Laura Jedeed (Misanthrophile)

Several other ideas have been floated such as quarantine for the more vulnerable, opening up antibody testing to identify carriers earlier, etc. I’m not specifically advocating for any single approach. I’m saying any of the serious arguments are about minimizing impact.

You act like the only other argument is “fuck 2 million people, I want to be rich” and that’s not the case. Representing other arguments as anything but “I don’t think this method minimizes suffering” is absurd.

All I want to do is talk about how other methods do that, and what they would look like in terms of body count. Surely there's nothing wrong with that conversation?

Is that all you want to do? Because that’s not what “make them confront their own true nature” communicates to me.

Well, I think that if you say out loud what you're advocating it's pretty monstrous. But if relaxing the quarantine minimizes human suffering, you can easily prove me wrong by discussing how many people will die and/or suffer under the two methods

My main point is that no one ever finishes the sentence, and I have a theory as to why but again, if I'm wrong, by all means explain it to me so I can be less wrong

They are finishing the sentence though. I just finished the sentence, every argument I have seen finishes the sentence. I’m saying you’re deliberately misrepresenting the argument and I don’t know why. The end goal for both is minimizing human suffering. Neither is monstrous.

So tell me how it does that. I am still waiting for specific predictions and comparisons between the two strategies.