Mega Thread >>COVID-19 DISCUSSION THREAD<<

[sataris]

Maybe those over 80 should stop eating avocado toast.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Very funny. Meant as humorous

A reporter recently at a covid press conference by Scomo asked Scomo why we should place value on the elderly as to cost everyone else the economic effect and inconvenience.

Scomos response and the right one was to tear strips off the reporter pointing out that all members of society have value and same rights as everyone no life is less valuable than the other and they will all be protected because that’s what a welfare society embued with humanity does

We can make light of it and say I’m on a crusade. How annoying of me to make people hesitate in casting opinions. How would it be if I instead I said homosexuals are disgusting and should be stamped out of existence. That would be repugnant because it discriminates a minority and is wrong because we are now on a new healthy platform of equality but make no mistake that view once had favour amongst some. After all that’s just an opinion and does no harm. Right? So what exactly is the difference then? Think about it. over 80s are weak and don’t have a voice and become an easy target to attack in this way. Perhaps I’m the only person in Aust who thinks this way but I’m right just as scomo was

Sorry I’m annoying

 

[Nool Carpenna]

I say we round up everyone over the age of 80 and float them out to sea. Just my opinion.

Might as well send all the school kids too... so badly impacted after missing a couple of weeks of school that they will have very little to contribute anyway

 

[robbieando]

Might as well send all the school kids too... so badly impacted after missing a couple of weeks of school that they will have very little to contribute anyway

Great idea, would save so much on child care and school fees.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Great idea, would save so much on child care and school fees.

Hell no you’d lose family assistance

 

[Nool Carpenna]

Hell no you’d lose family assistance

Yeah... might hinder economic growth too

 

[robbieando]

Hell no you’d lose family assistance

I don't have kids so even bigger plus

 

[Kennedy Parker]

Very funny. Meant as humorous

A reporter recently at a covid press conference by Scomo asked Scomo why we should place value on the elderly as to cost everyone else the economic effect and inconvenience.

Scomos response and the right one was to tear strips off the reporter pointing out that all members of society have value and same rights as everyone no life is less valuable than the other and they will all be protected because that’s what a welfare society embued with humanity does

We can make light of it and say I’m on a crusade. How annoying of me to make people hesitate in casting opinions. How would it be if I instead I said homosexuals are disgusting and should be stamped out of existence. That would be repugnant because it discriminates a minority and is wrong because we are now on a new healthy platform of equality but make no mistake that view once had favour amongst some. After all that’s just an opinion and does no harm. Right? So what exactly is the difference then? Think about it. over 80s are weak and don’t have a voice and become an easy target to attack in this way. Perhaps I’m the only person in Aust who thinks this way but I’m right just as scomo was

Sorry I’m annoying

Interesting that in the presser you cite, the reporter is allowed to ask the question and Scomo rebukes accordingly. I must have missed the part where the reporter was litigated for asking such an ageist question.

Your comparison to that comment against homosexuals is a gross false equivalence where you compare an instance of plain incitement and abuse with a debate on a public policy pertaining to a nation's response to a pandemic. Some advocate a Swedish-esque response and argue to mitigate the downstream health and wellbeing effects of unemployment (which is not a view I personally subscribe to), you're more than welcome to point out the flaws in such a point of view but instead, you have really been shutting down non-conforming opinion with veiled threats of legal action.

You can either accept you're not the moral arbiter of this discussion and your points may be taken with a bit more seriousness, or I suppose you could pursue legal action against the site and only succeed in wasting your own time.

 

[Kapanis]

Very funny. Meant as humorous

A reporter recently at a covid press conference by Scomo asked Scomo why we should place value on the elderly as to cost everyone else the economic effect and inconvenience.

Scomos response and the right one was to tear strips off the reporter pointing out that all members of society have value and same rights as everyone no life is less valuable than the other and they will all be protected because that’s what a welfare society embued with humanity does

We can make light of it and say I’m on a crusade. How annoying of me to make people hesitate in casting opinions. How would it be if I instead I said homosexuals are disgusting and should be stamped out of existence. That would be repugnant because it discriminates a minority and is wrong because we are now on a new healthy platform of equality but make no mistake that view once had favour amongst some. After all that’s just an opinion and does no harm. Right? So what exactly is the difference then? Think about it. over 80s are weak and don’t have a voice and become an easy target to attack in this way. Perhaps I’m the only person in Aust who thinks this way but I’m right just as scomo was

Sorry I’m annoying

The problem is, IMO you seem to ignore anyone else's opinion than yours. For eg, no one who isn't a lazy get off your arse person isn't financially affected medium or long term and economically it's gonna be ok. Thanks for the advice on getting through ( I didn't ask for it) but you totally ignored the point of my response, ie a lot slipping through the cracks who are being massively effected, being selective in your discrimination there. And threatening people with legal action, actually naming them and threatening to read through threads and naming them; I've read through the thread, stop, please, it's gone beyond personal and from what I've read you've totally missed the point of what posters are trying to say.

You know there's a thread on the main board called rumours and scandals (something like that). Personally I hate it, how does that work for you and your legal stance?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Interesting that in the presser you cite, the reporter is allowed to ask the question and Scomo rebukes accordingly. I must have missed have missed the part where the reporter was litigated for asking such an ageist question.

Your comparison to that comment against homosexuals is a gross false equivalence where you compare an instance of plain incitement and abuse with a debate on a public policy pertaining to a nation's response to a pandemic. Some advocate a Swedish-esque response and argue to mitigate the downstream health and wellbeing effects of unemployment (which is not a view I personally subscribe to), you're more than welcome to point out the flaws in such a point of view but instead, you have really been shutting down non-conforming opinion with veiled threats of legal action.

You can either accept you're not the moral arbiter of this discussion and your points may be taken with a bit more seriousness, or I suppose you could pursue legal action against the site and only succeed in wasting your own time.

I didn’t say the reporter was litigated. But it is open to anyone to make a complaint under anti discrimination law and scomo could have but chose not to- he is a little busy I would say.

There is no false equivalence in the two. Both constitute plain incitement and abuse but sadly in the case of ageism no one seems to take the abuse as what it is. It is a plain ugly and offensive concept anyone suggesting elderly are sacrificial lambs having lower value than others avd should be allowed to die for benefit of others. Coincidentally that was the same reaction to homosexual abuse when in the seventies they were routinely beaten spat on by police and crowds in what’s now is the gay Mardi Gras. Attitudes change. Until this raised its ugly head I thought all minorities would have proper humane and equitable treatment but how mistaken could I be. Tbh I’m pretty disgusted

The whole problem is that no one certainly none here but a few take the abuse as what it is- discrimination of a minority in gross terms. How dare that reporter say what they did how dare some here suggest we sacrifice elderly as being valueless

Certainly no one person sits as moral arbiter. Not me. Those that sit in judgement of rules (moderators on the site) ageism commissioner anti discrimination bodies magistrates all do and that is why we have the law moral doctrines enshrined as law. They can sit as moral and legal arbiters. should I have reported I would simply be a whistleblower. The people here are good people and I’m not going to report nor seek to hurt anyone either up the chain of BF or directly under the law. That position doesn’t diminish my disgust.

To suggest that a person who chooses to seek redress under the law is being a moral arbiter exceeding their authority is plain wrong. The law exists for all and seeking redress for a wrong is a right that should never be ridiculed challenged or attacked like I have been. Even worse I was threatened with a ban. If I’m wrong the worst that can happen is it’s proven so. if I’m right though then accept the ugliness that is. I haven’t dug out the act and I’m not going to. It wastes my time if I have no intention of going further and I don’t.

Attitudes need to change. I would prefer my friends here to be leading a charge not the hurdle.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The problem is, IMO you seem to ignore anyone else's opinion than yours. For eg, no one who isn't a lazy get off your arse person isn't financially affected medium or long term and economically it's gonna be ok. Thanks for the advice on getting through ( I didn't ask for it) but you totally ignored the point of my response, ie a lot slipping through the cracks who are being massively effected, being selective in your discrimination there. And threatening people with legal action, actually naming them and threatening to read through threads and naming them; I've read through the thread, stop, please, it's gone beyond personal and from what I've read you've totally missed the point of what posters are trying to say.

You know there's a thread on the main board called rumours and scandals (something like that). Personally I hate it, how does that work for you and your legal stance?

Some will slip through the cracks I’ve said that and it’s everyone’s responsibility to help them.

I shouldn’t have used that phrase but tbh I was a little tired of the constant negativity of how bad it is and will be. I certainly don’t believe that. My opinion

I don’t visit the thread to which you refer and probably won’t. Rumours and scandals can cause problem if there is lack of truth and damage occurs to the target without a defence. I doubt that mentions will attract action but could.

Ignore others opinion? yeah you are probably right there. my ocd nature makes me put a lot of effort into formulating my own opinions avd I tend to then be invested in the conclusions I draw. Sorry

 

[robbieando]

Some will slip through the cracks I’ve said that and it’s everyone’s responsibility to help them.

I shouldn’t have used that phrase but tbh I was a little tired of the constant negativity of how bad it is and will be. I certainly don’t believe that. My opinion

I don’t visit the thread to which you refer and probably won’t. Rumours and scandals can cause problem if there is lack of truth and damage occurs to the target without a defence. I doubt that mentions will attract action but could.

Ignore others opinion? yeah you are probably right there. my ocd nature makes me put a lot of effort into formulating my own opinions avd I tend to then be invested in the conclusions I draw. Sorry

Question. Do you think that advocating for longer lockdowns which affects younger people more seriously (stats on job losses/work hours reduced and associated mental health issues) is age discrimination also?

 

[robbieando]

If lockdowns are going to be eased as they will be it’s best to start with regional centres that have little infection and no local transmission. Get all those places back to work without risk. Defer decisions on major cities at least until we see nil transmission without a known source for a minimum 2 weeks and only then and 100% testing rolled out in those centres to support risk free roll out. Personally I’m totally comfortable this going as long as it needs even until a vaccine is rolled out. Deal with it I say.

Question. Isn't opening Regional Australia before the Major Cities a little, you know, discriminatory?

 

[Kennedy Parker]

I didn’t say the reporter was litigated. But it is open to anyone to make a complaint under anti discrimination law and scomo could have but chose not to- he is a little busy I would say.

There is no false equivalence in the two. Both constitute plain incitement and abuse but sadly in the case of ageism no one seems to take the abuse as what it is. It is a plain ugly and offensive concept anyone suggesting elderly are sacrificial lambs having lower value than others avd should be allowed to die for benefit of others. Coincidentally that was the same reaction to homosexual abuse when in the seventies they were routinely beaten spat on by police and crowds in what’s now is the gay Mardi Gras. Attitudes change. Until this raised its ugly head I thought all minorities would have proper humane and equitable treatment but how mistaken could I be. Tbh I’m pretty disgusted

The whole problem is that no one certainly none here but a few take the abuse as what it is- discrimination of a minority in gross terms. How dare that reporter say what they did how dare some here suggest we sacrifice elderly as being valueless

Certainly no one person sits as moral arbiter. Not me. Those that sit in judgement of rules (moderators on the site) ageism commissioner anti discrimination bodies magistrates all do and that is why we have the law moral doctrines enshrined as law. They can sit as moral and legal arbiters. should I have reported I would simply be a whistleblower. The people here are good people and I’m not going to report nor seek to hurt anyone either up the chain of BF or directly under the law. That position doesn’t diminish my disgust.

To suggest that a person who chooses to seek redress under the law is being a moral arbiter exceeding their authority is plain wrong. The law exists for all and seeking redress for a wrong is a right that should never be ridiculed challenged or attacked like I have been. Even worse I was threatened with a ban. If I’m wrong the worst that can happen is it’s proven so. if I’m right though then accept the ugliness that is. I haven’t dug out the act and I’m not going to. It wastes my time if I have no intention of going further and I don’t.

Attitudes need to change. I would prefer my friends here to be leading a charge not the hurdle.

"how dare some here suggest we sacrifice elderly as being valueless"

It's actually unbelievable that you've convinced yourself that's the general counterargument to your post. The line of argument in favour of 'opening up the economy' is in consideration of the possibility whereby the vaccine cannot be developed and an indefinite shutdown is unsustainable because we d not live in a utopia and the government cannot look after everyone forever.
Your position was that you believed shutting down the economy for as long as needed for a vaccine to be developed is appropriate, that of course works on the premise that there will definitely be a vaccine.

One person made a misguided post (which was deleted) and ever since then you've been hammering away at a strawman and attributing ageist motives to anyone who advocated opening up.

You proclaim to be against sacrificing the elderly in order to benefit everyone else. That's awesome.

Now let me pose a question to the board: IS ANYONE HERE IN FAVOUR OF CULLING THE OLD PEOPLE SO THE REST OF US CAN GET ON WITH OUR LIVES?
...
...anybody... no? ... Nobody is supporting that?

Glad we got that cleared up!

The people making the argument for ending the shutdown are considering potential worst-case scenarios, economic collapse leading to homelessness, poverty, mental health ramifications if it happens that a vaccine cannot be found in the long-term and are making a case to avoid the worst-case scenario by opening up gradually and managing the situation so the population can progress towards immunity in the long run without overloading the healthcare system. (that's my interpretation of that argument, those who actually hold this position can correct me if I've mischaracterized it)

Of course, there's a litany of arguments against it; it's too presumptuous to assume there won't be a vaccine, there will be more infections and higher risk of death etc. and they should be presented.

Attitudes don't get changed because of finger-wagging and trying to prevent people expressing opinions, attitudes get changed by making superior moral arguments that defeat existing bad ideas.

You're not being ridiculed because you seek redress from the law, you have been ridiculed because you have painted the discussion in such black and white terms that anyone who disagrees with you must be presenting an ageist point of view in your eyes.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Question. Do you think that advocating for longer lockdowns which affects younger people more seriously (stats on job losses/work hours reduced and associated mental health issues) is age discrimination also?

I’m suggesting regions which have no virus community transmission and therefore can’t infect young or old hurt young or old. The reason I suggest regional is because of lack of virus not because they may have younger generation

 

[Angry Red Bull]

"how dare some here suggest we sacrifice elderly as being valueless"

It's actually unbelievable that you've convinced yourself that's the general counterargument to your post. The line of argument in favour of 'opening up the economy' is in consideration of the possibility whereby the vaccine cannot be developed and an indefinite shutdown is unsustainable because we d not live in a utopia and the government cannot look after everyone forever.
Your position was that you believed shutting down the economy for as long as needed for a vaccine to be developed is appropriate, that of course works on the premise that there will definitely be a vaccine.

One person made a misguided post (which was deleted) and ever since then you've been hammering away at a strawman and attributing ageist motives to anyone who advocated opening up.

You proclaim to be against sacrificing the elderly in order to benefit everyone else. That's awesome.

Now let me pose a question to the board: IS ANYONE HERE IN FAVOUR OF CULLING THE OLD PEOPLE SO THE REST OF US CAN GET ON WITH OUR LIVES?
...
...anybody... no? ... Nobody is supporting that?

Glad we got that cleared up!

The people making the argument for ending the shutdown are considering potential worst-case scenarios, economic collapse leading to homelessness, poverty, mental health ramifications if it happens that a vaccine cannot be found in the long-term and are making a case to avoid the worst-case scenario by opening up gradually and managing the situation so the population can progress towards immunity in the long run without overloading the healthcare system. (that's my interpretation of that argument, those who actually hold this position can correct me if I've mischaracterized it)

Of course, there's a litany of arguments against it; it's too presumptuous to assume there won't be a vaccine, there will be more infections and higher risk of death etc. and they should be presented.

Attitudes don't get changed because of finger-wagging and trying to prevent people expressing opinions, attitudes get changed by making superior moral arguments that defeat existing bad ideas.

You're not being ridiculed because you seek redress from the law, you have been ridiculed because you have painted the discussion in such black and white terms that anyone who disagrees with you must be presenting an ageist point of view in your eyes.

I responded to and am offended by a belief system that says the old are valueless and we shouldn’t seek to save them that we can sacrifice them accordingly. Were it opined as simply “let’s open up” I would still counter not because it’s discriminatory but because it’s not the sensible thing to do because of risk but I wouldn’t raise anti discrimination. But there are many who hold both views

The mods here have voiced that they see nothing wrong with that because it’s simply an opinion. Thats the official position of this board.

I said defer until vaccine and OR effective treatment stopping death rate and I quoted various treatments citing clinical studies supporting that that is occurring and will occur likely short term. To open up in those circumstances is plain stupidity. They will start to ease but with an eye permanently fixed to control of the transmission rate which must be kept at 1. If we don’t keep it at 1 the acceleration occurs and becomes unmanageable. The alternative argument opined in opposition is that we simply can’t persist with this so let rip. We are in a fortunate position and the envy of the world. Let’s not waste it.

I disagree with opening up in uncontrolled way because being an accountant I have a clear understanding of the math the effect of transmission rate on exponential growth. I don’t particularly like them opening until effective treatment is available because of inherent risk the difficulty to control. Hold until we have that treatment which isn’t that far off tbh. Even better go harder for eradication. We will see what happens.

I’m black and white because to get it wrong potentially means death. So because I have that well researched inflexible opinion I’m a justifiable target to ridicule you suggest. Thanks I now understand. As a mod you are supposed to be stopping any ridicule not leading it. Besides am i not entitled to have my opinion even an inflexible one?

 

[caesar88]

I don't think anyone should be ridiculed just for contributing to this thread, or for coming at it from an emotional perspective as opposed to a logical perspective, and vice versa. It's a difficult time and everyone is rightfully thinking about what is best for themselves and those closest to them. If we can't have discussions without labelling each other based on those priorities, then a thread like this achieves nothing but putting even more negative energy out there.

Edit: not exempting myself from this either as I too have gone a bit ham at times on this issue.

 

[Kennedy Parker]

I responded to and am offended by a belief system that says the old are valueless and we shouldn’t seek to save them that we can sacrifice them accordingly. Were it opined as simply “let’s open up” I would still counter not because it’s discriminatory but because it’s not the sensible thing to do because of risk but I wouldn’t raise anti discrimination. But there are many who hold both views

The mods here have voiced that they see nothing wrong with that because it’s simply an opinion. Thats the official position of this board.

Okay so I believe this is an incorrect premise. It looks like you've conflated the two separate opinions together because there is nothing to suggest that "the old are expendable" belief is a supported notion for anyone involved in this conversation.

There was a single post that expressed that particular view (which was deleted), and it is not endorsed by anyone else, probably not even the author upon reflection. The vast majority of your posts since then can only be described as broadly shaming the board in general for endorsing an ageist premise when in reality - Everybody agrees that the lives of the old have just as much value as anyone else.

You've really been waging a battle against a foe not existent on this board in your recent posts on the matter of ageism.

I said defer until vaccine and OR effective treatment stopping death rate and I quoted various treatments citing clinical studies supporting that that is occurring and will occur likely short term. To open up in those circumstances is plain stupidity. They will start to ease but with an eye permanently fixed to control of the transmission rate which must be kept at 1. If we don’t keep it at 1 the acceleration occurs and becomes unmanageable. The alternative argument opined in opposition is that we simply can’t persist with this so let rip. We are in a fortunate position and the envy of the world. Let’s not waste it.

I disagree with opening up in uncontrolled way because being an accountant I have a clear understanding of the math the effect of transmission rate on exponential growth. I don’t particularly like them opening until effective treatment is available because of inherent risk the difficulty to control. Hold until we have that treatment which isn’t that far off tbh. Even better go harder for eradication. We will see what happens.

That's a fair enough opinion and I don't believe any reasonable person will take issue with anything you've said there.

I’m black and white because to get it wrong potentially means death. So because I have that well researched inflexible opinion I’m a justifiable target to ridicule you suggest. Thanks I now understand. As a mod you are supposed to be stopping any ridicule not leading it. Besides am i not entitled to have my opinion even an inflexible one?

You have multiple misconceptions here. First of all, the potential consequences of death does not necessitate a "black and white" position. It's a situation where any action could potentially lead to death, there doesn't exist a certain solution that will act as a panacea for all sections of society. You've predominantly addressed the matter through the prism of age; and yes, opening up the economy will lead to higher infection rates and increase the risk of death disproportionately on the elderly. So from that perspective, it's ideal to continue the shutdown for longer.

However, you can slice up the population along any demographic factor and any policy that is implemented will have upsides and downsides that disproportionately affect a certain section of the populous. For example, long term social isolation and economic shutdown could in the long run lead to higher risk of death for those suffering from mental health problems, or the homeless and very poor. Now does that mean advocating a long-term shutdown is discriminatory against those with mental health issues or those in unfortunate socioeconomic circumstances? Of course not, to make such a logical leap would be absurd. It can be argued which angle warrants priority, which is wisest based on the information available, but other perspectives shouldn't be outright dismissed.

Secondly, you've obviously completely misinterpreted why people react to your posts in the manner they have. As stated previously, because you've presented yourself as a defender of the elderly. Except they are not under attack by the people here. Simple as that.

Also, given you've cited my position as moderator. I'll make it clear that this exchange is not an official statement from the moderator group, I am speaking on my own behalf here as an individual poster. Even so, I'll clarify, "stopping any ridicule" is not the duty of a moderator. A mod ensures that the site terms of service are complied with and the rules of engagement on the specific board are and a baseline standard of behaviour. People will react accordingly to the nature and content of what people post, and we're not going to protect and grant immunity from criticism.

Additionally, the purpose of my posts is not to ridicule you, everything I've said in this exchange is a serious substantive response to what you have said in your recent posts and directly challenging some assertions that I believe are absolutely incorrect. Are you entitled to your opinion? Sure. There's not been any effort to actually suppress you from expressing your views, admittedly I've seen more than one request to remove you from this conversation but I don't agree with that and believe that you should be able to say your piece regardless of whether its popular or not. But by the same token others are free to object accordingly should they wish.

I don't think anyone should be ridiculed just for contributing to this thread, or for coming at it from an emotional perspective as opposed to a logical perspective, and vice versa. It's a difficult time and everyone is rightfully thinking about what is best for themselves and those closest to them. If we can't have discussions without labelling each other based on those priorities, then a thread like this achieves nothing but putting even more negative energy out there.

Edit: not exempting myself from this either as I too have gone a bit ham at times on this issue.

Yeah, people can come from it from any perspective there wish and in a thread like this the conversation is bound to be robust. There's no point making accusations and labelling people for differing viewpoints.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

There was more than a single post expressing the view I find offensive. Perhaps some have thought better of it since I had my hissy fit. Good I say.

You’re suggesting I’m jumping at shadows. Thats not something I do or have ever done.

I don’t express my opinion seeking peoples acceptance..... ’that’s fair enough’. At days end I don’t care what people think about me or my opinions. I’m not that insecure.

There is no discrimination where an advocated path coincidentally affects a segment of community in adverse way. Discrimination occurs where a motivation is clearly discernible to hurt that segment by discriminatory views. That is self evident. I take no offence that someone may want to open up for a belief unrelated to ageism.

I take offence likewise at the bigotry was occurring on the thread relating to a cross dressing ex coach. I didn’t post because I don’t want another fight but I find it equally offensive too. My GFs adult son does this. It’s a choice arising from DNA sexual identity and his mother and me are proud of who he is as a person in entirety. Neither feel ashamed. Rather everyone should support every individuals expression of their sexual identity mainstream or not. Sadly bigotry exists and will never be stamped out. Occasionally I take a stand and hopefully if enough do attitudes change. The community persecution including police places these people in harms way because they are high risk suicide and self harm

I haven’t checked the board rules. I had naturally thought that ridicule would constitute unnecessary insult rather than criticism. It’s all about execution I guess. postulating an opposing view even embued with criticism is just that. Ridicule seeks to mock shame In a derogatory way. If you find that acceptable under the rules then that is enlightening

Example : you’re an accountant an epidemiologist and now a legal expert too.

ridicule to undermine voracity of opinion expressed trying to suggest I have NFI.

Clearly insulting. But that’s ok I have thick skin

Compared to ....I don’t agree and here is why pretty much like you did here. Mutual respect manners not too difficult really

 

[brad cooper]

There was more than a single post expressing the view I find offensive. Perhaps some have thought better of it since I had my hissy fit. Good I say.

You’re suggesting I’m jumping at shadows. Thats not something I do or have ever done.

I don’t express my opinion seeking peoples acceptance..... ’that’s fair enough’. At days end I don’t care what people think about me or my opinions. I’m not that insecure.

There is no discrimination where an advocated path coincidentally affects a segment of community in adverse way. Discrimination occurs where a motivation is clearly discernible to hurt that segment by discriminatory views. That is self evident. I take no offence that someone may want to open up for a belief unrelated to ageism.

I take offence likewise at the bigotry was occurring on the thread relating to a cross dressing ex coach. I didn’t post because I don’t want another fight but I find it equally offensive too. My GFs adult son does this. It’s a choice arising from DNA sexual identity and his mother and me are proud of who he is as a person in entirety. Neither feel ashamed. Rather everyone should support every individuals expression of their sexual identity mainstream or not. Sadly bigotry exists and will never be stamped out. Occasionally I take a stand and hopefully if enough do attitudes change. The community persecution including police places these people in harms way because they are high risk suicide and self harm

I haven’t checked the board rules. I had naturally thought that ridicule would constitute unnecessary insult rather than criticism. It’s all about execution I guess. postulating an opposing view even embued with criticism is just that. Ridicule seeks to mock shame In a derogatory way. If you find that acceptable under the rules then that is enlightening

Example : you’re an accountant an epidemiologist and now a legal expert too.

ridicule to undermine voracity of opinion expressed trying to suggest I have NFI.

Clearly insulting. But that’s ok I have thick skin

Compared to ....I don’t agree and here is why pretty much like you did here. Mutual respect manners not too difficult really

You clearly don't have a thick skin if you found what was said to you insulting.

From memory this has all started because you don't like the fact some people think that the economic fall out of this current lock down might have more devastating consequences than the virus itself.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You clearly don't have a thick skin if you found what was said to you insulting.

From memory this has all started because you don't like the fact some people think that the economic fall out of this current lock down might have more devastating consequences than the virus itself.

I’m not upset one little bit by anyone holding different opinions about economic effects. I certainly disagree and have explained why I disagree. If you are trying to link my views about ageism with my views or opposition to them about economic effects then there is none. They are two entirely separate issues. Are you suggesting I took hardline issue with legality of ageism remarks being expressed specifically in order to undermine also the general debate in opposition to my economic views? Exactly why would I do that? This is a debate here none of what I say or others in opposition will affect policy measures. So why would I seek to discourage debate when it has no practical impact? let me answer: I wouldn’t and didn’t

I can academically determine something as being modestly insulting on that level without having an emotional reaction. Thick skin remains thick I assure you.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Scomo lets slip that eradication is in the frame as objective yet still with easing of restrictions to be announced Friday. They must think both are achievable. Interesting

The current transmission rate is 1.01. At it’s lowest 0.86

 

[sataris]

Restrictions will be in place until the health services can handle the number of serious cases without being overwhelmed.

We're not going to shut down civilisation until we cure mortality.

 

[The King!]

went out for a "work drive" today, nice to be out on the road, clear the mind , listen to podcasts

seems to be some hope in businesses and less of the Intial fear down here

looking forward to gutweins timeframes coming out Friday, hiding away has gone long enough

 

[Ticky009]

Some really interesting discussions taking place in the medical community on the vitamin D issue I mentioned previously