COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 549

starting strength gym
Page 549 of 1026 FirstFirst ... 49449499539547548549550551559599649 ... LastLast
Results 5,481 to 5,490 of 10259

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #5481
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    903

    Default

    • wichita falls texas february 2021 seminar
    • starting strength seminar april 2021
    • starting strength seminar february 2021
    Quote Originally Posted by NoGodsNoSpotters View Post
    I'm arguing that masks are a common sense precaution against respiratory disease, and preferable to economically costly measures. See point 2: "It's not exactly rocket science to figure out why a mask would help protect yourself and others against coronavirus. Covid-19 is a respiratory disease that you catch by breathing shit in, and spread by breathing shit out. You don't need to cite any scientific studies to figure out that putting a filter in front of the thing you use to breath will help reduce the chances of both, even if that filter is imperfect, and in any event, certainly can do no physical harm. At worst, a mask does nothing, but common sense indicates that they would help." Nothing at all to do with the government.



    1. Telling people not to wear masks was a transparent ploy to save limited supplies for frontline medical professionals. Right or wrong (and I heavily lean towards wrong in this case, due to the total erosion of public trust this kind of inconsistent messaging creates), this was the intention behind the action. Seems like there's probably a reason medical professionals want to wear them, and common sense reasoning backs up why they would have some beneficial effect.

    2. Government vacillation based on fear mongering and political polarization has lead to an inconsistent implementation of response strategies. Whether or not you believe it was worth the economic costs, some countries have had success with lockdowns in terms of case numbers, because they implemented them effectively for that purpose. We implemented them ineffectively, and got the worst of both worlds, high case numbers and economic disaster. We are now in the position of having to deal with that reality. Whatever strategy is taken, the absolute worst thing a response can be is inconsistent, because this renders it ineffective in achieving any of its goals, and leaves us only with the costs.

    3. I don't personally fear the physical effects of Covid. What I do fear is that another spike in cases will create more hysteria and lead to another lockdown when vacillating politicians again cave to public pressure. In the interest of preventing this from happening, I believe it is in our best interests to keep case numbers as low as possible, via taking such precautions as do not cause economic harm, which includes mask wearing. I'd much rather be able to go to work and the gym in a mask than be stuck at home with my life on hold again.

    4. This has nothing to do with the government telling me to do this, I simply believe it's the smarter move given the circumstances. Refusing to wear masks because the government told you to do it is just as stupid as wearing a mask because the government told you to do. I don't need to involve the government's recommendation at all to come to my own conclusions. I do not care about ideology in this issue, I care about the tangible effects this will have on peoples' lives.

    I am having this discussion because I see a lot of people lumping masks in with the rest of the government's inconsistent response, and using it as a political symbol in response to this. This is misguided, and will lead to yet more inconsistency in the public response to the issue, which as we've already seen, leads to the worst of both worlds in results. I have a vested interest in trying to get people to agree with my view on this, because the results of their compounded actions will ultimately have an effect on me.
    And condoms are a common sense precaution against the spread of AIDS and other STDs. Would you like the government mandating that you wear a condom every time you want to head down to pound town? Or would you like to assess that risk yourself and make your own decisions like an adult?

    You fail to realize that the issue is the mandating of masks and not the masks themselves. The government, the CDC, the whoever has decided that Thou Shalt, and society as a whole has caved and complied out of fear and ignorance. It has cost people their jobs, their hobbies, their livelihoods. All for “the greater good”.

    And your only argument - the premise of which you have simply repeated here instead of addressing my point - is that we should comply simply because “the cost” isn’t significant enough, at least to you. Your point only makes sense in a logical cost/benefit analysis when the value your place on freedom as a benefit is finite, which is shameful.

    Those uncomfortable with going into the public should stay home, those willing to do so while wearing a mask should be allowed to do so as well, and those who find a mask useless shouldn’t have to wear one to appease the two former parties. But the social stigma that has been created now places the onus squarely on the third party above, and unfortunately now that stigma won’t subside until we are “allowed” to do so by that same They.

  2. #5482
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    44,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    It's been glaringly obvious to everybody who was willing to ask the question. But society is being remodeled into obedient conformists who dare not ask the question. The Mask is their symbol.
    But this, however, gives me hope: Ratings Crash for NBA, MLB After Protest-Filled Debuts

  3. #5483
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    This is surprising, to me, a bit. I've been watching the Rays... All 10 games, but I know a good friend who has disavowed MLB. He also disavowed NFL as well a few years back.

  4. #5484
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Schexnayder View Post
    And condoms are a common sense precaution against the spread of AIDS and other STDs. Would you like the government mandating that you wear a condom every time you want to head down to pound town? Or would you like to assess that risk yourself and make your own decisions like an adult?

    You fail to realize that the issue is the mandating of masks and not the masks themselves. The government, the CDC, the whoever has decided that Thou Shalt, and society as a whole has caved and complied out of fear and ignorance. It has cost people their jobs, their hobbies, their livelihoods. All for “the greater good”.

    And your only argument - the premise of which you have simply repeated here instead of addressing my point - is that we should comply simply because “the cost” isn’t significant enough, at least to you. Your point only makes sense in a logical cost/benefit analysis when the value your place on freedom as a benefit is finite, which is shameful.

    Those uncomfortable with going into the public should stay home, those willing to do so while wearing a mask should be allowed to do so as well, and those who find a mask useless shouldn’t have to wear one to appease the two former parties. But the social stigma that has been created now places the onus squarely on the third party above, and unfortunately now that stigma won’t subside until we are “allowed” to do so by that same They.
    I like this response a lot. One thing I would add, is imagine a government requiring condoms even when virologists KNOW they are nominally effective at best at preventing the spread of HIV.

    And before the mouth-breathers pounce, it’s an analogy. Yes, condoms are extremely effective at preventing HIV transmission.

    But they sure as hell don’t make condoms out of cloth.

  5. #5485
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    2,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jovan Dragisic View Post
    I completely agree with this. The same problem affects the entire world, not just the US. Though the US does seem to have some of the most exquisitely corrupt bastards running the show.
    I think there's a lot more shock value in the corruption in the US because it goes so contrary to the loudly stated ideals here, but the corruption in other places is at least as bad. Nothing happens in Italy without a bribe according to what I've heard and the UK has some serious scumbaggary in their Parliament.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Laureys View Post
    As I said before, I have realized with age that removing the land-ownership requirement for voting may have been a grave mistake.
    Skin in the game and aptitude should be prerequisites for voting, but I still prefer the original idea of us voting for our state leadership and them voting for the federal leadership. I think it makes actual accountability more feasible on a bunch of levels and more importantly puts the focus and scrutiny at the state and local level. We can't, and shouldn't focus on that much politics as private citizens.

    As it is now, I doubt most people know jack shit about their local candidates and barely anything more about their state candidates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Satch12879 View Post
    Reflects the population how? In terms of catering to the innate desire for free, seemingly high quality things? Or the actual demographics?
    It reflects the general population's desire to get "free" shit at their neighbor's expense, the neglect of civic/community duty, and general lack of character, etc..

    Quote Originally Posted by Satch12879 View Post
    Sociopaths make up about 3-5 percent of the population; however, even casually, the government at all levels reflects a much higher value. This seems to be an inherent structural feature of the modern democratic state. The cult of personality as it were.
    Certainly the fact that we pick government leaders the same way we pick prom king and queen attracts a certain kind of person and the exceptions tend to be weeded out by the process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Satch12879 View Post
    But, it’s always “we need better people.” This becomes, “we need the right people.” Ultimately ending up as “we need our people.”

