Coronavirus Craziness

[commonsense]

All Henry is saying is that you should rely on hand hygiene and social distancing and not wait for the government to provide protection against the virus.

It bears repeating because it does say more.

In a philosophical forum, do you think it's necessary to continually repeat the same phrase over and over (which he did 4-5 pages ago) to everything that someone says? It's lazy! He repeats what he says because that's how small and patterned his thinking is, and he seems to fancy himself as the voice of reason regardless of other views. There's no need to repeat that over and over.

You do realize that this is the Lounge, don’t you?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

meh

[Lacewing]

You do realize that this is the Lounge, don’t you?

What difference does that make? Are original and evolving thoughts not expected here?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You do realize that this is the Lounge, don’t you?

What difference does that make? Are original and evolving thoughts not expected here?

Not some attention-seeking phony who is bored and trying to pick a fight?

[Lacewing]

You do realize that this is the Lounge, don’t you?

What difference does that make? Are original and evolving thoughts not expected here?

Not some attention-seeking phony who is bored and trying to pick a fight?

Are you talking about yourself? Because that is a perfect description of you...and only you would know whether you're a phony or not.

[henry quirk]

You do realize that this is the Lounge, don’t you?

What difference does that make? Are original and evolving thoughts not expected here?

please: share your original and evolving thoughts on carona virus

[henry quirk]

meh

indeed

[Lacewing]

You do realize that this is the Lounge, don’t you?

What difference does that make? Are original and evolving thoughts not expected here?

please: share your original and evolving thoughts on carona virus

At the moment, I'm inspired to point out the absurdities already here for a good laugh. But yes, I do have some new views about the virus this morning, based on communication I've been receiving from multiple people, and I will likely post that later today or tomorrow when I feel like switching to that channel. It's just hard to resist responding to you and Veg and all the self-entitled noise you make sometimes. Your views are limited, but you talk as if you've got it all figured out. Just comically foolish, that's all.

[henry quirk]

lookin' forward to it!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

That's what I'm sayin', that's it exactly.

Was I unclear up-thread?

But isn't chaos and 'jungle law' what you have always hankered after? Ironically 'no control' inevitably becomes 'total control'.

I crave minarchy, not anarchy; what carona may be used for is not workin' toward minimal governance but to encourage anarchy which is the pretext to enact tyranny.

There is no such word and there is a good reason for that. It's a contradiction. An absurdity. You want a govt. but a govt. that only has power over the things that 'you' want it to. When you have a govt, ANY govt, you are giving them power over you. They make the laws. You could have referendums but you don't like that either, because people might vote for things 'you' don't like. This is why your utopia always comes across as bog standard anarchy.

[commonsense]

But isn't chaos and 'jungle law' what you have always hankered after? Ironically 'no control' inevitably becomes 'total control'.

I crave minarchy, not anarchy; what carona may be used for is not workin' toward minimal governance but to encourage anarchy which is the pretext to enact tyranny.

There is no such word and there is a good reason for that. It's a contradiction. An absurdity. You want a govt. but a govt. that only has power over the things that 'you' want it to. When you have a govt, ANY govt, you are giving them power over you. They make the laws. You could have referendums but you don't like that either, because people might vote for things 'you' don't like. This is why your utopia always comes across as bog standard anarchy.

Before attempting to characterize Henry according to his wants and likes, you should re-evaluate other posts that you’ve read about what Henry feels is good government. I am sure that either you or I have misread his thoughts on government. And I am sure it is you. Henry will have to settle this.

However, I would say that Henry favors a government with limited services such as fire, police and military. As I read what he writes, I’d say that Henry favors having only a law that in essence prohibits interfering in any way with another person’s life or possessions.

I am not surprised that Henry has coined the word ‘minarchy’ to stand for minimal rule or something similar.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I crave minarchy, not anarchy; what carona may be used for is not workin' toward minimal governance but to encourage anarchy which is the pretext to enact tyranny.

There is no such word and there is a good reason for that. It's a contradiction. An absurdity. You want a govt. but a govt. that only has power over the things that 'you' want it to. When you have a govt, ANY govt, you are giving them power over you. They make the laws. You could have referendums but you don't like that either, because people might vote for things 'you' don't like. This is why your utopia always comes across as bog standard anarchy.

Before attempting to characterize Henry according to his wants and likes, you should re-evaluate other posts that you’ve read about what Henry feels is good government. I am sure that either you or I have misread his thoughts on government. And I am sure it is you. Henry will have to settle this.

However, I would say that Henry favors a government with limited services such as fire, police and military. As I read what he writes, I’d say that Henry favors having only a law that in essence prohibits interfering in any way with another person’s life or possessions.

I am not surprised that Henry has coined the word ‘minarchy’ to stand for minimal rule or something similar.

I know what he says. And I know what he meant by 'minarchy' (clever as it is). Control of the military and police is hardly what you would call 'limited' power

[commonsense]

There is no such word and there is a good reason for that. It's a contradiction. An absurdity. You want a govt. but a govt. that only has power over the things that 'you' want it to. When you have a govt, ANY govt, you are giving them power over you. They make the laws. You could have referendums but you don't like that either, because people might vote for things 'you' don't like. This is why your utopia always comes across as bog standard anarchy.

Before attempting to characterize Henry according to his wants and likes, you should re-evaluate other posts that you’ve read about what Henry feels is good government. I am sure that either you or I have misread his thoughts on government. And I am sure it is you. Henry will have to settle this.

However, I would say that Henry favors a government with limited services such as fire, police and military. As I read what he writes, I’d say that Henry favors having only a law that in essence prohibits interfering in any way with another person’s life or possessions.

I am not surprised that Henry has coined the word ‘minarchy’ to stand for minimal rule or something similar.

I know what he says. And I know what he meant by 'minarchy' (clever as it is). Control of the military and police is hardly what you would call 'limited' power

Good point.

[Skepdick]

Does that sound like something politicians would come up with? Politicians, who only think about votes and money?

Not at all. It sounds like something experts in risk management, virology and epidemics might come up with.
It sounds like people who have ethical sensibilities and understanding of the limits of scientific knowledge might come up with.

Isn't it great to know that prudent people still have influence over policy-making? Even though they hold no office.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Does that sound like something politicians would come up with? Politicians, who only think about votes and money?

Not at all. It sounds like something experts in risk management, virology and epidemics might come up with.
It sounds like people who have ethical sensibilities and understanding of the limits of scientific knowledge might come up with.

Isn't it great to know that prudent people still have influence over policy-making? Even though they hold no office.

'Experts' How sweet that you have so much faith in seers and wizards. You don't have to be a 'seer' to know what complete economic collapse will mean--even (or especially) for old people.