Laura Jedeed (Misanthrophile)

You open with dark and ominous statements like “make them confront their nature” and “how many people they are advocating death for” and then pivot to “I just want to discuss.”

Cool, I'm sorry you don't like my tone but hiding behind that to refuse to have the conversation of actual cost-benefit argument isn't exactly persuading me I was wrong to be angry at people advancing this argument right now

"nature" was an aggressive and perhaps unfair word to use. How about "confront the thing they're actually advocating"?

That’s certainly a friendlier tone. It would be fair to mention the severity of the life and death scale. I still think it’s a strawman. All serious arguments are about reducing the scale of the suffering.

Yes, both sides are using those words and I think most of them even mean it. But one side is talking about numbers of people who will die based on epidemiologist assessments and the other side, as far as I have seen, is not

I just want you to say it. I want everyone who thinks a relaxation makes sense to say it. Tell me how a quarantine relaxation for the sake of the economy will minimize human suffering when epidemiologists say it won't.

Tell me how saving the economy will save more lives than letting it tank and avoiding 10% mortality rates like we're seeing in Italy We need specifics to have this conversation because the outcomes will be very fucking specific

We could stop every motor vehicle death tomorrow if we got rid of every car. But as a society we don’t because we recognize that there are myriad benefits to having motor vehicles including often saving people’s lives. We all handle that calculus without this level of dialogue.