And Texas Caves In

ExxWhy wrote:
What conditions have I changed to suit my argument? Simple question for you. Does the current situation with the economy largely shut down cost lives or not?

The fallacy in your comment is that there is no direct link between saving one life and ruining another. Is somebody going to tap the loser on the shoulder with the news? Stuff happens.

ExxWhy wrote:
Does the current situation with the economy largely shut down cost lives or not?

And if we don't isolate, since there is no effective treatment or vaccine on the horizon, does that cost lives? I refer you to New York, with about 10,000 deaths.

What conditions have I changed to suit my argument? Simple question for you. Does the current situation with the economy largely shut down cost lives or not?

ExxWhy wrote:

way2roll wrote:

2012Coleman wrote:

DallasSteve wrote:

jfkmk wrote:
Well over 300,000 cases with almost 12,000 deaths in the US, and you think Texas is wrong for trying to protect people who are too stupid to take common sense precautions on their own?

Stupid are the people who jumped on the "stay at home" bandwagon without thinking about the secondary effects of their plan. There is going to be huge unemployment from this and some people will turn to alcohol and other drugs and some will die. But you don't care about them. You will trade their lives for the 1% who might die from this virus. And you think you are compassionate.

I dumped all my booze down the drain, and threw out my pain meds - so I'm good.

Dallas Steve - Just so I am clear, you advocate not slowing the spread of the virus which will by your own admission kill people , to save people prone to alcohol and drug abuse from themselves? You do know we have social programs at work like unemployment, loan suspension, etc right?

If you gave me the choice between saving an 80 yr old with a 1 yr life expectancy vs saving some random 45 yr old from financial ruin, alcoholism, destruction of his household with a major impact on his children and all the future problems that results in, then yes I will say sorry old guy. You can say we have social programs for that, They are an attempt at a bandaid on the wound with limited success. Why not prevent it to begin with?

The problem I have with the shut it down as long as the virus exists crowd is that they all fail to realize and admit that it really IS a choice between lives. We ARE picking winners and losers, those who live and those who die.

You do a really good job of narrowing the conditions to suit your argument. That's not reality though.

way2roll wrote:

2012Coleman wrote:

DallasSteve wrote:

jfkmk wrote:
Well over 300,000 cases with almost 12,000 deaths in the US, and you think Texas is wrong for trying to protect people who are too stupid to take common sense precautions on their own?

Stupid are the people who jumped on the "stay at home" bandwagon without thinking about the secondary effects of their plan. There is going to be huge unemployment from this and some people will turn to alcohol and other drugs and some will die. But you don't care about them. You will trade their lives for the 1% who might die from this virus. And you think you are compassionate.

I dumped all my booze down the drain, and threw out my pain meds - so I'm good.

Dallas Steve - Just so I am clear, you advocate not slowing the spread of the virus which will by your own admission kill people , to save people prone to alcohol and drug abuse from themselves? You do know we have social programs at work like unemployment, loan suspension, etc right?

If you gave me the choice between saving an 80 yr old with a 1 yr life expectancy vs saving some random 45 yr old from financial ruin, alcoholism, destruction of his household with a major impact on his children and all the future problems that results in, then yes I will say sorry old guy. You can say we have social programs for that, They are an attempt at a bandaid on the wound with limited success. Why not prevent it to begin with?

The problem I have with the shut it down as long as the virus exists crowd is that they all fail to realize and admit that it really IS a choice between lives. We ARE picking winners and losers, those who live and those who die.

Actually good judgement without experience is just a guess

2012Coleman wrote:

DallasSteve wrote:

jfkmk wrote:
Well over 300,000 cases with almost 12,000 deaths in the US, and you think Texas is wrong for trying to protect people who are too stupid to take common sense precautions on their own?

Stupid are the people who jumped on the "stay at home" bandwagon without thinking about the secondary effects of their plan. There is going to be huge unemployment from this and some people will turn to alcohol and other drugs and some will die. But you don't care about them. You will trade their lives for the 1% who might die from this virus. And you think you are compassionate.

I dumped all my booze down the drain, and threw out my pain meds - so I'm good.

Dallas Steve - Just so I am clear, you advocate not slowing the spread of the virus which will by your own admission kill people , to save people prone to alcohol and drug abuse from themselves? You do know we have social programs at work like unemployment, loan suspension, etc right?

I am turning in my Social Security card. It is easy to see who "They" are targeting.

DallasSteve wrote:

jfkmk wrote:
Well over 300,000 cases with almost 12,000 deaths in the US, and you think Texas is wrong for trying to protect people who are too stupid to take common sense precautions on their own?

Stupid are the people who jumped on the "stay at home" bandwagon without thinking about the secondary effects of their plan. There is going to be huge unemployment from this and some people will turn to alcohol and other drugs and some will die. But you don't care about them. You will trade their lives for the 1% who might die from this virus. And you think you are compassionate.

I dumped all my booze down the drain, and threw out my pain meds - so I'm good.

T18skyguy wrote:

shelbyfv wrote:
What's up with Venezuela, have they bombed us or something? I've seen several mentions recently, why are we concerned with them?

Venezuela used to be a prosperous country with a Democracy. A quote "The decline in oil prices, the massive social spending of the Chavez and Maduro governments, US sanctions, and a combination of economic mismanagement and corruption at the top have contributed to economic collapse." OK, back to our regularly scheduled program.

Unfortunately it is all re-runs. :B