Politics So I guess when the sh*t hits the fan, everyone's a socialist

Remove this Banner Ad

kranky al

Premium Platinum
Jun 30, 2009
22,025
28,848
Greenough
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
east perth www.pixelpac.com.au

Demonic Ascent

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 21, 2006
15,912
11,930
Muckertal
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
Has capitalism allowed us to develop the facilities to enable socialist style measures?
Isn't that the argument of Marx and Lenin? That capitalism will create the abundance of resources that will allow socialism to occur? Lenin then moved away from this and tried to push Russia directly from agrarianism into socialism/communism.
 

Run n Spread

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 2, 2013
9,765
8,302
AFL Club
Collingwood
Isn't that the argument of Marx and Lenin? That capitalism will create the abundance of resources that will allow socialism to occur? Lenin then moved away from this and tried to push Russia directly from agrarianism into socialism/communism.
Something like that but more nuanced. More that if you find a productive industry others will come in and undercut you. Thus to keep profits you need to cut cost including wages. This affects the majority as they are the workers. So you have an abundance that the workers can not afford themselves. Like in farming. You have an abundance of food but farmers themselves struggle.
Marx was a unionist after all and his arguments have merit there. The collective negotiates as a block. Should've stuck to that
Marxism as an economic system stuffs up as the government not the preference of people is allocating preference. This leads to enforcement and dictatorship. Not saying facist whack jobs are better just the nature of applying an argument to a whole range approach never works.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Run n Spread

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 2, 2013
9,765
8,302
AFL Club
Collingwood

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
15,316
29,303
AFL Club
Carlton
2 things the people they encounter are there voluntarily. So anyone mixing is assuming risk. You need to be in sustained close contact to catch a virus.
You are assuming that - under lockdown conditions - the people that are intermingling are doing so of their own volition; that they chose to be there. The point of the hard lockdown was to avoid leaving your house unless you absolutely had to.

So, anyone 'mixing' is assuming the risk, but it was in minimizing that risk to solely essential contact that made said lockdown effective. It limited the spread.

And ths isn't really relevant in any way.
Second I don't know anyone has a right not to get sick. You assume the risk of coming into contact with anybody not just from covid. What you are protected from is the right from deliberate infection from the wreckless actions of others.
... which is done by limiting what contact there was purely to essential contact; food, cleaning staff, hospitals.

Again, your point doesn't really interact with my argument. My argument is that in the context of a liberal democracy, people's rights in all kinds of directions are limited to the point in which they begin to infringe on someone else's. You said this:
I am merely stating if people wish to gather in full knowledge of what is happening they are entitled to accept the risk.
... in your original post.

If contact between people is enough to spread the virus - and it is - then your smoke and mirrors concerning the 'deliberate coughing on someone else - is just that, falsehood designed to obfuscate. Your point about people 'not having a right not to be sick' is kind of dumb, as it reflects a 'business as usual' attitude towards the virus. You're welcome outside of coronavirus conditions to behave like an antivaxer if you so choose, but under them, take your lumps.

People breaking the lockdown were assuming the risk of catching the virus for everyone they would've encountered for the next 14 days, regardless of if they'd followed the guidelines or not.
 

Run n Spread

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 2, 2013
9,765
8,302
AFL Club
Collingwood
You are assuming that - under lockdown conditions - the people that are intermingling are doing so of their own volition; that they chose to be there. The point of the hard lockdown was to avoid leaving your house unless you absolutely had to.

So, anyone 'mixing' is assuming the risk, but it was in minimizing that risk to solely essential contact that made said lockdown effective. It limited the spread.

And ths isn't really relevant in any way.

... which is done by limiting what contact there was purely to essential contact; food, cleaning staff, hospitals.

Again, your point doesn't really interact with my argument. My argument is that in the context of a liberal democracy, people's rights in all kinds of directions are limited to the point in which they begin to infringe on someone else's. You said this:

... in your original post.

If contact between people is enough to spread the virus - and it is - then your smoke and mirrors concerning the 'deliberate coughing on someone else - is just that, falsehood designed to obfuscate. Your point about people 'not having a right not to be sick' is kind of dumb, as it reflects a 'business as usual' attitude towards the virus. You're welcome outside of coronavirus conditions to behave like an antivaxer if you so choose, but under them, take your lumps.