    I don’t think any more “people” is the answer.
    Didn't say we needed more people and I was pretty clear that the people in office, while generally scumbags, are not the sum of the problem. The majority of all people range from benign to shit...and most of the benign people will function perfectly well as useful idiots if they are in the midst of a crowd where the momentum is pushing them towards being shit.

    That said. I'll take my people every time. They are better. That's why I choose them.

    If we had more noble people outside of office their would be some actual worthwhile protests happening over the Covid tyranny. But they are few and scattered, so there's just a lot of angry people on social media instead.

  6. #5486
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by George Christiansen View Post
    It amazes me that so many people cannot see that corporatism and unionism are two heads of the same monster: corrupt business in bed with corrupt government. And they tend to be unable to be able to see that the corrupt government is the bigger problem. No matter how corrupt a business owner may be, it cannot force a just government to do it's bidding whereas the opposite is not the case.

    What we are seeing now, which has always been the case to some degree or another, but which new technology has facilitated in a way previously impossible, is that the corruptness of the general population now has the power to operate as the multinational corporation has for years to get their will enforced by power. Everyone is a fucking lobbyist now. The average schmo realized that he can leverage these devils to legally cheat his neighbor. So the citizen bribes the politician with votes and the politicians bribe the voters with special favors.

    The problem with the US Government is that it reflects the population fairly well.

    The only proof you need is it's existence.

    While there are certainly systematic changes that need to be made, the crisis is moral. We need better people. There's a severe shortage. The current happenings are just revealing that.
    You're absolutely right. Frederic Bastiat, a French legislator (among other things), wrote about this very thing and the socialists in his 1850 pamphlet The Law. The discouraging thing is he was fighting the same issues 170 years ago. On the positive side, we have his wisdom and rebuttals at our finger tips. Just a few nuggets:

    ...Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter—by peaceful or revolutionary means—into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

    Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws!

    Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. [8] Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

    It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution—some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding...

    ...No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of [9] equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them...

    ...But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

    Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case—is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

  7. #5487
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    819

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haghstull View Post
    The american labour movement, which epitomized everything good and noble about western culture/western moral philosophy, faded from relevance shortly afterwards.
    I wouldn't hold up the labor movement like that. There was some really nasty stuff going on that prompted its start, but when labor unions gained power, they were corrupted shortly afterward. Organized crime got heavily involved, among other things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Laureys View Post
    As I said before, I have realized with age that removing the land-ownership requirement for voting may have been a grave mistake.
    I wonder about that one sometimes, but I think if it stayed they would've found some way to fuck us all out of voting by forcing us to live only as renters.

  8. #5488
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    I guess it's time to define Capitalism.



    I know that you people define socialism as the common ownership of the means of production. That would seem to include my gym, if you regard me as a producer. If not, you don't understand "production."



    No. You are merely a lazy bastard, like most other people. Or perhaps you're a Frenchman?



    You may find that you were missing some important things, like Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook, all of which had their start as entrepreneurialism and who subsequently succumbed to the allure of power.



    Absolutely not. Do you think me a millionaire, sir? Born to money? My family operated a very small cafe, but a damned good one. The hours were long, and if daddy didn't get up and go to work, lots of people didn't eat, unlike your union boys. How about yours?



    Nothing. I voted against Hillary, not for Trump. But I'll be voting for him this time, because he's done more for "working class Americans" -- the kind of people who do business with us, than any president in history. His failure recently has been trust in the wrong people, and a failure to follow his gut the past 5 months.



    Must have been your spelling. Please accept my most sincere apologies, and the Frenchman confusion.
    Define capitalism? Alright: the absence of government involvement in resource allocation.

    21st century socialists are not advocating for the nationalization of small or medium enterprises. It is only the elephantine transnational corps that must be made accountable to Us if western civilization is to survive. The “allure of power” that you seem to think has seduced the formerly wholesome, virtuous zuckerberg and Bezos is a bigger problem than you apparently believe.

