CORONAVIRUS PANIC WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I do not know enough about the facts of the matter to have a meaningful opinion.

---

I don't think you need to understand the full nuances of a situation to have a meaningful opinion. I don't know all the ins and outs of the events leading up to The Opium War for example, but I'm still against things like that happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

The separations are a result of the Trump administration "policy to prosecute all adults crossing the border illegally."

"Generally, a child and an adult who arrive together at the border can be separated when border officials cannot establish the custodial relationship; when they believe the custodian may be a threat to the child; or when the custodian is being detained for prosecution."

Does this sound reasonable to you?

---

The policy to prosecute all adults does not, no. If only adults were trying to cross, it might. But if following that policy leads to the situation we have now, then it doesn't at all work for me.


As for the rest, there's a bit of a disconnect in language between ''prosecute all adults' , which requires detaining them all afaik, and the rest, which include valid reasons they might have for separating the kids for their own good (can't determine custodial relationship, adult is threat to child), which then sounds like an excuse they can use because they go on to add 'when the custodian is being detained.'

The overall implication is that, if the adults are being detained for prosecution every time, they're going to be separated from the children every time, whether they're the legal parents of those children or an evil monster child sex trafficker. The insinuation that they are somehow being humanitarian by separating all families because some adults are bad people who mistreat children is purely sugar-coating the true purpose of their policy imo.

As for an alternative, is there a good reason in your opinion not to detain all families together? I'm not talking about putting them up in a nice new house, just keeping them in the same barracks or tent or whatever where they can sit out their time together, then all be deported together. What do you think is being accomplished by separating families in this context?

You still haven't answered my question, btw.

Would you put children in cages to fight illegal immigration?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

As for an alternative, is there a good reason in your opinion not to detain all families together? I'm not talking about putting them up in a nice new house, just keeping them in the same barracks or tent or whatever where they can sit out their time together, then all be deported together. What do you think is being accomplished by separating families in this context?

---

I could see how this would make finding out the truth of whether or not the adults have enslaved the children much harder. But really, I have no idea what the actual process at the border is, so I can't say what goes on.

However, if I'm in charge of finding out if the kids are being raped and trafficked, you can bet your sweet ass I will separate them from the possible rapists.

Perhaps the problem is that we even allow for this situation to exist in the first place. Perhaps the most humanitarian thing we can do is make border security so robust that there's nobody to detain because nobody is illegally entering US jurisdiction in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Would you put children in cages to fight illegal immigration?

---

I believe I have now. Please let me know if I haven't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I could see how this would make finding out the truth of whether or not the adults have enslaved the children much harder. But really, I have no idea what the actual process at the border is, so I can't say what goes on.

However, if I'm in charge of finding out if the kids are being raped and trafficked, you can bet your sweet ass I will separate them from the possible rapists.

---

So what if, upon capture of an adult-child combination of people, you separate them briefly and ask the children 'are you being raped and trafficked, or mistreated in any way by the people who brought you here?' and if they say 'yes', then you go on with the separation. And if they say 'no, those are my parents', you say 'are you sure? we'll protect you.' , and the kid still insists 'those are my parents' (or aunt or uncle or whatever), then you put them back together. The whole thing could be done in 15 minutes, and would almost certainly reduce separations to < 1%.

It's another question what you then do with the separated children, but the above seems a pretty sensible first step to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Perhaps the problem is that we even allow for this situation to exist in the first place. Perhaps the most humanitarian thing we can do is make border security so robust that there's nobody to detain because nobody is illegally entering US jurisdiction in the first place.

---

Perhaps, but that would also be the responsibility of the federal government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

So what if, upon capture of an adult-child combination of people, you separate them briefly and ask the children 'are you being raped and trafficked, or mistreated in any way by the people who brought you here?' and if they say 'yes', then you go on with the separation. And if they say 'no, those are my parents', you say 'are you sure? we'll protect you.' , and the kid still insists 'those are my parents' (or aunt or uncle or whatever), then you put them back together. The whole thing could be done in 15 minutes, and would almost certainly reduce separations to < 1%.

---

If law enforcement specialists in this area advised me that would work, I'd probably agree with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I believe I have now. Please let me know if I haven't.

---

Well, not really. You've danced around it pretty well, but nowhere have you clearly said 'yes I would put kids in cages but only under these circumstances' (and then expressed what those circumstances would be) or 'no, I would never do that under any circumstances'.

I'm not going to try to fill in those blanks on your behalf because I don't want to misunderstand your position; so be as explicit as you can please in your answer.

There are many cases in which I would separate kids from adults crossing the borders. I do not know if the current reasons are justified because, like everybody else, I have no clue what is actually going on down there and I do not know what the most relevant specialists would advise.

All I really *know* is what my selected form of media has implanted as my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I don't know all the ins and outs of the events leading up to The Opium War for example, but I'm still against things like that happening.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgQahGsYokU

IDK, man. It's pretty straight up child abuse to take a 9-year old from their parents, and put them in a place with no adults, no structure, no activities. That's assuming you're meeting all their basic needs for shelter, clothing, food, hygiene, etc.

The real shitter about that whole mess was the separation of suspected illegal border crossers, which was just open door for racism and prejudice to make the decisions.

I'm not saying the powers above wanted racism, but when you have the boots on the ground trying to decide who "looks American" and "talks American" in the blink of an eye, even you and I are definitely going to have a lot more doubt for someone who doesn't sound like a TV show. It doesn't mean we were being racist... it's just that we're in a hurry and easy decisions are easy, and not easy decisions get put aside for someone with more time to sort it out.

It's just... really hard for me to see that as anything but common sense, and that's what makes it hard to not think that the policy was intended to target and hurt brown people. But then, our current administration doesn't care who it hurts, so it's probably not racism.

FFS, Trump has bragged in a recent press conference about not providing as much aid to NY because their governor isn't kissing his ass.
It's not beneath him to allow people to suffer to make a point, whether those people are brown or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

IDK, man. It's pretty straight up child abuse to take a 9-year old from their parents, and put them in a place with no adults, no structure, no activities. That's assuming you're meeting all their basic needs for shelter, clothing, food, hygiene, etc.

The real shitter about that whole mess was the separation of suspected illegal border crossers, which was just open door for racism and prejudice to make the decisions.

I'm not saying the powers above wanted racism, but when you have the boots on the ground trying to decide who "looks American" and "talks American" in the blink of an eye, even you and I are definitely going to have a lot more doubt for someone who doesn't sound like a TV show. It doesn't mean we were being racist... it's just that we're in a hurry and easy decisions are easy, and not easy decisions get put aside for someone with more time to sort it out.

It's just... really hard for me to see that as anything but common sense, and that's what makes it hard to not think that the policy was intended to target and hurt brown people. But then, our current administration doesn't care who it hurts, so it's probably not racism.

FFS, Trump has bragged in a recent press conference about not providing as much aid to NY because their governor isn't kissing his ass.
It's not beneath him to allow people to suffer to make a point, whether those people are brown or not.

---

I'm tempted to troll you and ask how it is you're able to make such moral stands-- but then in saying I'm tempted to, I guess I kinda am...

But really, I concur 100%. Claiming that mass separation of families crossing the boarder is in the interest of the children, without supporting evidence is a blatant retcon to justify the administration's pandering to a xenophobic/law and order/"they're stealing our jobs" segment of its base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

I'm tempted to troll you and ask how it is you're able to make such moral stands-- but then in saying I'm tempted to, I guess I kinda am...

But really, I concur 100%. Claiming that mass separation of families crossing the boarder is in the interest of the children, without supporting evidence is a blatant retcon to justify the administration's pandering to a xenophobic/law and order/"they're stealing our jobs" segment of its base.

---

I'm down with that. I would like to see evidence of what range is thought to be rapists and sex traffickers.

What do you think about this:

A lot of common ground could be found if conservatives (for lack of a better term) admitted they could be more compassionate towards illegal border crossers, and if liberals (for lack of a better term) admitted that the law is being flagrantly broken.

My first guess as to why those important ackowledgements aren't being made is because conservatives don't prioritize compassion when laws are broken, and liberals don't prioritize upholding the law when people hurt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I'm down with that. I would like to see evidence of what range is thought to be rapists and sex traffickers.

What do you think about this:

A lot of common ground could be found if conservatives (for lack of a better term) admitted they could be more compassionate towards illegal border crossers, and if liberals (for lack of a better term) admitted that the law is being flagrantly broken.

My first guess as to why those important ackowledgements aren't being made is because conservatives don't prioritize compassion when laws are broken, and liberals don't prioritize upholding the law when people hurt.

---

Typo?

I'd argue that rigid adherence to the law is a far worse sin.

Trust me, I cringe every time I hear some upper middle class Oberlin liberal arts grad cry "no person is illegal!" But by and large people opposed to the way families are being handled at the boarder fully understand that laws are being broken, but see the way the laws are being enforced as unacceptable. In other words, they agree that laws should generally be enforced, but they think the law must either be unjust or it's being needlessly enforced in an unjust way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Typo?

---

I meant it.

Quote:

---

I'd argue that rigid adherence to the law is a far worse sin.

---

Sometimes it is.

A society that always adheres to the law rigidly would be a dreadful one to live in. But so would one that discards law because an instance of adherence causes some suffering. As I know you know, there needs to be a balance. Society needs both.


Generally speaking, conservatism upholds the law because it's a system known to work. Reality is uncertain enough that it is a virtue to stick to standards even when uncertain. But because those standards are never perfect and they can cause undue suffering, liberalism challenges them.

I'm half of each.

People in the country illegally, by and large, do not get here illegally. They enter legally, and overstay their visas.

The notion that the illegal border crossings represent the main, or primary source of illegal immigrants is untrue.
It's the ones getting past all the border security legally that are the real problem (and not a majority of them, just to be clear).

If the problem that needs to be solved is the presence of illegal immigrants in the USA, then spending money on border control is pissing in the sea. The money needs to be spent on finding the illegals that are already here, not trying to stifle the trickle of desperate people sneaking across the border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

I'm tempted to troll you and ask how it is you're able to make such moral stands-- but then in saying I'm tempted to, I guess I kinda am...

---

It's Utilitarianism.

If all I have to go on is the feels, that's the one for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

There are many cases in which I would separate kids from adults crossing the borders. I do not know if the current reasons are justified because, like everybody else, I have no clue what is actually going on down there and I do not know what the most relevant specialists would advise.

---

You're doing a really good job of not answering the question in any but the vaguest terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

All I really *know* is what my selected form of media has implanted as my opinion.

---

Your opinion of what's happening or your opinion of the proper treatment of children? Presumably, if you're pissed off by the idea of children being separated from parents, you had that moral stance before you heard it was happening at the border - the media didn't implant that opinion in your head.

The gov'ts stated policy seems pretty clear - separate them all. No-one in the Trump organisation has denied that is what is happening afaik.

Separating the children from the parents at the border isn't a problem, it's necessary for a state to do. Failing to take sufficient care of the children certainly is a problem.

Keeping children in "cages", well the use of the word seems to be an appeal to emotion. The back of a police care is a cage. If children are literally being housed in the kind of structures a guard dog lives in, then anyone with any sense of morality should have a problem with that.

Clarify what we're talking about when we talk of a "cage" please.

I'm sure you've seen the photos before, but in case you haven't:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...e-cage/563072/

Meanwhile, China's master plan to promote themselves by causing a global pandemic is working.

https://twitter.com/ChinaEmbOttawa/s...97763508768769

The "cage" bit isn't really what I have a problem with. The lack of proper beds and nutritious food is more of an issue for me, assuming this article is honest. The fact they're in a secure environment is not a bad thing. They need to be both detained and protected.

The state of care for the children is important, and from this report it's not exactly stellar. But it's only half of the issue. The other half is the separation of young children from their parents for extended periods of time.

Obviously, if they are going to detain the parents, they can't just set the children loose. The question is whether or not they need to separate the one from the other as a matter of course. I still haven't seen a good argument why they need to do this by default. Other countries have to detain and deport illegal immigrants as well. None of the civilized ones use that as a reason to separate families afaik.

Do you know how many of them are families?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

People in the country illegally, by and large, do not get here illegally. They enter legally, and overstay their visas.

The notion that the illegal border crossings represent the main, or primary source of illegal immigrants is untrue.
It's the ones getting past all the border security legally that are the real problem (and not a majority of them, just to be clear).

If the problem that needs to be solved is the presence of illegal immigrants in the USA, then spending money on border control is pissing in the sea. The money needs to be spent on finding the illegals that are already here, not trying to stifle the trickle of desperate people sneaking across the border.

---

That's also a big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

You're doing a really good job of not answering the question in any but the vaguest terms.

---

There are a thousand reasons why it could be a good idea to separate children from people who claim to be their parents but you don't have proof AND you do have evidence that some of them are instead raping them and sex trafficking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

There are a thousand reasons why it could be a good idea to separate children from people who claim to be their parents but you don't have proof AND you do have evidence that some of them are instead raping them and sex trafficking.

---

Of course there are. But they're not separating families only when there's a suspicion of abuse. They're separating them all as a matter of policy.

Here's where a lot of people have a problem. Many people would feel that separating all children from adults is not an appropriate response to some small percentage of the adults being bad people doing bad things.


And, given it makes no sense to abuse the vast majority of children to protect a small minority of them, I think we need to try to consider the real purpose behind this policy. My best guess is that it's to deter illegal immigration so as to look "tough" for Trump's base, who they've whipped into a fear frenzy by propagandizing them into thinking illegal immigration is some kind of fundamental threat to the country.

Basically, the administration has decided that they're willing to commit crimes against children so as to impress the people they've fooled into believing that they are protecting them from some hideous menace. And, the whole 'we're protecting some children from some bad hombres' argument is just a sop, because that's not the main purpose of the policy but simply a convenient side effect.

What percentage of the adults need to be raping the children for default separation to be wise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

What percentage of the adults need to be raping the children for default separation to be wise?

---

I didn't anticipate this question being asked when I started a coronavirus thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

What percentage of the adults need to be raping the children for default separation to be wise?

---

I think the question is ill-posed, because it ignores the obvious lines of investigation that can determiine, with some reasonable degree of certainty, who is and who isn't a victim of child abuse.

That's what most places do with their own citizens, treat suspicions of abuse on case-by-case basis. I have never heard the argument that if more than X% of parents in a society are abusive, all parents should be separated from their children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

lines of investigation that can determiine, with some reasonable degree of certainty, who is and who isn't a victim of child abuse.

---

If so, then we should do that.

I know zero percent of the details, so I can't give an opinion on what's going on at the border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I didn't anticipate this question being asked when I started a coronavirus thread.

---

LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I know zero percent of the details, so I can't give an opinion on what's going on at the border.

---

If they're applying their stated policy that you quoted from Politco, then they're separating everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

If they're applying their stated policy that you quoted from Politco, then they're separating everyone.

---

Everyone that they can't determine parentage. Though in practice that may mean everyone.

There are many reasons that this could be the best course of action given the constraints. I don't know, in part because I don't know the constraints. I don't know what is funded and what's not. I don't know what the variety of different relevant specialists say works and to what probability. I don't know what the many different relevant laws.

What I do know is that opinion-generating media says kids in cages and shows some pictures.

Politifact.

I try to avoid Politico on account of it reading like Chinese Communist Party talking points.

I wonder what's going on with hydroxychloroquine.

The theories are going everywhere.

Our grocery order will not arrive until Thursday.
The items available were severely limited. I.e. no salted butter. No fresh meats.

We're trying to find milk and butter to last until Thursday, but not sure if there's any in the city to find.

Wow dude, no milk? That's rough.

If it's any consolation we went through a couple of weeks here where the choice of food was somewhat limited too. It's gotten better now where I am at least; the other day I was able to find pretty much everything I wanted, even tp was on the shelves again.

https://i.imgur.com/kdXHNyg.png

The arsonist in me loves the shit out of this.

I haven't ventured out for a week to do shopping, that's coming soon. There might be a run on the supermarkets tomorrow, Universal Credit is paid.

Ah, it's funny how when you only know 1 thing, it seems like everything is probably like that.

Turns out the shortage on those food stocks is not present in the smaller, more local grocers in my area. Maybe it's just the delivery service that's swamping the big chains.

Also found out that the delivery service is going on strike tomorrow, so the Thursday delivery date is pure speculation, and also not due to limited supplies.

I have what I need now.

The Charmin is getting low, but I have other TP.


Things are OK.
It was nice to take a short walk. People are all pretty aware and small, distant queues formed up and dispersed randomly when I was at the grocer. They had tape marks on the ground near the checkout to show where 6' behind is.

https://twitter.com/morten/status/1244383712319594497

There's the hint that his administration believes something illegal may have happened with the masks.

Would be cool if we had investigative journalists that could look into it, rather than opinion-creators

I really think they should look into that. I mean what if a hospital gets too many surgical masks! Then what? Where they going to store them? And if they don't use them, they might have to ship them to another hospital that needs them! Imagine the logistics! What if they prepare for 100,000 cases, but then there are only 50,000? I mean you have to budget these things!
I guess except when you inject $500 billion into Wall Street in sacrifice to the Big Red Line, but goddammit if one jew-run NY hospital get a single surplus mask, so help us god...

It's important that your reality pandemic TV show has high ratings, and that you congratulate yourself about it on twitter! Good job, Mr. President!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...20570315018240

And how about all those right-wing pundits who are asking old people to drink the Kool Aid so the economy can get back to humming along nicely. How about a big round of applause for them too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I really think they should look into that. I mean what if a hospital gets too many surgical masks! Then what? Where they going to store them? And if they don't use them, they might have to ship them to another hospital that needs them! Imagine the logistics! What if they prepare for 100,000 cases, but then there are only 50,000? I mean you have to budget these things!
I guess except when you inject $500 billion into Wall Street in sacrifice to the Big Red Line, but goddammit if one jew-run NY hospital get a single surplus mask, so help us god...

---

To be fair though, those garbage bags they've been wearing look pretty safe to me.

Where is Jeebus when you need him?

https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/stat...66234226917376

https://i.imgur.com/LgYtbmH.jpg

Attachment 1183

poop when he's trying to post images

https://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerf...ine=1572864350

haha yeah well UI isnt exactly intuitive...

Just double-check the URL you're going to share is to an actually viewable image of about the appropriate size.

Do this by right clicking the image you want to share, and "copy image location."
Then paste into the URL on a new tab.
See what it pulls up. If it's what you wanted, then in FTR:

Click the "insert image" button in the text box helper tools and paste the URL in there.

OR just type [img] tags around the URL when you paste it into your post.

I would post a pic saying 'cheers mate' but still can't figure it out.

If I try to copy-paste a URL it tells me 'invalid file'.

If I upload from my PC it works but the pic is small.

Damned kids with your newfangled computers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

What I do know is that opinion-generating media says kids in cages and shows some pictures.

---

In this instance you're strawmanning Poop. While he did use that phrase multiple times, and surely that animates him to some degree, his overriding point is clearly that default separation of children from parents is bad.

Also your "I really just don't know, I don't have the facts, I'm just asking questions!" ruse is tired. There is no evidence of widespread rape. On the flip side, we know that children who have been isolated from those they've traveled with have credibly alleged sexual abuse, by both guards as well as other detainees. It's a probabilistic certainty that, at scale, you'll end up with sexual abuse of these children in these conditions without adequate advocacy. So even without the credible allegations of sexual assault, and not to mention the non sexual assault trauma the detained children suffer, you're left arguing that there's less child rape under this policy and that combined with the increased suffering of those who were not being raped/trafficked is preferable to the alternative.

I don't discount that this is a tough issue with no clear easy solutions. But we're supposed to be #1. We're supposed to be the riches nation on earth. If the policy is default separation, fine, so be it, the children should be treated to the equivalent of what we'd find acceptable if we were to send our own children to a boarding school. They should have regular visitation with their adult co-travelers insomuch as there's no evidence of anything untoward. If the treatment of this children is not on par with what you would expect for your own children given the circumstances, then it is unacceptable. We are better than maybe sort of rising to the bar of bare minimum with regards to the treatment of children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

It's Utilitarianism.

If all I have to go on is the feels, that's the one for me.

---

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I would post a pic saying 'cheers mate' but still can't figure it out.

If I try to copy-paste a URL it tells me 'invalid file'.

If I upload from my PC it works but the pic is small.

Damned kids with your newfangled computers.

---

What tells you that?
*tries to recreate error message*
*Guesses at your boomer numbskullery*


Don't paste the URL into Google. Paste it into your browser's URL field.
Somewhere on your screen right now, it says something like
https://www.flopturnriver.com

When you open a new tab to verify your image is what you think it is, that's where you'll paste the URL you copied.

I don't know what you mean about pasting a URL sorry.

I go on the computer talks to the world thing, enter a few words in the looking bar, then pictures come up. I click my button thing on one of them and it takes me to a website with that picture and a bunch of text around it. If I only want to post the picture, how do I make the picture go up on FTR?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...ZgoTE&usqp=CAU

@poopadoop

Click this link or I will cry

lmao

Ah, copy image location is the key

https://pics.me.me/whos-awesome-your...n-52100245.png

YOU DID IT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

lmao

---

https://i.imgflip.com/1vzm4s.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

YOU DID IT!

---

yeah i'm going to be on this for a few days

Here we go!

https://i.imgflip.com/3u4m49.jpg

Here's a picture of my dog.

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUSpggSW...pg&name=medium[/img]


Ok, I'll stop now.

Edit: Ah fuck. Wait, I got this.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUSpggSW...pg&name=medium

This has gotta be the way to go.

https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/...66715251515395

Well done poop, well done.

You don't even need to copy the URL location, you can literally copy/paste an image like it's text. Right click on image, select "copy", then paste into chat box. Easy as it gets.

Um, it's a virus. The clue is in the name 'coronavirus.'

https://twitter.com/gifdsports/statu...69936314159104

Who's a good boy?
Poopadoop's dog is a good boy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

There is no evidence of widespread rape.

---

I've heard there is (a lot). I wonder if there is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I've heard there is (a lot). I wonder if there is.

---

You would think the good folks in the Trump Administration would clearly and unequivocally point this out, present their evidence, and be championed as the child rape battling heroes they are.

But I can even grant you this point, which you have asserted, but not made-- and the issue of the detained children's treatment still doesn't pass the sniff test.

Your bouts of convenient agnosticism make me question your sincerity. It's an interesting trick in that the effort expended deploying it is greatly overshadowed by the effort needed to combat it, but it also sinks your credibility with anyone who's half awake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

You would think the good folks in the Trump Administration would clearly and unequivocally point this out, present their evidence, and be championed as the child rape battling heroes they are.

---

I recall seeing the administration make that case many times, and it get buried.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I recall seeing the administration make that case many times, and it get buried.

---

I've heard them toss that out there as a justification. "Make a case" implies they have collected and presented evidence, which I would be grateful to be pointed towards. But since you ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

have no clue what is actually going on down there

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

know zero percent of the details, so I can't give an opinion on what's going on at the border.

---

but yet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I've heard there is

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

(a lot)

---

and

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

All I really *know* is what my selected form of media has implanted as my opinion.

---

....


It kinda sounds like you're just willing to take their word for it without actually seeing the evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Who's a good boy?
Poopadoop's dog is a good boy!

---

His name is Chili.

Never met a person he didn't think was awesome.

Dogs are great.

That picture is on the "too big" side of things, just as a rule of thumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Dogs are great.

---

I concur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

That picture is on the "too big" side of things, just as a rule of thumb.

---

https://media.makeameme.org/created/...ad750056c7.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I've heard them toss that out there as a justification. "Make a case" implies they have collected and presented evidence, which I would be grateful to be pointed towards. But since you ...

---

The Doctors Without Borders and Amnesty International cited cases for high sexual abuse rates are deeply flawed. It appears nobody knows how much bad behavior is really going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

The Doctors Without Borders and Amnesty International cited cases for high sexual abuse rates are deeply flawed. It appears nobody knows how much bad behavior is really going on.

---

By 'flawed' do you mean exaggerated? So DWB and AI are both saying the reports are lies?

And by 'nobody knows' well, yeah, nobody knows the exact truth about anything. But we can use some common sense rather than just accept what the gov't tells us, especially when it's clear what they're saying is both a) questionable on the face of it; and b) conveniently suits their purpose.

Finally, we can ask for evidence for arguments about child abuse being used to justify a different form of child abuse, and be suspicious when that evidence either isn't forthcoming or is disputed by disinterested third parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

By 'flawed' do you mean exaggerated? So DWB and AI are both saying the reports are lies?

---

DWB and AI have conducted studies that found very high rates of sexual abuse. But those studies are very flawed. The Administration cited the DWB one. It appears to be a decent study but not comprehensive by any stretch of the imagination.

It seems we would need much more research to know what's going on.

Not sure if you're still trying to defend Trump, or just obfuscating things.

https://www.doctorswithoutborders.or...entral-america

The numbers they cite are high, but relate to how many people fleeing other C. American countries and entering Mexico report being abused, not how many are themselves abusers. Presumably the abused are more likely to flee than the abusers. Just seems like common sense.

DWB criticize Trump et al. for citing their report in a misleading way as justifyig their behaviour at the border:

Quote:

---

It is illogical to invoke a humanitarian crisis but not to offer a single humanitarian solution. Walls and punitive policies increase risks for an already vulnerable population, and will only make a regional crisis worse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

It seems we would need much more research to know what's going on.

---

I wonder who would be in a position to carry out that research? They'd need to have access to, and the authority to interview, people caught illegally crossing the border. Hmm, who oh who would be able to do it?

And if someone were in a position to get to the bottom of things and come up with some hard facts, it would seem criminal to enact a policy of forced separation without first colllecting the appropriate data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Not sure if you're still trying to defend Trump, or just obfuscating things.

---

Neither, man.

Trying to think clearly about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

forced separation

---

Your idea that it would be better to question the children alone for a few minutes might be viable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Your idea that it would be better to question the children alone for a few minutes might be viable.

---

Thank you.

I thought Republicans were all about "family values."
I though Americans were all about "family values."

I am baffled that anyone can see a fence-walled structure with children, knowing those children will be there for days on end, and then spend mental effort thinking of reasons that is appropriate or even necessary.

EVEN IF the children need to be separated from their parents due to abuse, that is no justification to treat children like dogs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

EVEN IF the children need to be separated from their parents due to abuse, that is no justification to treat children like dogs.

---

You're totally right.

Do you know of a source that discusses the conditions and policy that doesn't have a track record of getting most things wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Thank you.

---

No prob, dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Do you know of a source that discusses the conditions and policy that doesn't have a track record of getting most things wrong?

---

Not that I recall. It's been a while.

Not sure what you expect with that qualifier on the end.
:lol:

For real.

I don't understand Virginia's shutdown until June 10th. Anybody have any ideas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I don't understand Virginia's shutdown until June 10th. Anybody have any ideas?

---

If you haven't heard, there's a pandemic going on.
The death rates are already astounding. There are mass graves in Italy and Spain.

The US federal response is effectively nothing, and that means the pandemic is going to take longer to manage, and the math models that look realistic to me suggest we're looking at at least 50% of the population getting CV under the most optimistic models (that seem realistic to me).

Just to get a sense of some of the curves we're looking at, and the parameters that matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxAaO2rsdIs


Keep in mind that those models that include adequate testing and quarantine facilities, equipment and staff, are not realistic models for our current situation.

That means that our primary tools to combat this are social distancing and personal hygiene.
Focus on those models and notice that getting a long-term exposure rate below 50% is pretty unlikely.

Notice how "flattening the curve" doesn't shorten the pandemic or lessen it... it lengthens the pandemic by slowing the spread so that healthcare facilities can not be so overwhelmed. We don't know how tall that red line has to go before the gray line represents more and more deaths due to the overloaded system - deaths that could have been recoveries - but we do know that if it gets too high... mass graves are the result.

Hospitals in the US are already having to order refrigerator trucks because they don't have room in their morgues for all the bodies.


June may be optimistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

If you haven't heard, there's a pandemic going on.
The death rates are already astounding. There are mass graves in Italy and Spain.

The US federal response is effectively nothing, and that means the pandemic is going to take longer to manage, and the math models that look realistic to me suggest we're looking at at least 50% of the population getting CV under the most optimistic models (that seem realistic to me).