People breaking the lockdown were assuming the risk of catching the virus for everyone they would've encountered for the next 14 days, regardless of if they'd followed the guidelines or not.
The law is not designed to protect you from all risk but the criminal actions of others.
A crime exists in 2 ways. Action and intent. By going out in public I am committing an act. But if I feel fine have no symptoms there is no intent to commit harm and not reasonable to assume I'm intending to harm.
Fining and restriction requires legal enforcement errgo requires you to have the burden of proof. Not use some weird catch all red herring or some unproven garbage that we are all carriers spreading a deadly virus without knowing we are sick.
There is a risk by going out I could have catch chicken pox for example. But the law is not meant to absolve all risk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
15,316
29,303
AFL Club
Carlton
The law is not designed to protect you from all risk but the criminal actions of others.
The law is designed to protect your rights right up until they being to infringe upon anothers, yes.

Perhaps you could stop furiously trying to disagree with me, and realise that the problem isn't that we disagree but that you don't like it.
A crime exists in 2 ways. Action and intent. By going out in public I am committing an act. But if I feel fine have no symptoms there is no intent to commit harm and not reasonable to assume I'm intending to harm.
This coronavirus provides an asymptomatic period of roughly 14 days, ergo 'feeling fine' is no indicator of actually being fine. This is common knowledge.

Therefore, ignoring restrictions is done quite intentionally, fulfilling your prerequisites as far as your definition of crime extends.
Fining and restriction requires legal enforcement errgo requires you to have the burden of proof. Not use some weird catch all red herring or some unproven garbage that we are all carriers spreading a deadly virus without knowing we are sick.
Said burden is already waived in aspects of our society, of which speeding is an example.
There is a risk by going out I could have catch chicken pox for example. But the law is not meant to absolve all risk
You're repeating yourself now, as this identical to the first part of this post.

The idea behind the lockdown was to limit the potential spread of the disease by reducing interactions to purely the essential whilst controlling those interactions with masks, sanitiser and social distancing. By breaking the lockdown, you assume that risk of each and every person who you encounter for the next 14 days.

So, your objection to my original post is as follows: you don't think that going outside whilst feeling well consitutes requisite intent when you know full well that the virus is asymptomatic for 14 days; you don't think it's the place of society to mitigate all risk, despite that not being what I'm saying; you think the burden of proof is misapplied, which is - probably - your only decent point, but as stated it happens elsewhere at law.

So, you've got nothing, really.

Either reconsider the initial post or cease replying.
 

Evolved1

Holding red and black cards
Jun 14, 2013
6,380
7,458
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Phil Ivey
You are assuming that - under lockdown conditions - the people that are intermingling are doing so of their own volition; that they chose to be there. The point of the hard lockdown was to avoid leaving your house unless you absolutely had to.

So, anyone 'mixing' is assuming the risk, but it was in minimizing that risk to solely essential contact that made said lockdown effective. It limited the spread.

And ths isn't really relevant in any way.

... which is done by limiting what contact there was purely to essential contact; food, cleaning staff, hospitals.

Again, your point doesn't really interact with my argument. My argument is that in the context of a liberal democracy, people's rights in all kinds of directions are limited to the point in which they begin to infringe on someone else's. You said this:

... in your original post.

If contact between people is enough to spread the virus - and it is - then your smoke and mirrors concerning the 'deliberate coughing on someone else - is just that, falsehood designed to obfuscate. Your point about people 'not having a right not to be sick' is kind of dumb, as it reflects a 'business as usual' attitude towards the virus. You're welcome outside of coronavirus conditions to behave like an antivaxer if you so choose, but under them, take your lumps.

People breaking the lockdown were assuming the risk of catching the virus for everyone they would've encountered for the next 14 days, regardless of if they'd followed the guidelines or not.
In light of the COVID-19 discussion, do you feel that Western governments didn't do enough to curtail HIV?

How much freedom are we willing to give up for our physical health, and at what cost? It's an interesting and nuanced discussion that tends to devolve into pigs rolling in the mud.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
15,316
29,303
AFL Club
Carlton
In light of the COVID-19 discussion, do you feel that Western governments didn't do enough to curtail HIV?
I wasn't alive for that, so while I can research it it's not really an opinion. I'd have to look into it.

