoop]

If the value in some cases equals infinity, the whole model breaks.

fyp


Anyways, I don't want to belabor the point. We both have our own views on it, and so whatever.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't think defining "good" is impossible either, though we would probably end up with several, all maybe requiring their own models.

Ding ding ding.

Think science as in economics or sociology, not as in physics.

I mean science as in, "The category of questions which have measurable answers."

I don't see why not. Is it easy? Hell no. Can we "solve" it now? No. Is there something so inherently incalculable about human behavior and feelings that it cannot be modeled? I don't think so. Our brains achieve it, I don't see why computers/algorithms at some point could not.

I do think so. I don't think our brains achieve it.
I think there's a wealth of evidence that suggest a majority of our conscious thought is us justifying decisions we've already made subconsciously. I.e. we decide what we decide subconsciously, and then AFTERWARD we consciously apply a moral framework which justifies that decision.
I.e. we actively constantly lie to ourselves about our moral capacity.

I'm with the latter. I already gave one (which is obviously not my original idea) which sucks balls,

But not really. You prevaricated and hand-waved and said it'll take several different definitions of good.
Which is exactly where we are now.

but is -1/12 better than not having one.

Ooooh La La!
You wanna make out, later?
Or now?

You're absolutely right. Jurisprudence would be just one key application for such a framework, probably the most relevant one.

Which I can't even wrap my head around. Call it a personal flaw. I can't get past individual freedom, even when we're talking murderers. I get the strong feels to say, get them away from me, I don't want to get murdered... or anyone else to get murdered, either, I guess. But that's not a moral foundation. Popularity is not a moral foundation.
Utilitarianism feels like a good place to turn, but again... it's all based on feelings... not objective... fickle.

I don't think any of it should be based on personal opinions, but on objective societal outcomes.

But it's your opinion that we shouldn't base this on opinions.
You see the endless circular thinking we have when trying to find an ethical foundation?

These are exactly the reason we need such a framework, and why I think moral relativism is bullshit. On individual level we're lolbad at morals, even if we have pure motives.

These are the reasons I think morality is a made-up idea to control other people to act according to our opinions.

"You know what will make the world better? If you're all a lot more like me."
-every ethicist

Less interviews to do then!

Hah!

Well, sort of. Understanding the value of human life is just one aspect of it needed for certain things. Most of it would be assigning values to more everyday stuff, and use them to implement more sensible policies, like being able to assign fair and proportional penalties for different crimes.

But you're presupposing that it is moral to assign penalties for crimes.
When a child disobeys, is it about a penalty, or about a lesson?

When you were a child, did penalties motivate you? Or did compassion and leadership (through good parenting)?

Eeeeverybody, although, individualism vs collectivism shouldn't be either-or, they should be weighed against each other. How? No clue, but it should be done.

There's no way to appeal to both the criminals and the victims of criminal behavior.
They have different value systems, and that is a fundamentally human set of circumstances.

Yeah the role of government and defining what it should or shouldn't do is another discussion, but if we could soft-scientifically define the legislation, I think it'd be a massive step forward from the current arbitrary, corrupt and outdated processes.

I'd vote unicorns for Congress, if only a unicorn would run.

[boost]

That's a weak argument, and I'm not taking the bait.

You could argue that by hoarding now, she wont have to leave later when social distancing is really needed.
Then we're back to the assertion that it's not her moral right to act in her best interests as she sees fit.
Again... it's TP.

If you want to change the topic to ventilators or something with immediate life and death consequences, then my opinions change.
So long as we're talking about some people hoarding TP, which is in fact in plentiful supply, then I really don't care what people do.

Publicly shaming someone over such trivialities is probably not what's best for society as a whole, IMO.
That ends us living in a world where it's illegal to have a no pants party, and no one wants that world.

Nope. 20 families could have sheltered in place for weeks with that amount of TP. That amount of TP simply doesn't match up with any timeframe given related to the virus.

Did you answer your own question, there?

Yep

Anyways, I think you have a hang up on individual freedoms. We currently have a balance between individualism and collectivism, and generally everyone is happy with it. Yet when the idea that the balance may be wrongly favoring individualism too much, everyone acts as if the proposed increase in collectivism is evil, ignoring that they are perfectly happy with the collectivism currently in place.

Another way to look at it is to take individual freedoms to the extreme. Game it out and watch the world crumble. As with most everything, it's a balancing act. It plays out as individualism vs collectivism, but the real game is finding the sweet spot on the spectrum.

[CoccoBill]

Drinking, so can't be arsed to wall-o-text, sorry. :/

Subconscious activity is still activity in the brain, right? And I don't see a (big) problem with there possibly having to be several definitions of good, as long as they can be modeled. It's all still solvable. None of what we've been discussing have been originally excavated from dino bones, all of these are human constructs. Good and bad, right and wrong, morality, life, emotions, money. Clearly any study into those wouldn't be physics or chemistry, but rather some mathematical models, statistics and psychology.

And I didn't say crimes need to be penalized, but whether they do or not shouldn't be based on a whim, but models and data.

[Poopadoop]

https://twitter.com/TheBeaverton/sta...13763372232707

[boost]

That's a weak argument, and I'm not taking the bait.

You could argue that by hoarding now, she wont have to leave later when social distancing is really needed.
Then we're back to the assertion that it's not her moral right to act in her best interests as she sees fit.
Again... it's TP.

It's not a weak argument, but I think you haven't actually grasped it. There is enough TP to go around, there just isn't enough at the point of retail for everyone to hoard it. It's a quirk of the supply chain. So each time a shopper strikes out and goes to another store in search, that's an added trip. She's potentially causing 20 added trips, by avoiding maybe two or three trips tops.

Further, social distancing is really needed yesterday, not tomorrow or the next day. The earlier you social distance, the flatter the curve. At a certain point (hopefully far from where we are), social distancing actually doesn't work at all, because there are too many infected, and therefore too many vectors of transmission. At that point, our minimum level of social activity is enough for the virus to rip through the population.

If you want to change the topic to ventilators or something with immediate life and death consequences, then my opinions change.
So long as we're talking about some people hoarding TP, which is in fact in plentiful supply, then I really don't care what people do.

It's not in plentiful supply at the point of sale. So when it's hoarded, well, see above. Also, "immediate life and death consequences" is a very strange stipulation. Knowingly being infected and walking around coughing on people doesn't have immediate life and death consequences. The difference here is that she could be completely ignorant of the mechanics, and so shaming helps to dissuade her and/or others from committing to this anti social behavior.

Publicly shaming someone over such trivialities is probably not what's best for society as a whole, IMO.
That ends us living in a world where it's illegal to have a no pants party, and no one wants that world.

It's not trivial. It's causing increased spread of the virus. Spring breakers should be shamed too. There's nothing trivial about it.

[Poopadoop]

It's not trivial. It's causing increased spread of the virus.

Yeah I don't get the argument that it's trivial. Like Boost said, if she causes a bunch of other people to go around searching for tp, she's contributing to the spread.

Spring breakers should be shamed too.

Yup. I've seen people on twitter comparing their strategies for making it look like they're doing 'essential' shopping, like by adding some staple foods to their basket full of snacks and mix for booze. Is that really worth risking everyone's lives for? Have some fucking self-control, cunts.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I say immediate consequences because all you have against the hoarding of TP is hand-waving and speculation.
If all you have to go on is your guesswork and what "sounds good," then that's great and all.

It's just that, for me, the justification of infringing on someone's rights needs to meet a higher standard than that.

[Poopadoop]

So wtf is going on with Biden right now anyways? Why is he going all Hillary by avoiding a camera at all costs? Did the Dems not learn their lesson last time?

[boost]

I say immediate consequences because all you have against the hoarding of TP is hand-waving and speculation.
If all you have to go on is your guesswork and what "sounds good," then that's great and all.

It's just that, for me, the justification of infringing on someone's rights needs to meet a higher standard than that.

I think you can get workable models from much more guessy guesswork, but fine, this seems like a reasonable enough place to shrug this one off.

[CoccoBill]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ecurity-160901

[CoccoBill]

https://twitter.com/lenkiefer/status...449784832?s=20

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/lenkiefer/status...449784832?s=20

Tremendous numbers! Huge!

But don't worry, this guy is on the job:

[Poopadoop]

He looks like he's about to cry.


"The president wanted to make sure we had the best people doing the best jobs...."

Gee, where have we heard that before?


"...demands that all the recommendations we make be based on data..."

Which president are we talking about here?

[Poopadoop]

Trump is using the federal stockpile to reward 'good' behaviour by the governors who suck up to him. What a little, little man he is.

[CoccoBill]

How old is Jared? He sounds like he's 16.

[Poopadoop]

https://twitter.com/JustinAHorwitz/s...20593387798534

[oskar]

He has like 10 people around him all day trying to home school him on this shit and he still doesn't get it:

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1...355328512?s=20

[CoccoBill]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...coronavirus-c/

[Poopadoop]

Only the best people.



Meanwhile, looks like Fauci is on his way out.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Lists credentials of everyone... Has nothing to say about Ivanka or Jared.

[Poopadoop]

...and not a single economist or public health expert. But hey, as long as you have Jarvanka, why do you need competent people?

[Poopadoop]

6.00: "Lab in Wuhan was point of concern for State Dept. two years ago." But two months ago, Trump was saying he trusted the WHO and Xi totally.

7.45: "This is COVID-19, not COVID-1. You'd think the WHO would be on top of that."

[Poopadoop]

Meanwhile in MAGA country, people fight for their right to spread COVID 19

[Poopadoop]

Well, this should knock some sense into those protesters!

[Poopadoop]

The people have spoken.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1251564861257113602

[Poopadoop]

What's the over-under on days until Fauci gets fired?

Next question: What's the odds he's replaced by Jared and/or Ivanka?

[oskar]

The brilliant thing about this is that they have been so brainfucked that what they mean by liberation is going back to work. Freedom is being a wage slave.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I miss my job so much. I'm going stir crazy. I looked at a photo of my office yesterday and felt a little homesick.

[jackvance]

I'm just WFH. Have been quite busy this week actually. The only annoyance is the over-abundance of my wife and kids but what to do right.

[Poopadoop]

Am I hallucinating or did Trump just suggest injecting bleach into the body to treat CV?

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/AndyOstroy/statu...284122626?s=20
The reaction shot is amazing.

Yes, buddy, there are a lot of ways to remove the virus from a body. That's never the hard part. I love that he's so stupid that he actually thinks he's helping. In his mind scientists are sitting in front of the TV furiously taking notes.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Am I hallucinating or did Trump just suggest injecting bleach into the body to treat CV?

Not exactly*, but he did say something about getting sunlight inside your body, I think.

*In a shocking turn of events, he was asking a question at the time.

[oskar]

Not exactly*, but he did say something about getting sunlight inside your body, I think.

flashlight?

[MadMojoMonkey]

If it has output in the UV range, I guess. Pretty sure that's what he was talking about.

[oskar]

[OngBonga]

I don't think he knows what he's talking about. The questions he was asking would be perfectly legitimate for someone who is stupid when it comes to medical matters to ask a doctor in private. If it were leaked he quietly asked medical experts if it was possible to safely inject disinfectant, I wouldn't consider that newsworthy, but to make such comments in a public address watched by hundreds of millions, it's really hard to believe anyone is this idiotic.

[Poopadoop]

Maybe, but his ratings are through the roof!

[Poopadoop]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1253553753506091008

[Poopadoop]

Gotcha again Fauci!

[OngBonga]

Hahahaha Toilet Duck is top trending in the UK.

Not sure if that product is available elsewhere, but if it's not, it's a bog cleaner in a sort-of duck-shaped bottle designed to get under the rim of the toilet.

[boost]

I don't think he knows what he's talking about. The questions he was asking would be perfectly legitimate for someone who is stupid when it comes to medical matters to ask a doctor in private. If it were leaked he quietly asked medical experts if it was possible to safely inject disinfectant, I wouldn't consider that newsworthy, but to make such comments in a public address watched by hundreds of millions, it's really hard to believe anyone is this idiotic.

Yeah, sure, but idk, shouldn't we wait for an inquiry before we pass judgement? Surely he's well intentioned..

[OngBonga]

Are you suggesting that perhaps his medical advisers told him injecting disinfectant was a potential cure?

[Poopadoop]

I think he's suggesting Trump wasn't intelligent enough to grasp what they were telling him, or what it meant. But, I'm sure an inquiry will be needed before we can know for sure. Even still, as long as it was an honest misunderstanding, he's good to go as POTUS.

[OngBonga]

My point was that boost's sarcasm was misplaced. We're not talking about poor decision making here, we're talking about saying dangerous things that nobody could have possibly advised him to say.

[OngBonga]

I mean boost's comment is just gleeful opportunism. He knows it's a poor comparison, but he couldn't stop himself from having a dig.

Of course, that applies to you too poop for your follow up.

[Poopadoop]

Oh I get it. Poor decision making that costs thousandss of lives is ok as long as it's well-intentioned, but saying something really dumb on TV is dangerous.

[OngBonga]

You're on another planet if you think you have a point here. I can only assume you're just running with this to amuse yourself.

[OngBonga]

I mean to emphasise how ridiculous this is, you seem to be suggesting that we'd need an inquiry to determine if the comment he made about disinfectant was something he might have been advised to say, or that there is merit to his comments, just because I argued that an inquiry is the correct forum for accountability when it comes to policy.

[Poopadoop]

No, I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry. It's entirely possible that CDC guy told him they were going to test injecting disinfectant and inserting UV light up people's asses. We don't have all the facts. That's what an inquiry is for.

[OngBonga]

No, I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump...

Please make this your signature.

[wufwugy]

That was pretty fucking dumb.