Just to get a sense of some of the curves we're looking at, and the parameters that matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxAaO2rsdIs


Keep in mind that those models that include adequate testing and quarantine facilities, equipment and staff, are not realistic models for our current situation.

That means that our primary tools to combat this are social distancing and personal hygiene.
Focus on those models and notice that getting a long-term exposure rate below 50% is pretty unlikely.

Notice how "flattening the curve" doesn't shorten the pandemic or lessen it... it lengthens the pandemic by slowing the spread so that healthcare facilities can not be so overwhelmed. We don't know how tall that red line has to go before the gray line represents more and more deaths due to the overloaded system - deaths that could have been recoveries - but we do know that if it gets too high... mass graves are the result.

Hospitals in the US are already having to order refrigerator trucks because they don't have room in their morgues for all the bodies.


June may be optimistic.

---

Yeah, I haven't seen a reasonable person explain how we're back to some sort of normalcy without a vaccine or effective antiviral treatment, and I haven't seen predictions for either of those landing in the next 3 months.

They are talking about six months of shutdown here.

I guess Easter is off the table then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I don't understand Virginia's shutdown until June 10th. Anybody have any ideas?

---

I don't understand why this isn't nationwide.
I think it comes down to me being incredibly ignorant when it comes to authoritarianism. It seems that there is a political capital to be gained by denying this is happening. Trump has underplayed this every step of the way from saying it's a hoax, to saying this will be over in the next "very short period of time", to saying the churches will be packed by easter. As a result the projection now is 100k deaths as the most positive outcome... but he hasn't lost politically because of it. On the contrary: he has gained popularity.
So to an astonishing number of people this is a strong look. This might go to the core of how authoritarianism works and why it is historically tends to be short-lived.

Some things to ponder.

1. Herd immunity isn't an option
2. The only way to go back to normalcy is an effective vaccine or medication
3. Vaccine is probably a year away
4. When the vaccine is available, we still need to produce enough of it for 7 billion people, and vaccinate 7 billion people

There is likely no "normalcy" for 18-24 months.

Now imagine the possibility that there's never an effective vaccine.

Germany has a plan to introduce mass testing (don't know how soon, but presumably before the thing would die out naturally, or mass vac. becomes a thing, otherwise there's no reason to have such a plan). The idea is something like you get a certificate if you test clean, and be allowed to go out as normal. Anyone caught out and about without a proper cert. will be in big scheisse.

I think this can work, or some variation of it: e.g., Everyone self-tests once/week. If you're +ive, stay inside and lock the doors; if you're -ive, go on about your life. You have some app you log onto to monitor tests/symptoms, and if you don't log in every week you get chased up on. I believe they have a similar thing re: symptoms in S. Korea.

Here it is:

https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/...66715251515395

Edit: By "test clean" I mean have antibodies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

The US federal response is effectively nothing,

---

The UK is basically a shitshow too right now. You can't get tested unless you're sick enough to go to hospital.

The gov't keeps promising more tests but not delivering. Their latest claim (debunked) is that there's a shortage of chemicals to make the tests with. Uh, yeah, even if it were true, then maybe you could have thought of that 3 months ago? Meanwhile Germany is showing Europe how it's done, testing > 500k already (from what I've read).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Some things to ponder.

1. Herd immunity isn't an option
2. The only way to go back to normalcy is an effective vaccine or medication
3. Vaccine is probably a year away
4. When the vaccine is available, we still need to produce enough of it for 7 billion people, and vaccinate 7 billion people

There is likely no "normalcy" for 18-24 months.

Now imagine the possibility that there's never an effective vaccine.

---

There is currently no evidence which suggests you can catch CV more than once.

If that's true, then a vaccine is only valuable to people who have not yet been infected.

The other avenue to normalcy is when the disease has either infected 100% of the population or has been eradicated before reaching 100% of the population.
Note the latter is what "usually" happens with a new pandemic. One reason SARS was not this bad is because it presented symptoms early and was "easy" to quarantine infected people from the uninfected. Effective testing and quarantining is the number 1 best way to end a pandemic before it reaches 100% coverage.