Or another members thought process. Concentration camps are a good idea for the continuation of the nation. Science says the people in there are bad and have been peer reviewed and done by scholars who's credentials are impeccable.

We should also have concentration camps for Religious and Pro-Life advocates, so they can be separated from the "normal," science-following, 3.7+ GPA smart people.  No one should have their extreme right-wing conservative ideas "shoved down our throats," and it's the government's duty to protect us from ideas we don't agree with -- especially those ideas that involve morality.

If the government can't do it, maybe Twitter and Facebook can hire private security, because a private company can do anything they want without violating the Constitutional rights of its members.

We should also have concentration camps for Religious and Pro-Life advocates, so they can be separated from the "normal," science-following, 3.7+ GPA smart people.  No one should have their extreme right-wing conservative ideas "shoved down our throats," and it's the government's duty to protect us from ideas we don't agree with -- especially those ideas that involve morality.

If the government can't do it, maybe Twitter and Facebook can hire private security, because a private company can do anything they want without violating the Constitutional rights of its members.

Careful of that "slippy slope". . .

Careful of that "slippy slope". . .

trust the government!

Careful of that "slippy slope". . .

Don't forget to put your slippys on!

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Yes you were.

Absolutely 100% positively no doubt about it this is exactly what you are doing with your sick little authoritarian thought experiment.

Utterly false. If that was your conclusion you completely failed the thought experiment.

The discussion was about whether the unvaxxed could be morally "triaged" behind those with the vaccine.

Then you created analogies between the unvaxxed and (1) a 60 yr old chain smoking lung transplant patient and (2) a terrorist suicide bomber.  You asked how they could be morally triaged behind other patients because of something they did.

I get that you were trying to illustrate your point with examples, but when the point involves the unvaxxed as the one being given the lowest priority vs. vaxxed, and the smoker and terrorist are in that same priority level, how are you NOT equating all of them?  It might be in the context of triage, but what, exactly, did the unvaxxed do to warrant the lower priority? 

I think the basic argument for putting the unvaccinated at a lower priority is that they had a choice to take a vaccine which had a very high likelihood of keeping them out of the hospital and they flouted it.

A secondary argument, that I have not yet heard openly expressed but maybe passively expressed is that by putting the unvaccinated at a lower status they then provide an additional incentive for people to be vaccinated which would then decrease the crowding in hospitals and expedite returning to normal.

The Delta variant isn't stopped by the vaccine, and most of the infections lately are Delta.  So, if the vaccine is not stopping infections, why are the unvaxxed being blamed for it? 

The smoker was a chain smoker -- it's a provable fact.

The bomber killed and injured innocent people -- it's a provable fact.

What did the unvaxxed person intentionally do to hurt anyone?  Where is the similarity to the other two? 

I submit that the only thing that makes them APPEAR similar are the unfounded prejudicial attitudes, beliefs and animosity of the person doing triage of the unvaxxed.

I think the reason that the unvaccinated are being blamed is that the unvaccinated are the lions share of the people causing the hospital overcrowding. Personally I am all for freedom for someone's own choices over their safety, want to risk dying to avoid the vaccine? Fine by me. Same reason I don't support helmet laws for adults. The issue that sways me here personally is when other people start suffering because unvaccinated people (who could have been vaccinated) are overcrowding hospitals when it could be avoided. This is where it goes the decision to be unvaccinated goes from just affecting oneself to affecting others. Just today I found out my father has kidney cancer and so far the prognosis sounds relatively good but if he were in an area being hit hard with hospitals being filled up by the unvaccinated covid patients he could be told to wait till things blow over. I don't know about how fast kidney cancer is but waiting is not something you generally want to do when you find cancer.

Imagine this were wartime and the governor issued a mandatory blackout  so enemy bombers couldn't find the city to bomb. Now imagine about 10% decided it was infringing on their freedom to have their lights on. Their intent isn't to harm anyone, they can argue it is their personal freedom.



The chain smoker and the terrorist were two separate thought experiments recently. A chain smoker, or an alcoholic for that matter, is a real life example, something that is taken into account whether someone is put on a organ donor waiting list. If someone hasn't quit smoking or drinking they aren't going to be candidates because why give them a new organ if they are just going to destroy it again. There may be additional medical issues but I am not sure. The terrorist thought experiment was a different angle, someone who outright and intentionally caused the triage situation in a criminal manner. The point of the terrorist example is to make someone think if there was ever a situation where a moral judgement should come into play. A moral or ethical position is easy to stand behind when never tested so I thought up the hardest test I could imagine relative to a triage situation.

Utterly false. If that was your conclusion you completely failed the thought experiment.

LOL!  I don't think he was participating ion your little experiment.  He was offering an opinion of the experiment's premise.

If you're failing people because they don't agree with your suppositions and insinuations, you should give yourself and "F" as a thought experiment designer.

I have noticed that a number of the arguments people use against the vaccine are rather disingenuous. By that I mean arguments that people make because they sound good even though they know it haas no bearing on their position.

For example when a conservative points out that Harris and Biden voiced skepticism about the vaccine but now are pushing it. Seriously? We are to take that as a serious objection? As if anyone here based their decision about the vaccine on Biden or Harris' initial opposition? "I am a Trump loving conservative who was going to get the vaccine but I heard Biden voice skepticism so now I am not going to take it" said no one ever.

These types of arguments irritate me and I see them all the time across various issues. Just make honest arguments

I think the basic argument for putting the unvaccinated at a lower priority is that they had a choice to take a vaccine which had a very high likelihood of keeping them out of the hospital and they flouted it.

A secondary argument, that I have not yet heard openly expressed but maybe passively expressed is that by putting the unvaccinated at a lower status they then provide an additional incentive for people to be vaccinated which would then decrease the crowding in hospitals and expedite returning to normal.


I think the reason that the unvaccinated are being blamed is that the unvaccinated are the lions share of the people causing the hospital overcrowding. Personally I am all for freedom for someone's own choices over their safety, want to risk dying to avoid the vaccine? Fine by me. Same reason I don't support helmet laws for adults. The issue that sways me here personally is when other people start suffering because unvaccinated people (who could have been vaccinated) are overcrowding hospitals when it could be avoided. This is where it goes the decision to be unvaccinated goes from just affecting oneself to affecting others. Just today I found out my father has kidney cancer and so far the prognosis sounds relatively good but if he were in an area being hit hard with hospitals being filled up by the unvaccinated covid patients he could be told to wait till things blow over. I don't know about how fast kidney cancer is but waiting is not something you generally want to do when you find cancer.

Imagine this were wartime and the governor issued a mandatory blackout  so enemy bombers couldn't find the city to bomb. Now imagine about 10% decided it was infringing on their freedom to have their lights on. Their intent isn't to harm anyone, they can argue it is their personal freedom.



The chain smoker and the terrorist were two separate thought experiments recently. A chain smoker, or an alcoholic for that matter, is a real life example, something that is taken into account whether someone is put on a organ donor waiting list. If someone hasn't quit smoking or drinking they aren't going to be candidates because why give them a new organ if they are just going to destroy it again. There may be additional medical issues but I am not sure. The terrorist thought experiment was a different angle, someone who outright and intentionally caused the triage situation in a criminal manner. The point of the terrorist example is to make someone think if there was ever a situation where a moral judgement should come into play. A moral or ethical position is easy to stand behind when never tested so I thought up the hardest test I could imagine relative to a triage situation.

The alcoholic or chain smoker didn't hurt anyone else.  The thing that makes them a poor candidate for an organ transplant only hurt themselves.  What you failed to examine is whether or not these poor candidates should also be kept at home if there are limited hospital beds?  Do they get a room and resources when nearing end of life ON TOP OF being given low priority on a transplant list?

To be technical, prioritizing transplant patients for organs is nowhere near what the word "triage" encompasses.  Organs are not resources the hospitals can plan for, increase production of, or can be sure will work in all cases.   Way different than beds and staff to handle increased demand from flu patients.  There are alternatives to hospital beds, such as setting up hospital tents, using hospital ships, etc. 

Interesting how the HIV patients were not blamed for tainting the blood supply -- the government was.  Maybe blaming the government for pushing narratives that have little supporting data at this point is the problem, not the people not willing to take the vaccine.

LOL!  I don't think he was participating ion your little experiment.  He was offering an opinion of the experiment's premise.

If you're failing people because they don't agree with your suppositions and insinuations, you should give yourself and "F" as a thought experiment designer.

When he thought I was comparing unvaccinated to terrorist and I told him I was not, then he should have rerun the thought experiment in his head again knowing that the point was not comparing the two.

Plus i think part of the point of a thought experiment is for people to walk through it using their own imagination and reasoning. I could spell everything out from the beginning but then he wouldn't be using his brain the same way. He should think through the process coming up with arguments and counter arguments instead of jumping to some simplistic conclusion that the two are being compared as similar.

I have noticed that a number of the arguments people use against the vaccine are rather disingenuous. By that I mean arguments that people make because they sound good even though they know it haas no bearing on their position.

For example when a conservative points out that Harris and Biden voiced skepticism about the vaccine but now are pushing it. Seriously? We are to take that as a serious objection? As if anyone here based their decision about the vaccine on Biden or Harris' initial opposition? "I am a Trump loving conservative who was going to get the vaccine but I heard Biden voice skepticism so now I am not going to take it" said no one ever.

These types of arguments irritate me and I see them all the time across various issues. Just make honest arguments

You're looking at those arguments literally, which is your problem in most of these posts.

When Biden and Harris made their comments, then did a 180 even though the facts of the vaccine had not changed, it showed how political the government treats the issue.  If I choose not to TRUST the government because they keep doing things like this, it's more than reasonable.

If your doctor tells you to take the vaccine, and then you see video of him talking to big pharma reps about how much of a bonus he'll get by getting more people to take the vaccine, does that not make you stop and question your doctor's motives and professional ethics?

It would for most people I know.

When he thought I was comparing unvaccinated to terrorist and I told him I was not, then he should have rerun the thought experiment in his head again knowing that the point was not comparing the two.

Plus i think part of the point of a thought experiment is for people to walk through it using their own imagination and reasoning. I could spell everything out from the beginning but then he wouldn't be using his brain the same way. He should think through the process coming up with arguments and counter arguments instead of jumping to some simplistic conclusion that the two are being compared as similar.

Your experiment was designed to fail BECAUSE you omitted crucial information about the situations.  A thought experiment needs parameters, or else it's useless.  Broad questions create ambiguous and irrelevant responses.

The alcoholic or chain smoker didn't hurt anyone else.  The thing that makes them a poor candidate for an organ transplant only hurt themselves.  What you failed to examine is whether or not these poor candidates should also be kept at home if there are limited hospital beds?  Do they get a room and resources when nearing end of life ON TOP OF being given low priority on a transplant list?

You are overanalyzing it, I am not saying it is a perfect comparison. The point was that the person's placement on the transplant list is affected by their lifestyle choices rather than simply the patients current medical condition.

To be technical, prioritizing transplant patients for organs is nowhere near what the word "triage" encompasses.  Organs are not resources the hospitals can plan for, increase production of, or can be sure will work in all cases.   Way different than beds and staff to handle increased demand from flu patients.  There are alternatives to hospital beds, such as setting up hospital tents, using hospital ships, etc. 

You are correct, but like I said it isn't a perfect comparison.

[/quote]Interesting how the HIV patients were not blamed for tainting the blood supply -- the government was.  Maybe blaming the government for pushing narratives that have little supporting data at this point is the problem, not the people not willing to take the vaccine.
[/quote]

Were people who knew they had HIV donating blood in large numbers?

If this was war time, ige, green, kirk, rick, rhodes would all have sold us out by now. And collaborate with the enemy.

If we were ever invaded and the invaders went to hpd HQ, u think hpd would destroy all reg info, or willingly hand it over with a smile?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You're looking at those arguments literally, which is your problem in most of these posts.

When Biden and Harris made their comments, then did a 180 even though the facts of the vaccine had not changed, it showed how political the government treats the issue.  If I choose not to TRUST the government because they keep doing things like this, it's more than reasonable.

If your doctor tells you to take the vaccine, and then you see video of him talking to big pharma reps about how much of a bonus he'll get by getting more people to take the vaccine, does that not make you stop and question your doctor's motives and professional ethics?

It would for most people I know.

But who here, who would use that argument in the first place, would ever have been swayed by Biden's comments in the first place? I suspect no one. Out of all the vaccine hesitant people I have discussed the issue with I don't think a single one was ever a Biden fan, it wouldn't have mattered if Biden flip-flopped or not.

I like solid logical arguments. I dislike ones that are disingenuous, or empty, but sound good, no matter how much they support my position. I dislike dishonesty strongly.

Just today I found out my father has kidney cancer and so far the prognosis sounds relatively good...

Prayers to your father, for a speedy recovery.   

You are overanalyzing it, I am not saying it is a perfect comparison. The point was that the person's placement on the transplant list is affected by their lifestyle choices rather than simply the patients current medical condition.

You are correct, but like I said it isn't a perfect comparison.

Interesting how the HIV patients were not blamed for tainting the blood supply -- the government was.  Maybe blaming the government for pushing narratives that have little supporting data at this point is the problem, not the people not willing to take the vaccine.


Were people who knew they had HIV donating blood in large numbers?

In the beginning of the AID epidemic, there was no test -- primarily because they didn't know what was causing it.  What they knew early on was people were dying from diseases that almost nobody was getting anymore, like rare lung diseases.  Middle age patients were dying from things only children contracted.  Once they realized it was an autoimmune deficiency, they then had to isolate how it was happening.

The first tests were a reutilization of hepatitis tests.  That gave the CDC the ability to start identifying the rate of transmission and tracing contacts.  The FDA didn't have an approved test until 1985, even though the existence of AIDS (formerly known as GRID) was becoming a major concern for the CDC by 1980..

Early on, it was theorized that the disease was only transmitted through Gay sex and sharing of needles among drug users, and for some reason those of Haitian descent.  But, once hemophiliacs started contracting the disease through transfusions and blood products, the blood supply was already tainted and creating an even larger population of HIV infected patients.  You can have HIV for a few months to many years before any symptoms, so knowing who had it without proper testing was an impossibility.

One very critical factor that kept the blood supply from being kept safe was cost.  The suppliers could not have stayed in business if they had to bear the cost of testing every single donation.

It's a very complicated and draw out discussion, but that's the high level stuff.

But who here, who would use that argument in the first place, would ever have been swayed by Biden's comments in the first place? I suspect no one. Out of all the vaccine hesitant people I have discussed the issue with I don't think a single one was ever a Biden fan, it wouldn't have mattered if Biden flip-flopped or not.

I like solid logical arguments. I dislike ones that are disingenuous, or empty, but sound good, no matter how much they support my position. I dislike dishonesty strongly.

TDS is real.  If the Democrat nominees say don't trust "Trump's vaccine," a lot of their followers need not hear another word.

Sorry to hear about your dad's kidneys, but you're inflating the impact of COVID patients on other patients.

If COVD patient A has no or minor symptoms, they go home and isolate.  No hospital bed needed.

If COVID patient B is having a way worse time with COVID, they are normally placed on a respirator in the ICU.  That's my understanding, but I'm sure there are exceptions.

Your father would not be in an ICU.  If he's admitted for chemo, he'll get a regular room to rest in between therapy sessions.  If he's not that bad, he could also receive chemo treatments as an outpatient, just showing up for the chemo and going back home.

The main reason beds is an issue for COVID is because there are so few ICU-equipped beds, not that there are COVID patients taking up all the regular hospital beds.

Even in NY, when Cuomo was crying about so many patients overwhelming the hospitals, they didn't use a single bed in the stadium "hospital" or the hospital ship Trump sent there for NY to use.

Don't believe the doom and gloom stories you're being fed.  I'm sure some are true -- to a point.  Most I have a feeling are blown way out of proportion.

I've noticed in today's victim-loving society, people love to exaggerate their plights.

Your experiment was designed to fail BECAUSE you omitted crucial information about the situations.  A thought experiment needs parameters, or else it's useless.  Broad questions create ambiguous and irrelevant responses.

Parameters? The parameters are the context of covid. A thought experiment doesn't always have to have a right or wrong answer. Regardless, concluding that I was saying the unvaccinated are akin to terrorists is wholly unsupported and if anything just shows a defensive mindset, not an actual thought process.