How much freedom are we willing to give up for our physical health, and at what cost? It's an interesting and nuanced discussion that tends to devolve into pigs rolling in the mud.
I agree with that.

The objection I made to the initial post isn't because I necessarily agree with the lockdown, although this is at least nominally the kind of place I'm inclined to trust a government's desire to lockdown ahead of a business' want to stay open. I'm at least as libertarian as you are. My objections in this conversation stem from the fact that a) the society we live in isn't the one he wants it to be if that's what and where he's objecting, and b) from a nuanced perspective, he's not really examining his objections themselves very well.
 

Evolved1

Holding red and black cards
Jun 14, 2013
6,380
7,458
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Phil Ivey
I wasn't alive for that, so while I can research it it's not really an opinion. I'd have to look into it.


I agree with that.

The objection I made to the initial post isn't because I necessarily agree with the lockdown, although this is at least nominally the kind of place I'm inclined to trust a government's desire to lockdown ahead of a business' want to stay open. I'm at least as libertarian as you are. My objections in this conversation stem from the fact that a) the society we live in isn't the one he wants it to be if that's what and where he's objecting, and b) from a nuanced perspective, he's not really examining his objections themselves very well.
I appreciate the intelligent and thoughtful response.
 

Run n Spread

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 2, 2013
9,765
8,302
AFL Club
Collingwood
In light of the COVID-19 discussion, do you feel that Western governments didn't do enough to curtail HIV?

How much freedom are we willing to give up for our physical health, and at what cost? It's an interesting and nuanced discussion that tends to devolve into pigs rolling in the mud.
HIV was a first in that criminal negligence was established for a carrier of a disease.
Still you have no obligation of disclosure only if you are in intimate contact to wear protection.
HIV is also asymptomatic initially. However you can have all the unprotected sex you like but you are under no obligation to wear protection with any new partner unless you test positive. Even then you can disclose and it's up to them if they run the risk.
Covid lockdowns are the equivalent of banning sex.

The virus spreads through close contact. As a person you are under no obligation to be in close contact with anyone. Yet we've taken a all in approach.
As to your last question. Protection of your physical health is your responsibility not the governments. Within reason. The decision also needs to weigh the damage caused by lockdown with the lives it saves. Any risk has to be quantified we do it every day.
The other responses don't deal in fact and argument just pseudo moralising and some weird right left crap. Or crap about some weird but society stuff.
 

kranky al

Premium Platinum
Jun 30, 2009
22,025
28,848
Greenough
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
east perth www.pixelpac.com.au
HIV was a first in that criminal negligence was established for a carrier of a disease.
Still you have no obligation of disclosure only if you are in intimate contact to wear protection.
HIV is also asymptomatic initially. However you can have all the unprotected sex you like but you are under no obligation to wear protection with any new partner unless you test positive. Even then you can disclose and it's up to them if they run the risk.
Covid lockdowns are the equivalent of banning sex.

The virus spreads through close contact. As a person you are under no obligation to be in close contact with anyone. Yet we've taken a all in approach.
As to your last question. Protection of your physical health is your responsibility not the governments. Within reason. The decision also needs to weigh the damage caused by lockdown with the lives it saves. Any risk has to be quantified we do it every day.
The other responses don't deal in fact and argument just pseudo moralising and some weird right left crap. Or crap about some weird but society stuff.
never heard of superspreader hiv folk infecting hundreds in a day that exponentially grow from there
 

Run n Spread

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 2, 2013
9,765
8,302
AFL Club
Collingwood
The law is designed to protect your rights right up until they being to infringe upon anothers, yes.

Perhaps you could stop furiously trying to disagree with me, and realise that the problem isn't that we disagree but that you don't like it.

This coronavirus provides an asymptomatic period of roughly 14 days, ergo 'feeling fine' is no indicator of actually being fine. This is common knowledge.

Therefore, ignoring restrictions is done quite intentionally, fulfilling your prerequisites as far as your definition of crime extends.
Said burden is already waived in aspects of our society, of which speeding is an example.

You're repeating yourself now, as this identical to the first part of this post.

The idea behind the lockdown was to limit the potential spread of the disease by reducing interactions to purely the essential whilst controlling those interactions with masks, sanitiser and social distancing. By breaking the lockdown, you assume that risk of each and every person who you encounter for the next 14 days.