    I am not surprised you were not born into money, but what point exactly are you making about your family’s café? If it didn’t open for the day, people didn’t eat? Like… they didn’t eat at a different restaurant, or cook something they bought at the store, they just didn’t eat?? Goodness, gracious. A damned good café, indeed!

    My father was a professor of sociology in an era when that meant something very, very different than it does today. We were never hungry, if that’s what you’re asking. Were you just curious, or is there another reason you requested this information?

    Quote Originally Posted by coldfire View Post
    A sentimental fool indeed. You are fine with people losing their jobs, as long as you can feel a little better about yourself.
    I would be very happy to reply to you if you can manage to say something coherent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark E. Hurling View Post
    One has to say, this is leftist trolling developed to a fine edge. It is a perfect example of an Alice through the looking glass reverse projection in it's assertion of "right-wing" and "theocrats" having wreaked this havoc on the populace. Would anyone of sound mind characterize Cuomo or the others, as either right wing OR theocrats?
    Heh. Glad someone finally snapped up that bit of bait. Everyone else was frustratingly disciplined, Hurling

    Cuomo is not REALLY a theocrat... except to the extent that he believes an “invisible hand” distributes resources perfectly according to deservingness. Don’t delude yourself: there is NOTHING secular about this idea.

    He absolutely is right-wing, however, this is beyond dispute. I thought this article did a decent job explaining why the DSA/antifa left despises him: Governor 1 Percent - Vox

    (If you have read my posts you know that I’m not a part of that crowd, but in this case I share important concerns with them).

    In all seriousness though, Hurling, you are my favorite character on these boards based on the few dozen pages of this thread that I’ve read. I like commitment to drawing historical parallels and your writing style. Carry on.

  9. #5489
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    44,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haghstull View Post
    Define capitalism? Alright: the absence of government involvement in resource allocation.

    21st century socialists are not advocating for the nationalization of small or medium enterprises. It is only the elephantine transnational corps that must be made accountable to Us if western civilization is to survive. The “allure of power” that you seem to think has seduced the formerly wholesome, virtuous zuckerberg and Bezos is a bigger problem than you apparently believe.
    And I guess they are made accountable by The Government. Why is that whenever you people define a problem, it's always The Government that gets to fix it? You'd rather The Government run things than Bezos? The same government who employs the men with guns? I'll take Bezos, because he can't shoot me just yet.

    I am not surprised you were not born into money, but what point exactly are you making about your family’s café? If it didn’t open for the day, people didn’t eat? Like… they didn’t eat at a different restaurant, or cook something they bought at the store, they just didn’t eat?? Goodness, gracious. A damned good café, indeed!
    No, you fool. WE didn't eat, along with lots of people in the neighborhood who had no where else to go and no time to cook before they had to go to work.

    My father was a professor of sociology in an era when that meant something very, very different than it does today. We were never hungry, if that’s what you’re asking. Were you just curious, or is there another reason you requested this information?
    Most socialists come from either money or comfort, and very few from small cafes, so I was just wondering. You didn't disappoint!

    Cuomo is not REALLY a theocrat... except to the extent that he believes an “invisible hand” distributes resources perfectly according to deservingness. Don’t delude yourself: there is NOTHING secular about this idea.

    He absolutely is right-wing, however, this is beyond dispute.
    Oh my god. I guess we need to define right-wing.

  10. #5490
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    86

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Very interesting remarks!

    Yes, Mark, they must be made accountable by the government. This is because the government should be controlled by democracy, which is one of the pillars of western civilization. At present, of course, the Bezos' control the government, as evidenced by the grossly unpopular 2017 corporate tax cuts that you have managed to persuade yourself were good for ordinary people. Since Pelosi fought as hard for these as Trump did, can I hear you go on the record to praise her heroic efforts to expand the federal budget deficit for the sake of giving money to transnational corporations?

    If affluence leads to socialist views, then why do you think support for socialist policies increase in times of economic desperation?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •