Is Corona Virus real? You judge

parousia70 · Dec 23, 2020

Redwingfan9 said:
A scam is a breach of contract. Contracts are enforceable in Court. Fraud is a criminal matter, often related to breach of contract. Scripture is quite clear the government may enforce contracts and may punish fraud (see laws on unjust weights and measures).

So you’re not a proponent of a truly free market then? You believe government has the responsibility to at least somewhat regulate business transactions?
I suppose that’s progress.

I maintain that markets are the creation of government and cannot exist apart from government intervention into them, Period. As you point out we can differ on the level of intervention that is appropriate, but claiming government should just get out of the way of business is a vote for anarchy.

I think I’m ok with French dressing and ice cream having to meet ingredient requirements. I have no problem with we the people holding the manufactures to account.

That isn't what we're talking about when we're talking about government regulation though. Regulations aren't about preventing fraud, there are ample laws already in place for that.

Laws ARE government regulation.
But you know this already.

parousia70 · Dec 23, 2020

Redwingfan9 said:
And....so what? Beyond that, there is no evidence that the virus is responsible for 400k+ deaths. Government action is likely responsible for half of them, including the foolishness of putting virus patients into nursing homes (NY, NJ, PA and MI governor's royally screwed up). Denying people medical treatment deemed "non-essential" likely resulted in deaths in the world of heart disease and cancer that wouldn't have happened otherwise. Suicides are up this year, in part due to government destroying businesses and jobs. Overdose deaths are also up, likely due to same.

And the fact SoCal is at 0% icu bed availability is just business as usual? Nothing to see here.. nothing out of the ordinary? Just “so what” to you?
Unlike me, you must not have any family members or close personal friends who are ICU doctors or nurses, So maybe you truly don’t care, because it’s not touching you personally.
Which I suppose is the American way you champion, no? “as long as it doesn’t directly affect me, it’s not an issue I should care about”?

Redwingfan9 · Dec 23, 2020

parousia70 said:
So you’re not a proponent of a truly free market then? You believe government has the responsibility to at least somewhat regulate business transactions?
I suppose that’s progress.

I maintain that markets are the creation of government and cannot exist apart from government intervention into them, Period. As you point out we can differ on the level of intervention that is appropriate, but claiming government should just get out of the way of business is a vote for anarchy.

I think I’m ok with French dressing and ice cream having to meet ingredient requirements. I have no problem with we the people holding the manufactures to account.

Laws ARE government regulation.
But you know this already.

Enforcing contracts isn't regulation.

Laws are morality, the question is whose. Beyond that, markets exist even when government does not. History shows us that free markets, bartering for goods and services exists even when there is no government in an area. It also shows us these things exist naturally in areas where government is uninvolved in the market. Farmers trading carrots for corn don't require government involvement. They can decide for themselves what a fair exchange is. That is the essence of the free market, each of us makes voluntary exchanges of goods and services in which both sides walk away from the transaction believing they're better off. It doesn't require government to define carrots and corn for us, free actors can decide these things for themselves.

iluvatar5150 · Dec 23, 2020

Redwingfan9 said:
And....so what? Beyond that, there is no evidence that the virus is responsible for 400k+ deaths. Government action is likely responsible for half of them, including the foolishness of putting virus patients into nursing homes (NY, NJ, PA and MI governor's royally screwed up). Denying people medical treatment deemed "non-essential" likely resulted in deaths in the world of heart disease and cancer that wouldn't have happened otherwise. Suicides are up this year, in part due to government destroying businesses and jobs. Overdose deaths are also up, likely due to same.

I don’t suppose you have any data to support your contentions or skepticism?

I’ll save you the effort: you don’t. All of those things you listed are quantifiable, and while the numbers are undoubtedly greater than zero, you have zero evidence that they could account for the hundreds of thousands of excess deaths we’ve had this year. The count for all suicides in a normal year, for example, is just shy of 50,000. Excess deaths were just below 300k at the end of October.

So, you don’t trust the government numbers, but you’re apparently content to trust your own blind guesses. Cool.

nonaeroterraqueous said:
He takes to Twitter. You take to the forums. Both of you like to mouth-off and lambaste people. I really don't see the difference, fundamentally.

He’s the president of the united states, with one of the largest platforms in history. I’m an anonymous rando posting on a relatively obscure corner of the internet to the same handful of people who’ve been here for years. My comments are considerably more thoughtful, well-written, fact-based, and mature than his. I don’t post moronic, self-serving conspiracy theories and lies. My mouthing off doesn’t undermine our democratic institutions or get anybody killed. Because of this site’s anonymity, I behave “worse” here than I do anywhere else and yet my persona here is orders of magnitude more responsible than his twitter feed. I, and many other posters here act significantly better than he does. It’s pathetic that we hold our anonymous selves to a higher standard than he and his fans hold him.

Redwingfan9 · Dec 23, 2020

iluvatar5150 said:
I don’t suppose you have any data to support your contentions or skepticism?

I’ll save you the effort: you don’t. All of those things you listed are quantifiable, and while the numbers are undoubtedly greater than zero, you have zero evidence that they could account for the hundreds of thousands of excess deaths we’ve had this year. The count for all suicides in a normal year, for example, is just shy of 50,000. Excess deaths were just below 300k at the end of October.

So, you don’t trust the government numbers, but you’re apparently content to trust your own blind guesses. Cool.

He’s the president of the united states, with one of the largest platforms in history. I’m an anonymous rando posting on a relatively obscure corner of the internet to the same handful of people who’ve been here for years. My comments are considerably more thoughtful, well-written, fact-based, and mature than his. I don’t post moronic, self-serving conspiracy theories and lies. My mouthing off doesn’t undermine our democratic institutions or get anybody killed. Because of this site’s anonymity, I behave “worse” here than I do anywhere else and yet my persona here is orders of magnitude more responsible than his twitter feed. I, and many other posters here act significantly better than he does. It’s pathetic that we hold our anonymous selves to a higher standard than he and his fans hold him.

Did I say the virus didn't cause deaths? No. I said government action played a role in excess deaths as indicated. Some of these people who died of the virus would have died anyway so they can't all be labeled excess deaths. Eventually research will be done on this issue and I am confident government action will have led to some of these deaths. The entire response worldwide is going to be the subject of research and debate for decades to come.

iluvatar5150 · Dec 23, 2020

Redwingfan9 said:
Did I say the virus didn't cause deaths? No. I said government action played a role in excess deaths as indicated. Some of these people who died of the virus would have died anyway so they can't all be labeled excess deaths. Eventually research will be done on this issue and I am confident government action will have led to some of these deaths. The entire response worldwide is going to be the subject of research and debate for decades to come.

“Excess” means just that: “excess.” “Excess deaths” is a statistic published by the CDC and refers to the number of deaths above the long-term average for that time of year. While they do publish breakdowns by the cause of death, I’m referring to the “all cause” stat, i.e. the one that just counts deaths regardless of cause. Somebody merely dying of covid instead of heart disease wouldn’t count towards excess deaths unless covid or something else accelerated their death or increased the likelihood that they’d contract heart disease.

While government actions likely did contribute to deaths in certain ways, it’s likely that the most significant government failure was in the lack of leadership with regards to preventative measures. Trump and other Republican leaders are members of the government and they explicitly discouraged people from protecting themselves and encouraged them to engage in risky behaviors. For all the increase in suicides and nursing home deaths, how many more people were needlessly sacrificed because the officials that you, personally, voted for decided to tell people that this wasn’t a big deal? That, too, is a failure of government.

Redwingfan9 · Dec 23, 2020

iluvatar5150 said:
“Excess” means just that: “excess.” “Excess deaths” is a statistic published by the CDC and refers to the number of deaths above the long-term average for that time of year. While they do publish breakdowns by the cause of death, I’m referring to the “all cause” stat, i.e. the one that just counts deaths regardless of cause. Somebody merely dying of covid instead of heart disease wouldn’t count towards excess deaths unless covid or something else accelerated their death or increased the likelihood that they’d contract heart disease.

While government actions likely did contribute to deaths in certain ways, it’s likely that the most significant government failure was in the lack of leadership with regards to preventative measures. Trump and other Republican leaders are members of the government and they explicitly discouraged people from protecting themselves and encouraged them to engage in risky behaviors. For all the increase in suicides and nursing home deaths, how many more people were needlessly sacrificed because the officials that you, personally, voted for decided to tell people that this wasn’t a big deal? That, too, is a failure of government.

I personally voted for who exactly? If you think I'm a Trump voter you're sadly mistaken.

The Democrat governors of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan specifically ordered Covid patients to nursing homes. Half the deaths in those states are attributed to nursing homes. Those were preventable deaths caused by the utter stupidity of the dictators running those states. Even the biggest Coronavirus skeptic could tell you it's not a good idea to send positive cases to the nursing home. And yet that's what these people did. In Whitmer's case she doubled down on it in October. I represent a nursing home and know of at least two deaths since October (there are likely more, my work is collection related) because the homes can't refuse Covid patients. It's beyond dumb but let's shut down restaurants and blame them for governmental incompetence.

chad kincham · Dec 24, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
Article in Australia's ABC:

This doctor spent his year fighting coronavirus. His worst moment came when Trump tweeted about him

I know no one who says it doesn’t exist - including Trump, who never said the virus itself was a hoax, which even the leftist Snopes fact check admits.

Today it’s a known fact that COVID is no worse than the flu - which also exists and does kill people, too.

There’s no reason at all to do more lockdowns

Aussie Pete · Dec 24, 2020

chad kincham said:
I know no one who says it doesn’t exist - including Trump, who never said the virus itself was a hoax, which even the leftist Snopes fact check admits.

Today it’s a known fact that COVID is no worse than the flu - which also exists and does kill people, too.

There’s no reason at all to do more lockdowns

You are right that the flu kills people. The lockdown in Australia has been beneficial in that respect also. The Coronavirus is far more readily spread than the flu. That is a fact. Since many more people get infected, many more people die. It is that simple. I'm not OK with that. Maybe you are. I have made very few comments about Mr Trump, positive or negative. I let the ABC report speak for itself. I am no great fan of Australia's ABC. It is mostly left-wing, but also employs some thoughtful and balanced commentators such as Stan Grant. The ABC is biased but not to the extent that they make stuff up.

mindlight · Dec 25, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
Article in Australia's ABC:

This doctor spent his year fighting coronavirus. His worst moment came when Trump tweeted about him

This is the reason Trump lost, think he would have won the last election without covid19.

ThisIsMe123 · Dec 25, 2020

nonaeroterraqueous said:
That post was obnoxious.

So is Trump, so, this statement is a good fit for him.

Thomas White · Dec 25, 2020

Redwingfan9 said:
When people don't buy dangerous products, corporations lose money. Seeing as they want to maximize profits, meeting the demands of their customers is of the utmost concern.

But how many people are hurt by the dangerous product before the corporation loses money? Those people would have been protected by safety regulation.

Thomas White · Dec 25, 2020

Redwingfan9 said:
Enforcing contracts isn't regulation.

Laws are morality, the question is whose. Beyond that, markets exist even when government does not. History shows us that free markets, bartering for goods and services exists even when there is no government in an area. It also shows us these things exist naturally in areas where government is uninvolved in the market. Farmers trading carrots for corn don't require government involvement. They can decide for themselves what a fair exchange is. That is the essence of the free market, each of us makes voluntary exchanges of goods and services in which both sides walk away from the transaction believing they're better off. It doesn't require government to define carrots and corn for us, free actors can decide these things for themselves.

Laws regulate behavior. By definition, laws are regulation.

Redwingfan9 · Dec 25, 2020

Thomas White said:
But how many people are hurt by the dangerous product before the corporation loses money? Those people would have been protected by safety regulation.

It doesn't take much for people to catch on that a product isn't safe. The Chevy Corvair and Ford Pinto are good examples. People perceived these cars to be unsafe so they stopped buying them.

Redwingfan9 · Dec 25, 2020

Thomas White said:
Laws regulate behavior. By definition, laws are regulation.

Laws are a statement of morality. They don't necessarily regulate behavior as laws are easily ignored and left unenforced.

NerdGirl · Dec 25, 2020

In response to the thread title:

Yes?

grasping the after wind · Dec 25, 2020

Thomas White said:
Laws regulate behavior. By definition, laws are regulation.

Laws are not the same as mere regulations. In the US there are laws that have given some government agencies and some appointed government officials the power to impose regulations. Those refutations however are not laws as they have not been enacted by the governmental body with he power to enact laws i.e. the Congress. there is a difference between a law and a regulation, but the government still has the power to enforce regulations even if they are not laws until such time as Congress removes the power they delegated to those agencies and officials. From my perspective, that power should not have been delegated as it weakens the basic structure of government that depends upon the separation of powers and renders the Congress superfluous in matters in which it should be the prime mover. Their doing this has made the Executive Branch more powerful and important to the populace then the legislative branch and disrupted the balance between the branches which I believe was and is the goal of both political parties as they are both authoritarian in nature and prefer one leader in charge and all party members in lockstep with that leader.

Thomas White · Dec 25, 2020

grasping the after wind said:
Laws are not the same as mere regulations. In the US there are laws that have given some government agencies and some appointed government officials the power to impose regulations. Those refutations however are not laws as they have not been enacted by the governmental body with he power to enact laws i.e. the Congress. there is a difference between a law and a regulation, but the government still has the power to enforce regulations even if they are not laws until such time as Congress removes the power they delegated to those agencies and officials. From my perspective, that power should not have been delegated as it weakens the basic structure of government that depends upon the separation of powers and renders the Congress superfluous in matters in which it should be the prime mover. Their doing this has made the Executive Branch more powerful and important to the populace then the legislative branch and disrupted the balance between the branches which I believe was and is the goal of both political parties as they are both authoritarian in nature and prefer one leader in charge and all party members in lockstep with that leader.

A speed limit is a traffic law. You set your speed based on that limit. If not, you get a ticket. Therefore, your driving behavior is regulated.

Thomas White · Dec 25, 2020

Redwingfan9 said:
Laws are a statement of morality. They don't necessarily regulate behavior as laws are easily ignored and left unenforced.

Definition of law | Dictionary.com

-the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

Redwingfan9 · Dec 25, 2020

Thomas White said:
Definition of law | Dictionary.com

-the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

You're not seriously countering a philosophical argument with a dictionary.com definition.

Law is a reflection of the morality of a society. The question is whose morality is being reflected. Unfortunately we have shifted from a law based in scripture to one based on secular humanism, sadly with Christians cheering the shift.

Is Corona Virus real? You judge

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

See in the dark

This And That

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The untamed daughter

That's grasping after the wind

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads