Plans you're not supposed to talk about • Hacker News Board

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#121

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:51 PM UTC

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #103

As an authorial technique starting off with a just so story about how marriage came to be that lasts several paragraphs and is obviously not at all how marriage came to be and doesn't even have the excuse of referencing some sort of supernatural source for being wrong might seem interesting but bored me too much to continue. I'm supposing the rest of it is also wrong and badly argued.

It's written in the same vein as "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" [1]. (Read it. Then read the Wikipedia article.)

[1] https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Miner-1956-BodyRitualAmongTheNacir...

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#122

Post by vasco » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:51 PM UTC

calibas wrote: post #32

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. The planet doesn't care what lives on it or if anything lives at all. There is no best for the planet outside of goals humans set for it. > It's so odd that all our frantic doing is what's thrown the Planet out of balance The planet has never been in balance. And even if we stop anthropogenic climate change something else wi…

FYI, when people are talking about helping "the Planet" they're not talking about lifeless rocks, they're talking about preserving the diversity of life on the Planet. And by balance I mean not precipitating another extinction event. Sure, they're going to happen anyway eventually, but we probably shouldn't cause an extra one if we don't have to...

> FYI, when people are talking about helping "the Planet" they're not talking about lifeless rocks, they're talking about preserving the diversity of life on the Planet.

I disagree, I think this is the virtue signaling projection but most people only care about global warming because they think there's a non negligible chance they'll see real impacts _on their own quality of life_ either during their life or during the life of their direct offspring. I think there's likely plenty of individuals who truly value biodiversity but with all the evidence around us I'm pretty sure the majority doesn't actually care about saving even a non-cute mammal, much less actual diversity like thousands of species of insects or bees or whatever.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#123

Post by vmception » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:53 PM UTC

jfrunyon wrote: post #91

vmception wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1% decrease doesn't diminish their size and political influence substantially, even of the disproportionate elderly population. Then only a fraction of the remainders that lose a loved one would re-evaluate, a large fraction of them would still be bounced back when they realize the other ideas "your group" inherits is even harder to accept as a personality trait. Most of them will inherit just enough to not think fur…

It's 1% of the whole population, but a much larger percentage of certain political ideologies.

well, sure yeah.

far left spiritualists and naturopaths are a tiny population, far right people occupy sparsely populated areas.

funny application of horseshoe theory.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#124

Post by handrous » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:54 PM UTC

bsedlm wrote: post #58

mherdeg wrote: post #54

Reading this gave me a kind of horrifying idea that goes something like: You know about a deadly disease whose most serious outcomes can be avoided by getting a shot. Many members of a group in your society have decided they don't want to get the shot. You are annoyed by the way they talk about a lot of things, including the way they talk about avoiding the shot. They, in turn, call you "smug" for the way your group…

but why are you so adamant on making everybody so perfectly safe? there used to be something about freedom and risk; heck, about life and risk. it's risky to be alive but it was more risky live way back in the day at what point does safety begin to stifle the drive to live? we as humans originally evolved in a risky environment, we thrived in it, we made it safer for ourselves; but maybe, just maybe, we also acquired…

What does this have to do with the actual topic of the parent post?

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#125

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:54 PM UTC

taejavu wrote: post #120

yongjik wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had me until the last paragraph. If "smugly" insisting X would make them dig in their heels, what are we supposed to do? Say "Oh of course it's totally in your rights, please send your unvaccinated children to the same school my kids go to"? Because I don't think it will change their minds either. What happened to "personal responsibility" that these people like so much? If the whole country tells these people to…

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#126

Post by newaccount74 » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:54 PM UTC

jollybean wrote: post #97

908B64B197 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We 'don't talk about' the fact that we don't give medical aid to COVID patients past a certain point because we have to put a dollar figure on it (i.e. triage) That's not how triage works. > similarly the fact we have $1200 'solutions' to COVID that could probably wipe it out without vaccines if we could get everyone the tech, but we can't 'afford' it, What is this mysterious cure? > or that masks do not protect yo…

--- "That's not how triage works." Triage: "the assignment of degrees of urgency to wounds or illnesses to decide the order of treatment of a large number of patients or casualties." Seems exactly like triage. --- "What is this mysterious cure?" Monoclonal Antibodies are a very effective treatment that we would use almost ubiquitously were it not for the cost. If they were $1 and easily administered, they are in some…

> Go ahead and try to get the 'hard data' on exactly where vaccines have materially caused death, good luck, it's hard to find.

The Paul Ehrlich institute for example publishes exact numbers of possibly vaccine related deaths. What more do you want? Do you want them to publish names and photos of every person that died after getting vaccinated?

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#127

Post by JackFr » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:54 PM UTC

calibas wrote: post #32

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. The planet doesn't care what lives on it or if anything lives at all. There is no best for the planet outside of goals humans set for it. > It's so odd that all our frantic doing is what's thrown the Planet out of balance The planet has never been in balance. And even if we stop anthropogenic climate change something else wi…

FYI, when people are talking about helping "the Planet" they're not talking about lifeless rocks, they're talking about preserving the diversity of life on the Planet. And by balance I mean not precipitating another extinction event. Sure, they're going to happen anyway eventually, but we probably shouldn't cause an extra one if we don't have to...

> Sure, they're going to happen anyway eventually, but we probably shouldn't cause an extra one if we don't have to...

Honestly why not?

(To be clear, I don't think we should, but I know my reasons. They're not science based, because the question "Should we care if humanity causes an extiction event?" can't have a scientific answer.)

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#128

Post by lowbloodsugar » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:55 PM UTC

vmception wrote: post #57

mherdeg wrote: post #54

Reading this gave me a kind of horrifying idea that goes something like: You know about a deadly disease whose most serious outcomes can be avoided by getting a shot. Many members of a group in your society have decided they don't want to get the shot. You are annoyed by the way they talk about a lot of things, including the way they talk about avoiding the shot. They, in turn, call you "smug" for the way your group…

1% decrease doesn't diminish their size and political influence substantially, even of the disproportionate elderly population. Then only a fraction of the remainders that lose a loved one would re-evaluate, a large fraction of them would still be bounced back when they realize the other ideas "your group" inherits is even harder to accept as a personality trait. Most of them will inherit just enough to not think fur…

IIRC some swing states were decided by less than 1%?

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#129

Post by seoaeu » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:55 PM UTC

reducesuffering wrote: post #98

You're the (US) government. You want to prevent deaths from Covid. Research keeps generally concluding that previous Covid infection natural immunity is roughly as good as vaccine induced. You realize if you message this to the public and allow equality to vax-passes, never-vax people will be incentivized to now try and get covid so they can be restriction-less without being vaxxed, further spreading covid. You decid…

Is anyone really surprised by this? All evidence suggests that getting the vaccine strictly increases your immunity to Covid, even if you've already had the disease.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#130

Post by xupybd » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:56 PM UTC

As one of the church goers that genuinely believes in God and the afterlife I'm surprised and saddened to hear people attend in disbelief. It's a shame the same community can't be found amongst others that hold similar beliefs. It's sad that someone can't be true to their own beliefs.