So, your objection to my original post is as follows: you don't think that going outside whilst feeling well consitutes requisite intent when you know full well that the virus is asymptomatic for 14 days; you don't think it's the place of society to mitigate all risk, despite that not being what I'm saying; you think the burden of proof is misapplied, which is - probably - your only decent point, but as stated it happens elsewhere at law.

So, you've got nothing, really.

Either reconsider the initial post or cease replying.
My argument is based on what should be the reach of law and government. You are the one that doesn't seem to handle someone disagreeing with you.
 

Run n Spread

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 2, 2013
9,765
8,302
AFL Club
Collingwood
never heard of superspreader hiv folk infecting hundreds in a day that exponentially grow from there
Show me proof where one person has infected hundreds of others in a day. Name of the person, proven contacts and subsequent positive tests. Otherwise this is unfounded garbage.
 

kranky al

Premium Platinum
Jun 30, 2009
22,025
28,848
Greenough
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
east perth www.pixelpac.com.au
Show me proof where one person has infected hundreds of others in a day. Name of the person, proven contacts and subsequent positive tests. Otherwise this is unfounded garbage.
name of the person?

are you 4?

health authorities first priority when they have a superspreader event is to get that persons name on the internet so noone at all can ruin their lives as revenge for killing nan, pop and uncle joe with diabetes.

*shakes head

<<< In early May, South Korean officials were rattled by a cluster of new Covid-19 cases in Seoul that they feared would spread nationwide. The outbreak was linked to one 29-year-old man who tested positive a few days after going to five clubs in Seoul’s Itaewon district on the night of May 1 into the early hours of May 2.

Officials believe as many as 5,500 people had been in those venues at the same time. Contact tracers tracked down many of these people but not others. (Here are the public places doctors avoid.)

Number of infected: 54
Serious cases: Unclear
Deaths: Unclear>>>


<<< Vegetable market in Chennai, India, May

Officials believe it may have started with a 54-year-old vegetable vendor at Koyambedu market in Chennai, India. Covering almost 300 acres, Koyambedu is one of the largest markets in Asia, with massive displays of fruits, flowers, and vegetables.

Contact tracing led to 45 more cases, four of them in the market, another to a barber just outside the market then to some of his customers, and on to truck drivers, day laborers, and other vendors all of whom traveled back and forth from towns and villages to the market.

Cases connected to the market may have accounted for more than a third of all cases in Tamil Nadu State. (Read more about traveling during Covid-19.)

Number of infected: 2,760
Serious cases: Unclear
Deaths: Unclear>>>


<<< Nursing home in Washington State, February-March

Like universities, nursing homes are more of a Covid-19 super spreader “situation” than an event. However, one clear outbreak at a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, does look like a super spreader.

On Feb. 27, officials identified a 73-year-old woman who they believe was patient zero. She was a resident of the facility who had diabetes, coronary artery disease, and heart failure, all risk factors for severe Covid-19. She developed what is now known as the classic symptoms of Covid-19— cough, fever, and trouble breathing—and ended up on a ventilator at the hospital.

While she may have been the first, the spread was likely facilitated by infected staff members not taking proper precautions and staff who went back and forth between facilities.

Number of infected: 129 at the facility, including 81 residents, 34 staff members, and 14 visitors
Serious cases: Unclear
Deaths: 23>>>>

theres three for ya - sorry they didnt provide their inside leg measurement or their drivers license numbers


source : https://www.thehealthy.com/infectious-disease/worst-covid-19-super-spreader-events/
 
Last edited:

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
15,316
29,303
AFL Club
Carlton
My argument is based on what should be the reach of law and government. You are the one that doesn't seem to handle someone disagreeing with you.
Your argument is based on an idea of the society you live in that does not exist. We don't disagree on this in a lot of ways, but I live in this world, this place, and here you are wrong.

In a liberal democracy, your rights are constrained only by the degree they impinge upon anothers. As this pertains to the coronavirus lockdown, you assume the risk for the virus for the next 14 days for each person you meet within that period. So, for the set period of the lockdown, your right to free movement is limited to allow for other's right to survive. Please note, there's no values judgement I'm placing on either position; this is merely to reflect what is and the logic behind it. That is where you challenge this viewpoint, not at the levels you're trying.

If you do not like being wrong, re-evaluate your opinion and join the rest of us. You don't even have to like it.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad