AgnosticBoy wrote:
I only interpret that to mean that you are not bothered by it which means you're okay with not meeting the lower standard. That's the only interpretation given the fact that you have presented your BELIEFS for
support in a DEBATE. Refer to the next response below for examples.
Opinion noted.
Was one of your responses that the governors did not have the goal to open the economy while limiting deaths, not an opinion?
No, not by your definition, since it's not accepted as truth.
Is it not an opinion, that suffering should be equal?
Yes, but it's outside of a purely intellectual matter.
And if you do ask, then I will return with a question about you knowing the answer. If you do know the answer, then providing it would be proof of that. No answer = no case proven, or at least as far as you knowing the answer.
Sure, you do you, I have no problem answering questions.
Are you saying that you are not an honest person? I know politicians aren't straightforward for a reason, as well.
Dictionary.com... straightforward: (of a person) honest, frank, and simple.
Somewhat. I like giving people enough rope to hang themselves, that's my style.
Given we have plenty of pages on this discussion built on misunderstanding each other, which is part of the "mess" you referred to in your last post, I'd think an efficient route would be a straightforward one. I hope you would commit
again to being straightforward .
Previously, you stated the following, "Same as above, yes. I have no problem giving you straight answers."
Bust Nak
Not the same thing as being straight forward. I can be straight with my answers while being tricky with my questions.
You still apply logic even if you can't prove its axioms.
Sure, but the point is, you cannot apply logic to ensure truth without accepting the axioms are true.
So lets just believe all of the NT scholars who tell us that Jesus exist. We can avoid Richard Carrier and other mythicists since they are "outliers". I'm applying your standard.
Sure.
You accept something as true because someone told you as opposed to digging into the details yourself. That's no different than what atheists accuse Christians of doing when Christians accept someone's words as truth. That doesn't fit in with the type of agnostic I brought up in post 1.
First of all, you are forgetting the difference between who we listen to. Secondly, you do the same thing when you quote articles.
First, it does matter whether or not my plan would work. That's why you and other liberal Democrats on this site have spent countless of pages across different discussion areas trying to show me how it doesn't work. Now that I'm beating you on the facts, and your "experts" aren't here to debate for you, then you want to say "it does not matter". What a complete cop-out.
Not me. I am just poking holes at your claim without saying it doesn't work.
Second, be honest with the people. Governors and experts have publicly said that their goal is to open the economy while limiting covid-19 deaths. My plan would do that. There's risk or problems associated with every plan but the main risk people are concerned about is DEATH and not a runny nose. If many people weren't dying all at once then this virus wouldn't have been as scary. Like an anxious person, you seem to want every single risk alleviated, and I'm talking about risks that I know there is no expert "consensus" on, like your fear that the virus will return or that we won't be immune from it as you suggested earlier. So much for going by a real risk assessment from expert consensus!
Those are not my fear, I am fit and healthy, my risk is low.
Again my plan would keep deaths very low. It could've been implemented from the time that we started noticing patterns in the data regarding the severity of symptoms and mortality. Your plan increases the risk that the economy will crash, given the fact that the longer it stays shutdown, then the more damage it will incur.
Sure, which is why I keep telling you, you simple have different standard when it comes to acceptable risk.
But that doesn't give you an excuse to not apply reason to the fullest extent that it could be applied. Taking shortcuts by mixing in your beliefs, especially in a DEBATE, is not applying reason in areas that it could be applied.
That's moot since I only applying reason in areas that it could be applied. My beliefs applies only in areas where reason alone is not enough.
You were wrong on the goal of governments and on the hospitalization rate for the flu vs. covid-19.
No, I am not wrong on that. Got another example?
You even offered a socialist view as support for your case and then you want to dispute with me about avoiding beliefs.
There is no avoiding beliefs there, since that is not a matter of pure reasoning.
Keep in mind again, that even in areas where logic and evidence doesn't cover that I reman agnostic. If an ideology is not supported by logic and evidence entirely, then I avoid it as opposed to accepting the non-proven parts. That is one thing that separates you from me, or an agnostic from an atheist.
That's not actually different though, since the non-proven parts are areas outside of pure reasoning.
Going by what "experts" say instead of also checking on their evidence (or attacking me for at least doing so) is a double standard if you expect Christians to go by EVIDENCE and not simply what someone says.
That's not a double standard. We simply insist that they meet ours. See above for the difference.
But oddly enough, do you accept the experts who say that Jesus did exist?
Of course.
On what basis do you reject them, assuming you do? Evidence, correct? No different than what I'm doing on the issue of covid-19.
n/a
Only rational people have "thoughts"?
No, but only rational people have rational thoughts.
Can an irrational person actually conceive of something that involves combining two opposing concepts?
They say they can.
Perhaps you intended that from the beginning but didn't state it, at least not consistently. I've shown that by quoting your statements.
I don't know why you believe that when my post history says otherwise. I've stated as much
over two weeks ago when the topic of whether incoherent statements can be accepted as truth first emerged.
That's why you should've been straightforward in answering my question about
akdjfklajdfklajdfklj;fa when I asked you if that example involved a contradiction.
You didn't ask me a question though. You asked me to "point out the contradiction if any." I didn't see any, so I didn't do any pointing out. Next time ask me if there are any contradictions.
Well when you don't qualify your statements until AFTER I expose a problem with it can you blame me for questioning you? The statement I quoted mentions nothing about a contradiction. I pointed that out to you already.
Seriously? There is no need to qualify it because if someone can have an incoherent belief derived from a contradiction, then trivially someone can have an incoherent belief.
Show me where a person specified how they're holding their contradictory beliefs - two separate beliefs as opposed to one belief that combines opposing concepts.
I pass. I could probably go dig up a person saying they do hold the beliefs that God can lift an unliftable rock though, if you really insist.
Do you accept the 3 laws of "thought" and take that to consider that they don't really have a belief even if they say they do (w/ the exception of holding the opposing views as two separate beliefs)?
Don't know. I am agnostic in this instance.
Do you have any scientific verification to show how or why that can happen?
No.
From our perspective, there can be needs without desires.
Perspective is irrelevant here. If there are no needs without desires, then then are no need without desires.
For instance, our bodies have needs and they are independent of our (humans) desires.
No, our bodies have no needs.
Breathing goes with the physiological need of the body to function.
We've been though this before. This so called "need to breath" is not a need since the body does not need to function. That's like saying I need to have 1 million bucks because I can buy 1 million songs on iTunes with that money. Well I don't need a million songs so I don't actually need a million dollars.
Do you at least agree that the body can not survive without oxygen?
Yes.
Not sure what you mean here. I've shown that our body has needs. Even by your standard it is a need because you said a need has to be a required by a person or being - that being is God...
Not good enough to merely have needs, you need to show needs without a corresponding desire. You are being side tracked. The question is not whether there are needs or not. It's whether there are needs without desire.
Sure, biology doesn't "care", but its undeniable that it functions towards an end which is to survive. That is a defining characteristic of "life". Even viruses reproduce which is part of survival.
But there is no need to survive. How is this even debatable?
That is your "opinion" but not biology. Besides that, your point is invalid if we're in a theistic Universe. Your "desire" is not God's desire...
Same as above. That's proves my point instead of invalidating it. There is no need without desire, God's desire is desire.
You don't need intent. All you need is a purpose.
There is no purpose without intent either.
Just ask yourself, what does the heart do? It functions to keep the body functioning. Just because our heart doesn't understand anything, doesn't mean it doesn't work towards a particular end.
That's what the heart does, but not toward any non-prescribed ends.
Here is my general perspective on life and beliefs. The notion that you can't apply reason to all areas is false because even in the areas where you can't apply it you can just remain an agnostic.
Come on. Whether you remain an agnostic or not, does not change the fact that there are areas where you cannot apply reason to. And that trivially means you can't apply reason to all areas.
By remaining agnostic you're also being reason-based since you're not accepting (belief or otherwise) anything as true until the logic and evidence comes in.
And yet you operate as if that "what-I-would-call-a-belief" is true. How is that different from accepting it as true?
Despite that fact, I have beliefs because I want to function in life to the extent I can have good relations with family and friends and even in causal settings.
Great. That wasn't so hard to admit now, was it? So why it is such an issue when atheists do what you do?
Of course, I have little concern for verifying what's really true when I'm having fun. These types of beliefs that I do hold are simple as opposed to being part of a complete package of ideas or ideologies. This is why I call myself non-ideological (at least in terms of UNPROVEN ideologies). My beliefs are also oftentimes weak and on mundane things, like believing the trash company will pickup my trash the next day. Outside of this personal context, I choose to be a pit bull when it comes to applying the agnostic standard. I do not hold any beliefs when it comes to politics, philosophy, and religion.
Did you forget to qualify politics with "the purely intellectual part there of" again?
You're seeing it which is why you shifted the standard from "no" danger of catching the virus if you stay indoors to "less" danger.
Since when has it ever been a standard of "no" danger?
When governments are making decisions based on what would contain the virus, then my point matters because if lockdowns don't work as good as people thought, then obviously the plan needs to be readjusted. Not ADMITTING that would lead to a false sense of security.
Sure.
