5 ms·

> What about drinking and smoking? Literally Whataboutism. Don’t take the irrelevant bait.

by iamnotwhoiam 5y ago

collegeburner 5y ago
No it's not. It's saying that we tolerate huge social costs elsewhere, so why is this one too large to bear?
- iamnotwhoiam 5y ago
  There is no way to have a good faith argument with someone who is advocating not saving lives because we aren’t saving other lives.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    Saving lives cannot be the only consideration. There has to be limits on the power of the state to restrict and compel human behavior. We shouldn't live under medical tyranny.
    - aaron-santos 5y ago
      What about economic tyranny? Shouldn't we be fixing that first?
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        What economic tyranny are you referring to?
        quantumBerry 5y ago
        How about the tyranny of being forced to pay taxes to blow up little kids in Afghanistan at $40k+ a bomb, or the tyranny of being forced under penalty of prison to pay for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons for the Taliban? You don't think it's a little tyrannical that the tax man can say give us the money to blow up innocent little kids or I'm going to put you in a cage and take your own kids?
        aaron-santos 5y ago
        The market. I want to be free from it a la Freedom from the Market: America’s Fight to Liberate Itself from the Grip of the Invisible Hand by Mike Konczal[1]. As much as small government-types don't want to experience government in their everyday lives, I wish not not experience the market and its influence in my everyday life. As much as small government-types feel like they cannot escape government control, I feel like I cannot escape from market control. [1] https://thenewpress.com/books/freedom-from-market https://thenewpress.com/books/freedom-from-market
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>The market. I want to be free from it a la Freedom from the Market: So you want to be free from the state of others having the right to engage in mutually voluntary economic interactions? Their right to free assocation, is a tyrannical infringement of your right to dictate how they live? You can't just leave other people and form your own socialist commune somewhere?
        aaron-santos 5y ago
        When they determine the choices I have to live my life. Yes. That is the definition of freedom.
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    The argument is that we're not saving those other lives because we don't think we, as a society, have the right to make those people's choices for them. If your argument is that we do and we'll get to the overweight after we get to the antivaxxers just say it.
    - iamnotwhoiam 5y ago
      What country do you live in? Can you criticize the leader without going to jail? Do union representatives get murdered? Are police there to help you or to extort you? I live in an actually authoritarian country. Only the most privileged people here don't get vaccinated, and among them it's a very small group, and mostly foreigners. No one is forced to, and no one is being forced to do anything else with their body. I find this jump to tyranny argument disgusting. How on Earth would that work? In a country where one man can order the military to kill its own citizens there is no logical connection between vaccinations and smoking or obesity. Americans (and a lot of other nationalities in the West, but mostly Americans) need to gain some perspective on the difference between tyranny and responsibility. I got vaccinated (with a Chinese vaccine, the horror!) because I consider it my duty to my family, my adopted country, and the world. And guess what? Vaccination has been stupendously effective and our country is almost back to normal. And still the government is not locking up smokers or fat people.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>Do union representatives get murdered? Do strikebreakers get murdered in your country? Because they did, regularly, in the West, and the rhetorical victory of the mafia/socialist-infused labor union movement was so complete, that the murdered were dehumanized as "scabs", and those who protected them, villainized as "union busters". In the US, you cannot be anti-union and not be under threat of violence, whether it's Larry Elder's staff being assaulted (with hardly any media outcry): https://twitter.com/realthinkmax/status/1435761238017908740 https://twitter.com/realthinkmax/status/1435761238017908740 Or Rand Paul being attacked and almost killed by his neighbour, to the shrieking laughter and encouragement of the public sector: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/nancy-pelosi-christine-rand-paul-tweet-twitter-banned-coronavirus-a9425191.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... Here are some leftists preventing people from entering a bookstore to buy a book they decided others aren't allowed to read: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkSlsiKVqP8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkSlsiKVqP8 Totally accepted by society. No media outcry. The media, by the way, is fully unionized too: https://nytimesguild.org/ https://nytimesguild.org/
- jeromegv 5y ago
  Well if you look at smoking, we did quite similar things. We let people smoke, it's not forbidden, but don't try to smoke within a restaurant, an indoor space, a flight, etc. Why? Because that's where your secondary smoke can start impacting other people. But smoke at home as much as you want! Sounds familiar?
- j16sdiz 5y ago
  This is exactly what “whataboutism” is.
- jollybean 5y ago
  COVID is contagious, its a systematic problem, not an individual one. The IFR is very very low, if it were not super contagious, it wouldn't make the evening news. Most of COVIDS problems result from the domino effect, so the issue is as much about 'not becoming domino' as it is the effects of the disease itself.

> What about drinking and smoking? Literally Whataboutism. Don’t take the irrelevant bait.

collegeburner 5y ago

No it's not. It's saying that we tolerate huge social costs elsewhere, so why is this one too large to bear?

iamnotwhoiam 5y ago
There is no way to have a good faith argument with someone who is advocating not saving lives because we aren’t saving other lives.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  Saving lives cannot be the only consideration. There has to be limits on the power of the state to restrict and compel human behavior. We shouldn't live under medical tyranny.
  - aaron-santos 5y ago
    What about economic tyranny? Shouldn't we be fixing that first?
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      What economic tyranny are you referring to?
      - quantumBerry 5y ago
        How about the tyranny of being forced to pay taxes to blow up little kids in Afghanistan at $40k+ a bomb, or the tyranny of being forced under penalty of prison to pay for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons for the Taliban? You don't think it's a little tyrannical that the tax man can say give us the money to blow up innocent little kids or I'm going to put you in a cage and take your own kids?
      - aaron-santos 5y ago
        The market. I want to be free from it a la Freedom from the Market: America’s Fight to Liberate Itself from the Grip of the Invisible Hand by Mike Konczal[1]. As much as small government-types don't want to experience government in their everyday lives, I wish not not experience the market and its influence in my everyday life. As much as small government-types feel like they cannot escape government control, I feel like I cannot escape from market control. [1] https://thenewpress.com/books/freedom-from-market https://thenewpress.com/books/freedom-from-market
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>The market. I want to be free from it a la Freedom from the Market: So you want to be free from the state of others having the right to engage in mutually voluntary economic interactions? Their right to free assocation, is a tyrannical infringement of your right to dictate how they live? You can't just leave other people and form your own socialist commune somewhere?
        aaron-santos 5y ago
        When they determine the choices I have to live my life. Yes. That is the definition of freedom.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  The argument is that we're not saving those other lives because we don't think we, as a society, have the right to make those people's choices for them. If your argument is that we do and we'll get to the overweight after we get to the antivaxxers just say it.
  - iamnotwhoiam 5y ago
    What country do you live in? Can you criticize the leader without going to jail? Do union representatives get murdered? Are police there to help you or to extort you? I live in an actually authoritarian country. Only the most privileged people here don't get vaccinated, and among them it's a very small group, and mostly foreigners. No one is forced to, and no one is being forced to do anything else with their body. I find this jump to tyranny argument disgusting. How on Earth would that work? In a country where one man can order the military to kill its own citizens there is no logical connection between vaccinations and smoking or obesity. Americans (and a lot of other nationalities in the West, but mostly Americans) need to gain some perspective on the difference between tyranny and responsibility. I got vaccinated (with a Chinese vaccine, the horror!) because I consider it my duty to my family, my adopted country, and the world. And guess what? Vaccination has been stupendously effective and our country is almost back to normal. And still the government is not locking up smokers or fat people.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      >>Do union representatives get murdered? Do strikebreakers get murdered in your country? Because they did, regularly, in the West, and the rhetorical victory of the mafia/socialist-infused labor union movement was so complete, that the murdered were dehumanized as "scabs", and those who protected them, villainized as "union busters". In the US, you cannot be anti-union and not be under threat of violence, whether it's Larry Elder's staff being assaulted (with hardly any media outcry): https://twitter.com/realthinkmax/status/1435761238017908740 https://twitter.com/realthinkmax/status/1435761238017908740 Or Rand Paul being attacked and almost killed by his neighbour, to the shrieking laughter and encouragement of the public sector: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/nancy-pelosi-christine-rand-paul-tweet-twitter-banned-coronavirus-a9425191.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... Here are some leftists preventing people from entering a bookstore to buy a book they decided others aren't allowed to read: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkSlsiKVqP8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkSlsiKVqP8 Totally accepted by society. No media outcry. The media, by the way, is fully unionized too: https://nytimesguild.org/ https://nytimesguild.org/
jeromegv 5y ago
Well if you look at smoking, we did quite similar things. We let people smoke, it's not forbidden, but don't try to smoke within a restaurant, an indoor space, a flight, etc. Why? Because that's where your secondary smoke can start impacting other people. But smoke at home as much as you want! Sounds familiar?
j16sdiz 5y ago
This is exactly what “whataboutism” is.
jollybean 5y ago
COVID is contagious, its a systematic problem, not an individual one. The IFR is very very low, if it were not super contagious, it wouldn't make the evening news. Most of COVIDS problems result from the domino effect, so the issue is as much about 'not becoming domino' as it is the effects of the disease itself.