Last I checked it was California that instituted the first state-wide lockdown. They were praised by officials as they saw a low infection rate (at least, as reported). But if they were factoring compliance to the lockdown orders in their stats like New York did, then they might also find like New York that a big percentage of the infected were those who complied with the stay-at-home orders. But we don't have to rely on just that factor since antibody tests would also give us a fuller picture on the rate of infection, as opposed to just testing those who have symptoms.
I've already found two different antibody studies done in California and of course the number infection cases are not what Californian officials reported.
The actual number of infections from COVID-19 in Los Angeles County may be as high as 55 times the current number of confirmed positive cases, according to preliminary results from antibody tests conducted as part of a joint venture between the University of Southern California and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/results-a ... d=70249753
So yes, this is a valid reason to question the effectiveness of lockdowns and it undercuts those who think they were doing a good job because of it, esp. those Democrat governors who are the main advocates for keeping it going longer.
Why would any of that means it's not less dangerous with the lock down?
Well one leads to the other. Reducing economic lockdown helps the economy.
In which case, then it's trivial that the lock down does help the economy, since not all business are closed; and keeping people at home does stop the spread since it slows down the infection.
I'm not sure how much less given that the effectiveness of lockdowns are in question. To bring in some of my other points, I can also say that being infected presents little to no danger to the low risk population. This is why I say the goal could be refocused on isolating them from the high risk population as opposed to lockdowns on everyone. My plan helps the economy while keeping death counts low which again is the goal.
And my responds is still the scientific/medical consensus is to lock things down, and your plan has a higher risk to health than the lock down.
It's being done now so apparently working family members can socially distance from other family members. We'd be hearing it from our healthcare workers by now if they weren't able to find a way to socially distance from their families. If they can do it, I'm sure a lot of others can.
Sure, it's just harder.
Just think of ways to make it work rather than automatically jumping to the negatives. Remember, the goal is to improve things, rather than staying stuck on the doom and gloom.
Not when my goal is poking holes in your plan.
I've referenced WHO reporting that the majority of people will experience MILD symptoms. That's a statement that factors in the low and even HIGH risk populations. So imagine how much more true it is for the low risk population alone?!
Not sure how that address my point. WHO recommend staying home and self-isolating for those even with minor symptoms.
But "experts" say it is unlikely to happen. It's possible but unlikely. So much for you caring about experts, especially expert "consensus"!
Still the experts say it's not worth risking that. That's me caring about the experts, especially expert consensus.
If you don't want to go outside because there is the SLIGHTEST risk for any miniscule of a bad thing happening, then I bode you well. Very few people could live like that which is why the goal is: Open economy while keeping death count low.
You say that yet only about 1 in 4 adult in the US thinks the restriction should be lifted sooner rather than later.
This response doesn't show me that you disagree with my point. I can lend you a hand and just say it for you - ("you agree with my point"?).
It depends on the circumstances. In some instances I agree, in others I don't.
I know the majority would agree with me if DEATHS weren't an issue. I know that based on how many respond to other diseases.
Really? A long stay in hospital is a major concern for me.
Not so fast. Do you apply that same standard to New Testament scholars who agree that Jesus of the NT was a historical or real person?
Yes.
What is wrong with listening to the experts while also checking their evidence?
Nothing, as long as you are careful about the appeal to authority fallacy.
If you simply go by what a so called "expert" says, then how would you ever know if they're wrong? What happens when two experts disagree, do you simply "listen" to the one who lines up more with your ideology?
I would go with the consensus.
Putting your "faith" in experts is just as dangerous as putting faith in a pastor - both are based on you accepting things without going through the evidence yourself.
No, I do not accept that. Scientists are not on equal ground with priests.
What makes it true, them saying so or the evidence?
Makes what true exactly? Suffice to say them saying so makes it the consensus.
So no data, just words. You "read" or "listen" to it, and they're experts so it must be true? Perhaps you are beginning to get my point now.
Not much of a point when it's still sensible to listen to experts regardless of how often they are wrong.
You want Trump to lose. I appreciate you admitting that given that this matter is a hot political issue.
You are reading too much into what I said. I admit no such thing, this is a scientific/medical issue. It maybe a political issue for some, but not for me.
Oh, if you admit that you in fact did that then I take back my comment on dodging. Reading just the headline or title of an article does NOT count as Research. People on this site, especially moderators, should know this already.
Sure.
A higher risk of what? Deaths? Of damaging the economy even further?
Higher risk to health.
There are risks from any side or way you look at it. But I'm willing to bet what people care about most are DEATHS. Take that away or reduce it greatly, then they'll likely overlook it and continue to live life just as they do with other things that involve a risk.
Which is why I keep telling you, we simply have different standard of acceptable risk to heath vs economy.
I wish all of the Democrats were as candid as you. Just let it be known that you'd be willing to destroy the economy for a virus that causes MILD symptoms to the majority of the population.
That's not what I said at all. I said we would rebuild the economy should it collapse completely, that does not translate to a willingness to destroy it. Presumably you would also rebuild the economy if it collapse? Does that mean you are willing to destroy it?
So why are you still typing? Unplug your computer and give it up to a poor kid that needs to do online classes.
Because keeping my computer instead of giving it up to the poor is inline with my standard that I expect everyone to keep to.
Apparently you're not suffering enough when you have many kids suffering while you have time to spend on an unimportant debate site. Give up your computer! And tell Nancy Pelosi to accommodate a few homeless people by letting them stay in her mansion. She's part of the government!
Nah, we should go for socialism instead. Much higher taxes to pay for more social security, so there are no poor kids without computer access and no homeless people.
Right, and "saying" an opinion repeatedly is not proving it.
There is no need to, this is goal based statement and not a pure intellectual matter.
NOt when you at least have the ability to alleviate some suffering. In fact, it is often times the ones in good positions who are helping the poor. Give people something to look up to, rather than remaining in depression.
Sure, hence socialism.
How "great" can it be seeing that you're still typing?!
Exceedingly great.
Then at least let the people know what is belief and what is proven. That's a start. And then we'll see how much of it can or can't really be established by logic and evidence alone.
Okay, lets start here - what one ought to do are matters of belief.
Not necessarily. In fact, the recovery numbers in the US are the highest in the world. Hospitalization can easily translate into recovery.
Rate or raw numbers?
In fact, there goes more of a need for hospitals. They have a reaosn to expand that business even more. You see what happens when you think positively? I'm not saying don't consider the negatives, but it seems that a lot of liberals are just STUCK on the negatives and not thinking how to resolve it.
What can we say, we care about the most vulnerable, and the front line workers most in danger.
Nope, I mean rate. Here is the data and my source:
The overall hospitalization rate in the U.S. for flu this season is about 68 hospitalizations per 100,000 people
...
The overall hospitalization rate for COVID-19 in the U.S. is about 29 hospitalizations per 100,000
https://www.livescience.com/new-coronav ... h-flu.html
That looks like the per 100,000 population as opposed to per 100,000 infected. What good is that stat when it doesn't take into account the measures to limit infection?
You're sounding more and more like a good believer, except it's towards a different "faith".
And you are sounding more and more like a good believer, equating scientists with priests.
Is it wrong to listen to the experts but also check into their evidence? Is it wrong to also do that while thinking for yourself?
The evidence is light on the ground, and the situation is highly unpredictable.
I would hope most atheists want to think for themselves. Imagine the atheists who don't then going on to attack Christians. That would be hypocritical, of course.
See about re: appeal to authority fallacy.
The point is that the infection spreading will not be a major problem for the majority of the population since they'll only experience MILD symptoms. As for your other point, it's related to my claim that we don't shut down the economy for viruses that have comparable or even more of a death rate.
According to the
CDC, there has been 89,407 covid-19 deaths as of today. Only 2.8% of those are from the low risk population which gives you roughly 2,700 deaths. According to the
CDC, the 2018-19 flu season had about 34,200 total deaths. So you don't want to allow my low risk population to go out without restrictions eventhough they have a lower death rate and numbers than that of the flu?
Yes.
In other words, why would you close down the economy for 2,700 deaths and NOT for 34,200 deaths when the latter is much more?
Because we don't want more deaths.
*The death count for covid-19 low risk population would be much lower if you factored in NO underlying chronic disease which the stats don't factor for (w/ the exception of New York which is why I know that makes a difference) when considering age.
Oh, here's more facts to support my point:
During March 1–28, 2020, the overall laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated hospitalization rate was 4.6 per 100,000 population; rates increased with age, with the highest rates among adults aged ≥65 years. Approximately 90% of hospitalized patients identified through COVID-NET had one or more underlying conditions, the most common being obesity, hypertension, chronic lung disease, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease.
Source:
CDC
Earlier, I already presented my source for the overall hospitalization rates. They showed a lower hospitalization rate for covid-19 and that's considering ALL populations and not just my low risk population.
Same response as above. You need to look at hospitalization rate as number of hospitalization per infection.
Then your claim so far is not proven about the reproductive rate. I also pointed you to information on the WHO site that mentions the flu spreads faster.
Faster but would it be to more people?
This is the first time you've made a positive comment - you suggesting to actually OPEN the economy as opposed to keeping it closed. This shows me it's possible to overcome the political ideology of a person once they're presented with enough logic and evidence!
What made you think any political ideology has been overcame?
