Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

[otseng]

I'll go ahead and say because of this the agnostic would be more reasonable than an atheist, in the same way atheists think they are more reasonable than Christians. The reason for this is not because of agnostics being all-knowing or arrogant, but rather it's because the PRINCIPLE that agnostics live by. Again, the principle of applying logic and evidence standard to ALL areas would mean that we use REASON more than the atheists that only applies it to matters of religion.

For debate:
Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

[AgnosticBoy]

So you are telling me that tales of the Greek pantheon are not beliefs because no one believe them anymore?

Again, refer to the definition for 'belief'.

Extra:
You can say they were ancient Greek beliefs because you're referring to who or when they were held. But today, if no one holds it then it is not a belief to anybody. You don't hold it as a belief so it's not a belief for you. It's not my belief.

Sure it matters. When that number is zero, it is not accepted by anyone.

Then it is also not a belief for anyone, by definition.

But no longer a belief? When referring to Greek mythology, be sure to qualify it as ex-belief.

Refer to the definition of belief.

Also, consider my point on hypotheticals. Just because I ASSUME God's existence to be true, just to argue about objective morals, does not mean I believe God exists. I don't even need to determine if God is backed by logic and evidence just to ASSUME his existence.

That much goes without saying. But it does not apply here since you go beyond assuming something for the sake of argument. You said the goal is true.

Um, no I didn't. Saying "IF that's the goal" , doesn't mean that it is the goal or should be.

Definition for "if":

on the assumption that

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/if

Why? Isn't a view that is not based on logic and evidence alone a belief?

I would rather say it is a belief if it is not supported by logic and evidence alone. As I mentioned before feelings can be involved and it not be a belief just as long as the feelings are not being taken for truth. I accept that the logic and evidence alone proves my case. Which is why I've used logic and evidence alone to successfully prove my case on this site.

How can a proven view be a belief or opinion???

Presumably it can't? But that's moot since I was talking about your unproven view.

My view is proven so it's not a belief.

It is a hypothetical proposition. I assume its truth.

Well that's not what you said before, nor is it what you are saying below for that matter. You said, and are still saying the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure.

Refer to the definition for the word "if" which I posted earlier.

I assume that the goal is to lessen damages, and opening the economy would do just that. By definition, goals should be accomplished.

As mentioned before, if that's all you were saying, you wouldn't be calling on the government to reopen the economy.

But that is what the governor's are saying. They don't want to open up the economy because it would lead to high deaths and I've shown otherwise. That means they can open the economy. So I am pushing them based on their own standards.

Feelings are not why I accept the view as being proven or true. Feelings are why I "LIKE" the view but liking something does not make it proven nor true. It is logic and evidence that makes a view true, and that is the only reason I accept it as truth.

Well, there you go, that doesn't sound very much like a hypothetical proposition, assumed to be true for the sake of argument, now, does it? You really need to get your story straight first.

Only one of my views involving hypothetical. The other one is very much proven. As for the hypothetical one, I don't assume that it's true because of feelings, but rather I assume it's true to argue the point that the economy should be opened. By definition, goals should be met.

Did you mean to say that it is not based on logic and evidence alone? I ask because if it is already proven by logic and evidence, then what more can we use for proof?

Nah, I meant to say it's not proven by logic and evidence alone. How can it be already proven by logic and evidence, when it is not proven by logic and evidence alone?

I'm not sure why you would use the word proof at all if it doesn't involve logic and evidence. You seem to be implying that something other than logic and evidence can serve as proof oh, so please tell me what that is.

All that's required for proof is logic and evidence. I can see that a view may have started out based on feelings, but when logic and evidence is added, and it's enough to prove the view...

Is it though? You would still have something that is in the middle of the scale of proof.

What are you talkin about? It's either proven or it's not proven. There's no middle level proof. my view is proven and that all of its claims are supported by logic and evidence. There's no opinion to it.

My view has always been that what proves that a view true is logic and evidence alone.

In my last post, I was referring to evidence that would show that something is True. It's not different than saying opinions contain nothing proven. Now we can say that parts of a view are proven and parts are not. In that case, my point about opinion would only apply to the unproven parts of the view. I answered to this in my very next reply in this post.

Well that's clear as mud. From what I can gathered on one end of scale of proof as you called it below, you have the proven fact with 100% logic and evidence, on the opposite end, you have opinion with ZERO logic and evidence. What is the stuff that populates the vast middle ground between proven fact and opinion?

Insufficient or no evidence for some part of the view. You agreed with me earlier that a proven view can not also be an opinion and now you're acting as if you don't know what I mean.

The parts that aren't proven are opinion. Those opinionated parts contain ZERO evidence or proof.

So can I get you on record in saying parts of liberalism is factual and true then?

Yes, I accept that.

That's a contradictory belief and not a incoherent belief. I know what both statements (God is omnipotent/ creating an unliftable rock) mean.

We've been through that before, that's not coherent, it's merely intelligible. Intelligible doesn't get you to coherence. Unintelligible would involve not knowing what anything means - having no idea what it means.

I agree that intelligible things do not go with incoherence.

I clarified my point. I was referring to evidence on the scale of proof. I was using 'opinion' in sharp distinction with 'knowledge' or 'fact'...

You bring up a scenario where there is evidence but it is still less than proof (saying it's likely to happen does not mean you've proven or KNOW it will happen). Something in that case would still be a belief because you don't know for a fact that it would happen.

"Less than proof," that sounded to me like less than 100% logic and evidence? That does not gel with what you told me earlier. You said in your last post, and I quote, "To be an opinion, there has to be ZERO logic and evidence." There is a huge difference between less than 100% and ZERO. So which is it?

Having a belief based in some evidence is certainly better than having a baseless opinion, but it's still a belief nonetheless. The only thing I accept as truth are facts and you and I could both agree that liberalism is not a factual worldview - not entirely it's not.

Now it sounds like you are going with less than 100%.

Science is very wide ranging, correct? Science can be applied to all intellectual matters. All you gotta do is seek verifiable evidence in those matters, and if you can't get it then you remain unconvinced.

You don't sound unconvinced when it came to " the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure" is that not an intellectual matters where science applies?

Or how about you consider the scientists who do use a science approach on all matters rather than arguing as if they don't exist.

How about you concede that plenty of scientists don't use a science approach on all matters first?

Zzyzx has claimed to be one of those. Perhaps you fall short of that?

What exactly was Zzyzx's claim? It is impossible to use a scientific approach on all matters, since there are matters other than intellectual matters where science does not apply.

I do and I'm not a scientist. So far, it seems you are not willing to give up your unproven ideologies because you've said nothing about that AFTER I told you that is part of what's required. Independents give up on liberal ideology or at least the unproven areas. Not sure why you think others can't.

I think that because I have evidence and logic to support that view.

Prove it!

That's easy. Goals are set by individual based on their desires. Without desire there is no goal, hence you cannot separate desires from goals.

Should I say you reject God because of your feelings? If it is possible to avoid feelings in that case, then you should accept it is possible for feelings not to be a factor in my accepting my view as truth.

Nah, rejection of God is not a goal, hence the above argument does not apply.

Logic and evidence alone shows that my view is true. All of its claims are proven as opposed to just some of its views.

Sounds to me like you are saying 100% logic and evidence as opposed to non-ZERO amount of logic and evidence here. Did I understand you correctly?

No. The 3 to 4% mortality rate is based on ALL (low risk and high risk population) death cases. What I'm claiming is less than 1% are deaths among the LOW risk population.

Right, so you accept that COVID-19 is more deadly than seasonal flu for both the low risk group and the high risk group, but still think it's a good example to compare COVID-19 with.

Clearly false. I'm referring to a mortality rate that we would keep the economy open for. That doesn't take referencing the mortality rate for the low risk flu population since we keep the economy open for a mortality rate that would be higher than that (i.e. ALL deaths counting the LOW and HIGH risk for flu).

But that makes it that much harder for the HIGH risk group to isolate, plus the LOW risk group are still taking up hospital beds for the serious but not life threatening conditions.

Do you know how many of the low risk population have died in a covid-19 hot spot like New York? 15 people

Do you know how many of the low risk population have died in a seasonal flu hot spot? What am I supposed to be comparing this 15 figure to?

You gonna shut down the economy for a population that only has 15 deaths?

Yes.

Do you see why protestors think that many of the governors are being unnecessarily restrictive?

Also yes.

No, because my stats comes from people who already have the disease. It was spread to them already. And it is a FACT, that out of those who do have it, those 44 years old and younger, account for a very small percentage of the deaths. Again, refer to my last reply.

Sure, but you are not taking into account who is being inflicted. The high risk group were (somewhat) quickly isolated, meaning lower death rate.

It doesn't cause as much damage as keeping people inside their home entirely, but there is still a negative effect on the economy compared to having it open completely. Please stop spinning it as if it's otherwise.

You are the one doing the spinning. Sure there is damage, but measures are being taken to limit that damage, you just disagree on the level of acceptable damage to the economy.

If they were focused on it, then they would use logic and evidence. Simple!

And if they were not focused on it, then they would not use logic and evidence. Also simple!

Your statement here proves nothing. Address my evidence and not who is what.

You are the one who brought up acting like scientists - my statement proves that your claims are at odds with those who have evidence and logic.

You've failed to disprove my OP and now you're failing even on these side matters. You have more questions than proof!

Opinion noted.[/quote]

[AgnosticBoy]

So you are telling me that tales of the Greek pantheon are not beliefs because no one believe them anymore?

Again, refer to the definition for 'belief'.

Extra:
You can say they were ancient Greek beliefs because you're referring to who or when they were held. But today, if no one holds it then it is not a belief to anybody. You don't hold it as a belief so it's not a belief for you. It's not my belief.

Sure it matters. When that number is zero, it is not accepted by anyone.

Then it is also not a belief for anyone, by definition.

But no longer a belief? When referring to Greek mythology, be sure to qualify it as ex-belief.

Refer to the definition of belief.

Also, consider my point on hypotheticals. Just because I ASSUME God's existence to be true, just to argue about objective morals, does not mean I believe God exists. I don't even need to determine if God is backed by logic and evidence just to ASSUME his existence.

That much goes without saying. But it does not apply here since you go beyond assuming something for the sake of argument. You said the goal is true.

Um, no I didn't. Saying "IF that's the goal" , doesn't mean that it is the goal or should be.

Definition for "if":

on the assumption that

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/if

Why? Isn't a view that is not based on logic and evidence alone a belief?

I would rather say it is a belief if it is not supported by logic and evidence alone. As I mentioned before feelings can be involved and it not be a belief just as long as the feelings are not being taken for truth. I accept that the logic and evidence alone proves my case. Which is why I've used logic and evidence alone to successfully prove my case on this site.

How can a proven view be a belief or opinion???

Presumably it can't? But that's moot since I was talking about your unproven view.

My view is proven so it's not a belief.

It is a hypothetical proposition. I assume its truth.

Well that's not what you said before, nor is it what you are saying below for that matter. You said, and are still saying the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure.

Refer to the definition for the word "if" which I posted earlier.

I assume that the goal is to lessen damages, and opening the economy would do just that. By definition, goals should be accomplished.

As mentioned before, if that's all you were saying, you wouldn't be calling on the government to reopen the economy.

But that is what the governor's are saying. They don't want to open up the economy because it would lead to high deaths and I've shown otherwise. That means they can open the economy. So I am pushing them based on their own standards.

Feelings are not why I accept the view as being proven or true. Feelings are why I "LIKE" the view but liking something does not make it proven nor true. It is logic and evidence that makes a view true, and that is the only reason I accept it as truth.

Well, there you go, that doesn't sound very much like a hypothetical proposition, assumed to be true for the sake of argument, now, does it? You really need to get your story straight first.

Only one of my views involving hypothetical. The other one is very much proven. As for the hypothetical one, I don't assume that it's true because of feelings, but rather I assume it's true to argue the point that the economy should be opened. By definition, goals should be met.

Did you mean to say that it is not based on logic and evidence alone? I ask because if it is already proven by logic and evidence, then what more can we use for proof?

Nah, I meant to say it's not proven by logic and evidence alone. How can it be already proven by logic and evidence, when it is not proven by logic and evidence alone?

I'm not sure why you would use the word proof at all if it doesn't involve logic and evidence. You seem to be implying that something other than logic and evidence can serve as proof oh, so please tell me what that is.

All that's required for proof is logic and evidence. I can see that a view may have started out based on feelings, but when logic and evidence is added, and it's enough to prove the view...

Is it though? You would still have something that is in the middle of the scale of proof.

What are you talkin about? It's either proven or it's not proven. There's no middle level proof. my view is proven and that all of its claims are supported by logic and evidence. There's no opinion to it.

My view has always been that what proves that a view true is logic and evidence alone.

In my last post, I was referring to evidence that would show that something is True. It's not different than saying opinions contain nothing proven. Now we can say that parts of a view are proven and parts are not. In that case, my point about opinion would only apply to the unproven parts of the view. I answered to this in my very next reply in this post.

Well that's clear as mud. From what I can gathered on one end of scale of proof as you called it below, you have the proven fact with 100% logic and evidence, on the opposite end, you have opinion with ZERO logic and evidence. What is the stuff that populates the vast middle ground between proven fact and opinion?

Insufficient or no evidence for some part of the view. You agreed with me earlier that a proven view can not also be an opinion and now you're acting as if you don't know what I mean.

The parts that aren't proven are opinion. Those opinionated parts contain ZERO evidence or proof.

So can I get you on record in saying parts of liberalism is factual and true then?

Yes, I accept that.

That's a contradictory belief and not a incoherent belief. I know what both statements (God is omnipotent/ creating an unliftable rock) mean.

We've been through that before, that's not coherent, it's merely intelligible. Intelligible doesn't get you to coherence. Unintelligible would involve not knowing what anything means - having no idea what it means.

I agree that intelligible things do not go with incoherence. I would not be able to determine that two different statements contradicted each other if I wasn't able to understand each statement separately. If something was incoherent did I wouldn't be able to understand the meaning of it.

I clarified my point. I was referring to evidence on the scale of proof. I was using 'opinion' in sharp distinction with 'knowledge' or 'fact'...

You bring up a scenario where there is evidence but it is still less than proof (saying it's likely to happen does not mean you've proven or KNOW it will happen). Something in that case would still be a belief because you don't know for a fact that it would happen.

"Less than proof," that sounded to me like less than 100% logic and evidence? That does not gel with what you told me earlier. You said in your last post, and I quote, "To be an opinion, there has to be ZERO logic and evidence." There is a huge difference between less than 100% and ZERO. So which is it?

Having insufficient (less than 100%) evidence would also count as an opinion. Iclarified the type of evidence that I was looking for in my last post. Opinion would have ZERO proof.

Science is very wide ranging, correct? Science can be applied to all intellectual matters. All you gotta do is seek verifiable evidence in those matters, and if you can't get it then you remain unconvinced.

You don't sound unconvinced when it came to " the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure" is that not an intellectual matters where science applies?

Science cannot confirm that statement show me true so I would remain agnostic on if that should be to goal. That is the way to think like a scientist. You withhold judgment until the facts are in.

Or how about you consider the scientists who do use a science approach on all matters rather than arguing as if they don't exist.

How about you concede that plenty of scientists don't use a science approach on all matters first?

That would be irrelevant to showing that science approach can be used in all intellectual matters. I just gave you a scenario and the last reply.

Zzyzx has claimed to be one of those. Perhaps you fall short of that?

What exactly was Zzyzx's claim?

Oh, I thought you would have figured it out by his constant requests for verifiable evidence on all matters. That's scientific.. But here goes one comment

Are you also a liberal?

No I am not. Nor am I a conservative, moderate, or a Democrat or a Republican; or an Atheist or Agnostic, etc.

It is impossible to use a scientific approach on all matters, since there are matters other than intellectual matters where science does not apply.

I'm not referring to non-intellectual matters.

Prove it!

That's easy. Goals are set by individual based on their desires. Without desire there is no goal, hence you cannot separate desires from goals.

Desire doesn't apply to all goals. Goals can also be based on needs, like the need to limit damage to the economy. With that said, my hypothetical involved a national goal that's based on the need for a good economy. Even if that was my desire oh, I never claimed that my wanting it makes it true or that it should be the national goal.

Should I say you reject God because of your feelings? If it is possible to avoid feelings in that case, then you should accept it is possible for feelings not to be a factor in my accepting my view as truth.

Nah, rejection of God is not a goal, hence the above argument does not apply.[/quote]
Well at least you're acknowledging that some views are not based in feelings.

Logic and evidence alone shows that my view is true. All of its claims are proven as opposed to just some of its views.

Sounds to me like you are saying 100% logic and evidence as opposed to non-ZERO amount of logic and evidence here. Did I understand you correctly?

Correct.

No. The 3 to 4% mortality rate is based on ALL (low risk and high risk population) death cases. What I'm claiming is less than 1% are deaths among the LOW risk population.

Right, so you accept that COVID-19 is more deadly than seasonal flu for both the low risk group and the high risk group, but still think it's a good example to compare COVID-19 with.

Actually, I'm not sure that there is a low risk group for the flu since it affects all age ranges. What I'm going by is the mortality rate. We are willing to let people work if the mortality rate is only 1% and that's a given since we don't shut down the economy for the flu. By that same standard we should also let those who have a low risk of dying from covid-19 (a mortality rate of 1% ) work.

But that makes it that much harder for the HIGH risk group to isolate, plus the LOW risk group are still taking up hospital beds for the serious but not life threatening conditions.

How would it be harder for the high-risk groups to isolate? I mean if they're already in isolation, and one difference is that they're just not working like the lowest population is. But even if they do go out among the low-risk population crowd then all they have to do is practice social distancing which is what they're doing now when they go into supermarkets and other places where the low-risk populations are as well.

You also bring up hospitalizations but they can handle it just like they can handle it for the flu. did you bothered to check those stats before making your claim? Did you factor in that the majority of the people who who get coronavirus experience mild symptoms?

In fact, the hospitalization rate for the flu is actually higher than that for coronavirus.

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

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livesc ... h-flu.html

Do you know how many of the low risk population have died in a seasonal flu hot spot? What am I supposed to be comparing this 15 figure to?

I don't know given that I'm not aware of what the low-risk population would be for the flu virus.
But most if not all would agree that 15 is not a high number. Let's just say that number that you're asking about for the flu virus is only five people. Be honest, is 10 more deaths such a big difference and so much so that you would shut down the economy for it?

You gonna shut down the economy for a population that only has 15 deaths?

Yes.

But 15 is a low death count correct? So your standard isn't about keeping the death count low but rather you don't want any deaths at all. That's interesting given that the flu has a higher death count but yet you would still keep economy open for it. That's hypocritical.

No, because my stats comes from people who already have the disease. It was spread to them already. And it is a FACT, that out of those who do have it, those 44 years old and younger, account for a very small percentage of the deaths. Again, refer to my last reply.

Sure, but you are not taking into account who is being inflicted. The high risk group were (somewhat) quickly isolated, meaning lower death rate.

I really question if you know what you're talkin about. The more people that have the virus and that don't die from it would actually lower the death rate. I can demonstrate that for you mathematically if you'd like. Either way the mortality rate is based on the number of people who are infected and not on the number that are not.

It doesn't cause as much damage as keeping people inside their home entirely, but there is still a negative effect on the economy compared to having it open completely. Please stop spinning it as if it's otherwise.

You are the one doing the spinning. Sure there is damage, but measures are being taken to limit that damage, you just disagree on the level of acceptable damage to the economy.

All that can be done is not being done. That's why I say what's being done now is more tailored to prevent starvation and to cover emergencies then it is to preserve the economy. Are any of the governors claiming that they left open "essential" businesses for the purposes of preserving the economy?

If they were focused on it, then they would use logic and evidence. Simple!

And if they were not focused on it, then they would not use logic and evidence. Also simple![

That doesn't mean they would use belief. They may not even be focused on it at all. But the main point is that it is possible the focus on it in a scientific way and that is by applying logic and evidence to the matter.

[AgnosticBoy]

So you are telling me that tales of the Greek pantheon are not beliefs because no one believe them anymore?

Refer to the definition for 'belief' which I posted in my last post.

Sure it matters. When that number is zero, it is not accepted by anyone.

Then it is also not a belief for anyone, by definition.

But no longer a belief? When referring to Greek mythology, be sure to qualify it as ex-belief.

Refer to the definition of belief.

Also, consider my point on hypotheticals. Just because I ASSUME God's existence to be true, just to argue about objective morals, does not mean I believe God exists. I don't even need to determine if God is backed by logic and evidence just to ASSUME his existence.

That much goes without saying. But it does not apply here since you go beyond assuming something for the sake of argument. You said the goal is true.

Um, no I didn't. Saying "IF that's the goal" , doesn't mean that it is the goal or should be.

Definition for "if":

on the assumption that

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/if

Why? Isn't a view that is not based on logic and evidence alone a belief?

I would rather say it is a belief if it is not supported by logic and evidence alone. As I mentioned before feelings can be involved and it not be a belief just as long as the feelings are not being taken for truth. I accept that the logic and evidence alone proves my case. Which is why I've used logic and evidence alone to successfully prove my case on this site.

How can a proven view be a belief or opinion???

Presumably it can't? But that's moot since I was talking about your unproven view.

My view is proven so it's not a belief.

It is a hypothetical proposition. I assume its truth.

Well that's not what you said before, nor is it what you are saying below for that matter. You said, and are still saying the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure.

Refer to the definition for the word "if" which I posted earlier.

I assume that the goal is to lessen damages, and opening the economy would do just that. By definition, goals should be accomplished.

As mentioned before, if that's all you were saying, you wouldn't be calling on the government to reopen the economy.

But that is what the governor's are saying. They don't want to open up the economy because it would lead to high deaths and I've shown otherwise. That means they can open the economy. So I am pushing them based on their own standards.

Feelings are not why I accept the view as being proven or true. Feelings are why I "LIKE" the view but liking something does not make it proven nor true. It is logic and evidence that makes a view true, and that is the only reason I accept it as truth.

Well, there you go, that doesn't sound very much like a hypothetical proposition, assumed to be true for the sake of argument, now, does it? You really need to get your story straight first.

Only one of my views is hypothetical. The other one is very much proven. As for the hypothetical one, I don't assume that it's true because of feelings, but rather I assume it's true to argue the point that the economy should be opened. I also used it as an example of where or when I would use the word "should". By definition, goals should be met.

Did you mean to say that it is not based on logic and evidence alone? I ask because if it is already proven by logic and evidence, then what more can we use for proof?

Nah, I meant to say it's not proven by logic and evidence alone. How can it be already proven by logic and evidence, when it is not proven by logic and evidence alone?

I'm not sure why you would use the word proof at all if it doesn't involve logic and evidence. You seem to be implying that something other than logic and evidence can serve as proof. If so please tell me what that is.

All that's required for proof is logic and evidence. I can see that a view may have started out based on feelings, but when logic and evidence is added, and it's enough to prove the view...

Is it though? You would still have something that is in the middle of the scale of proof.

What are you talkin about? It's either proven or it's not proven. There's no middle level proof. my view is proven and that all of its claims are supported by logic and evidence. There's no opinion to it.

My view has always been that what proves that a view true is logic and evidence alone.

In my last post, I was referring to evidence that would show that something is True. It's not different than saying opinions contain nothing proven. Now we can say that parts of a view are proven and parts are not. In that case, my point about opinion would only apply to the unproven parts of the view. I answered to this in my very next reply in this post.

Well that's clear as mud. From what I can gathered on one end of scale of proof as you called it below, you have the proven fact with 100% logic and evidence, on the opposite end, you have opinion with ZERO logic and evidence. What is the stuff that populates the vast middle ground between proven fact and opinion?

Insufficient or no evidence for some part of the view. You agreed with me earlier that a proven view can not also be an opinion and now you're acting as if you don't know what I mean.

The parts that aren't proven are opinion. Those opinionated parts contain ZERO evidence or proof.

So can I get you on record in saying parts of liberalism is factual and true then?

Yes, I accept that.

That's a contradictory belief and not a incoherent belief. I know what both statements (God is omnipotent/ creating an unliftable rock) mean.

We've been through that before, that's not coherent, it's merely intelligible. Intelligible doesn't get you to coherence. Unintelligible would involve not knowing what anything means - having no idea what it means.

I agree that intelligible things do not go with incoherence. I would not be able to determine that two different statements contradicted each other if I wasn't able to understand each statement separately. If something was incoherent did I wouldn't be able to understand the meaning of it.

I clarified my point. I was referring to evidence on the scale of proof. I was using 'opinion' in sharp distinction with 'knowledge' or 'fact'...

You bring up a scenario where there is evidence but it is still less than proof (saying it's likely to happen does not mean you've proven or KNOW it will happen). Something in that case would still be a belief because you don't know for a fact that it would happen.

"Less than proof," that sounded to me like less than 100% logic and evidence? That does not gel with what you told me earlier. You said in your last post, and I quote, "To be an opinion, there has to be ZERO logic and evidence." There is a huge difference between less than 100% and ZERO. So which is it?

Having insufficient (less than 100%) evidence would also count as an opinion. I clarified the type of evidence that I was looking for in my last post. Opinion would have ZERO proof.

Science is very wide ranging, correct? Science can be applied to all intellectual matters. All you gotta do is seek verifiable evidence in those matters, and if you can't get it then you remain unconvinced.

You don't sound unconvinced when it came to " the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure" is that not an intellectual matters where science applies?

Science cannot confirm that statement so I would remain agnostic on if that should be to goal. That is the way to think like a scientist. You withhold judgment until the facts are in.

Or how about you consider the scientists who do use a science approach on all matters rather than arguing as if they don't exist.

How about you concede that plenty of scientists don't use a science approach on all matters first?

That would be irrelevant to showing that science approach can be used in all intellectual matters. I just gave you a scenario and the last reply.

Zzyzx has claimed to be one of those. Perhaps you fall short of that?

What exactly was Zzyzx's claim?

Oh, I thought you would have figured it out by his constant requests for verifiable evidence on all matters. That's scientific.. But here goes one comment

Are you also a liberal?

No I am not. Nor am I a conservative, moderate, or a Democrat or a Republican; or an Atheist or Agnostic, etc.

It is impossible to use a scientific approach on all matters, since there are matters other than intellectual matters where science does not apply.

I'm not referring to non-intellectual matters.

Prove it!

That's easy. Goals are set by individual based on their desires. Without desire there is no goal, hence you cannot separate desires from goals.

Desire doesn't apply to all goals. Goals can also be based on needs, like the need to limit damage to the economy. With that said, my hypothetical involved a national goal that's based on the need for a good economy. Even if that was my desire oh, I never claimed that my wanting it makes it true or that it should be the national goal.

Should I say you reject God because of your feelings? If it is possible to avoid feelings in that case, then you should accept it is possible for feelings not to be a factor in my accepting my view as truth.

Nah, rejection of God is not a goal, hence the above argument does not apply.

Well at least you're acknowledging that some views are not based in feelings.

Logic and evidence alone shows that my view is true. All of its claims are proven as opposed to just some of its views.

Sounds to me like you are saying 100% logic and evidence as opposed to non-ZERO amount of logic and evidence here. Did I understand you correctly?

Correct.

No. The 3 to 4% mortality rate is based on ALL (low risk and high risk population) death cases. What I'm claiming is less than 1% are deaths among the LOW risk population.

Right, so you accept that COVID-19 is more deadly than seasonal flu for both the low risk group and the high risk group, but still think it's a good example to compare COVID-19 with.

Actually, I'm not sure that there is a low risk group for the flu since it affects all age ranges. What I'm going by is the mortality rate. We are willing to let people work if the mortality rate is only 1% and that's a given since we don't shut down the economy for the flu. By that same standard we should also let those who have a low risk of dying from covid-19 (a mortality rate of 1% ) work.

But that makes it that much harder for the HIGH risk group to isolate, plus the LOW risk group are still taking up hospital beds for the serious but not life threatening conditions.

How would it be harder for the high-risk groups to isolate? I mean if they're already in isolation, and one difference is that they're just not working like the lowest population is. But even if they do go out among the low-risk population crowd then all they have to do is practice social distancing which is what they're doing now when they go into supermarkets and other places where the low-risk populations are as well.

You also bring up hospitalizations but they can handle it just like they can handle it for the flu. did you bothered to check those stats before making your claim? Did you factor in that the majority of the people who who get coronavirus experience mild symptoms?

In fact, the hospitalization rate for the flu is actually higher than that for coronavirus.

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

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livesc ... h-flu.html

Do you know how many of the low risk population have died in a seasonal flu hot spot? What am I supposed to be comparing this 15 figure to?

I don't know given that I'm not aware of what the low-risk population would be for the flu virus.
But most if not all would agree that 15 is not a high number. Let's just say that number that you're asking about for the flu virus is only five people. Be honest, is 10 more deaths such a big difference and so much so that you would shut down the economy for it?

You gonna shut down the economy for a population that only has 15 deaths?

Yes.

But 15 is a low death count correct? So your standard isn't about keeping the death count low but rather you don't want any deaths at all. That's interesting given that the flu has a higher death count but yet you would still keep economy open for it. That's hypocritical.

No, because my stats comes from people who already have the disease. It was spread to them already. And it is a FACT, that out of those who do have it, those 44 years old and younger, account for a very small percentage of the deaths. Again, refer to my last reply.

Sure, but you are not taking into account who is being inflicted. The high risk group were (somewhat) quickly isolated, meaning lower death rate.

I really question if you know what you're talkin about. The more people that have the virus and that don't die from it would actually lower the death rate. I can demonstrate that for you mathematically if you'd like. Either way the mortality rate is based on the number of people who are infected and not on the number that are not.

It doesn't cause as much damage as keeping people inside their home entirely, but there is still a negative effect on the economy compared to having it open completely. Please stop spinning it as if it's otherwise.

You are the one doing the spinning. Sure there is damage, but measures are being taken to limit that damage, you just disagree on the level of acceptable damage to the economy.

All that can be done is not being done. That's why I say what's being done now is more tailored to prevent starvation and to cover emergencies then it is to preserve the economy. Are any of the governors claiming that they left open "essential" businesses for the purposes of preserving the economy?

If they were focused on it, then they would use logic and evidence. Simple!

And if they were not focused on it, then they would not use logic and evidence. Also simple![

That doesn't mean they would use belief. They may not even be focused on it at all. But the main point is that it is possible the focus on it in a scientific way and that is by applying logic and evidence to the matter.

[Bust Nak]

Refer to the definition for 'belief' which I posted in my last post.

Definition? You mean the merriam-webster one? Or does entirely conversations about proofs, logic and evidence count as a definition?

Then it is also not a belief for anyone, by definition.

Right, which means the number of believers does matter, by definition.

Um, no I didn't. Saying "IF that's the goal" , doesn't mean that it is the goal or should be.

Well, your post history says otherwise. There were multiple occasion where you spoke of the goal without the IF, going as far as to say it's proven by logic and evidence.

I would rather say it is a belief if it is not supported by logic and evidence alone.

Then showing that a view is not supported by logic and evidence alone is sufficient, there is no need to show how or why your view is not based on logic and evidence.

As I mentioned before feelings can be involved and it not be a belief just as long as the feelings are not being taken for truth. I accept that the logic and evidence alone proves my case. Which is why I've used logic and evidence alone to successfully prove my case on this site.

Well there was an attempt.

My view is proven so it's not a belief.

But you just told me that only the part that is supported logic and evidence alone is proven.

Refer to the definition for the word "if" which I posted earlier.

Refer to your own post history for the missing "if."

But that is what the governor's are saying. They don't want to open up the economy because it would lead to high deaths and I've shown otherwise. That means they can open the economy. So I am pushing them based on their own standards.

But that's not their standard, you have a different threshold for acceptable risk than they do.

Only one of my views is hypothetical...

Then why did you say it was proven by logic and evidence, making the view true and that it is the reason you accept it as truth? I repeat my earlier advice, get your story straight.

As for the hypothetical one...

So can I get you on record affirming that the goal is not to lessen damages cause by closure; you do not hold that as true; it is not prove by logic and evidence alone; you simply assume it as a premise for the sake of argument?

I'm not sure why you would use the word proof at all if it doesn't involve logic and evidence. You seem to be implying that something other than logic and evidence can serve as proof. If so please tell me what that is.

Feelings, something along the lines of, If I feel that it's a good idea to lessen damages cause by closure, then the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure. I feel that it is a good idea. Therefore the goal is to lessen said damages.

What are you talkin about? It's either proven or it's not proven. There's no middle level proof.

Those were your words, you said there was a scale of proof. If there is no middle level proof, then why call it a scale? While we are here, what would you call my feelings therefore goal argument, if not a middle level proof. It uses logic and evidence, plus my feelings as a premise.

my view is proven and that all of its claims are supported by logic and evidence. There's no opinion to it.

Or so you keep insisting. Yet you don't seem all that keen in dropping the unproven bits.

Insufficient or no evidence for some part of the view. You agreed with me earlier that a proven view can not also be an opinion and now you're acting as if you don't know what I mean.

That's because you keep contradicting yourself. Also "proven view cannot be an opinion," leaves lots of ground uncovered, it just specify one end of the scale of proof.

I agree that intelligible things do not go with incoherence. I would not be able to determine that two different statements contradicted each other if I wasn't able to understand each statement separately. If something was incoherent did I wouldn't be able to understand the meaning of it.

Okay. So are you ready to accept that some people accept incoherent idea as the truth, as they understand bits of the idea separately, (e.g. lifting, heavy and omnipotence.)

Having insufficient (less than 100%) evidence would also count as an opinion. I clarified the type of evidence that I was looking for in my last post. Opinion would have ZERO proof.

Right, that's better. So feelings -> the goal is this, would be an opinion.

Science cannot confirm that statement so I would remain agnostic on if that should be to goal. That is the way to think like a scientist. You withhold judgment until the facts are in.

How can you even operate in day to day life without accepting any "this is the goals" statement as truth?

That would be irrelevant to showing that science approach can be used in all intellectual matters.

And that would be irrelevant to showing that scientists use the scientific approach on all intellectual matters. That's the claim I was challenging, you do remember stating that, right?

Oh, I thought you would have figured it out by his constant requests for verifiable evidence on all matters. That's scientific.. But here goes one comment

Are you also a liberal?

No I am not. Nor am I a conservative, moderate, or a Democrat or a Republican; or an Atheist or Agnostic, etc.

I was after a quote of him saying he is scientists who do use a science approach on all matters.

I'm not referring to non-intellectual matters.

Well, that makes a huge difference. But is this stuff like "the goal is this" an intellectual matter? If not then it's not really a big deal to act like a scientist on all* matters. * Non-intellectual matters not included.

Desire doesn't apply to all goals. Goals can also be based on needs, like the need to limit damage to the economy.

There is no need without desire either. No one needs an economy apart from their desire. I need to breath, drink and eat as so far as I desire to live.

Well at least you're acknowledging that some views are not based in feelings.

As if I've ever implied otherwise.

Correct.

Which means you have to discard all goals from your view, or keep them but classify them as something other than a view?

Actually, I'm not sure that there is a low risk group for the flu since it affects all age ranges.

Of course there is. People with preexisting conditions are going to suffer much more from the flu than the young and fit.

We are willing to let people work if the mortality rate is only 1% and that's a given since we don't shut down the economy for the flu. By that same standard we should also let those who have a low risk of dying from covid-19 (a mortality rate of 1% ) work.

That's a rather limited view.

How would it be harder for the high-risk groups to isolate? I mean if they're already in isolation, and one difference is that they're just not working like the lowest population is. But even if they do go out among the low-risk population crowd then all they have to do is practice social distancing which is what they're doing now when they go into supermarkets and other places where the low-risk populations are as well.

You would have far more asymptomatic carrier around, and they would still have to interact with people some time.

You also bring up hospitalizations but they can handle it just like they can handle it for the flu.

Except they would have to handle the flu cases plus COVID-19 on top. Why do you think there was a rush to build temporary field hospital in the first place?

did you bothered to check those stats before making your claim? Did you factor in that the majority of the people who who get coronavirus experience mild symptoms?

Of course.

In fact, the hospitalization rate for the flu is actually higher than that for coronavirus.

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

Ah huh, have you considered that rate is going to translate to a far higher number when COVID-19 is far more contagious than the flu?

But most if not all would agree that 15 is not a high number. Let's just say that number that you're asking about for the flu virus is only five people. Be honest, is 10 more deaths such a big difference and so much so that you would shut down the economy for it?

It's not going to be just 10 more deaths when the quarantine is lifted prematurely though, is it?

But 15 is a low death count correct? So your standard isn't about keeping the death count low but rather you don't want any deaths at all. That's interesting given that the flu has a higher death count but yet you would still keep economy open for it. That's hypocritical.

Flu is less dangerous. My response is proportionate to the risk.

I really question if you know what you're talkin about. The more people that have the virus and that don't die from it would actually lower the death rate. I can demonstrate that for you mathematically if you'd like.

Lets say 100 people is infected, all 100 of them are young and fit; now lets say all 100 of them are over 50%, which scenario would have the higher death rate, demonstrate that for me please.

Either way the mortality rate is based on the number of people who are infected and not on the number that are not.

Okay.

All that can be done is not being done. That's why I say what's being done now is more tailored to prevent starvation and to cover emergencies then it is to preserve the economy. Are any of the governors claiming that they left open "essential" businesses for the purposes of preserving the economy?

Don't know. I don't listen to what they say. Does leaving open essential business harm the economy more or less than closing everything?

That doesn't mean they would use belief. They may not even be focused on it at all. But the main point is that it is possible the focus on it in a scientific way and that is by applying logic and evidence to the matter.

Ah huh, and they are coming to a very different conclusion than you do. Medical profession is telling you to stay home; virologists are telling you to say home; Elon Musk is telling you to go back to work. I am staying home.

[AgnosticBoy]

Refer to the definition for 'belief' which I posted in my last post.

Definition? You mean the merriam-webster one? Or does entirely conversations about proofs, logic and evidence count as a definition?

The definition of clear now and you know that because I posted the definition multiple times. The definition clearly states "acceptance". Can't get any more clearer than that.

Then it is also not a belief for anyone, by definition.

Right, which means the number of believers does matter, by definition.

Just as long as they "accept" the view as being true.

Um, no I didn't. Saying "IF that's the goal" , doesn't mean that it is the goal or should be.

Well, your post history says otherwise. There were multiple occasion where you spoke of the goal without the IF, going as far as to say it's proven by logic and evidence.

The very first time I bought up the word goal as part of my view I use the word "if". Multiple times after that I always stressed the word "IF". So clearly that is what I meant. Show me otherwise and then I will gladly retract that statement.

I would rather say it is a belief if it is not supported by logic and evidence alone.

Then showing that a view is not supported by logic and evidence alone is sufficient, there is no need to show how or why your view is not based on logic and evidence.

Then show me where or how I relied on emotion as part of my proof or as part of accepting something as true.

As I mentioned before feelings can be involved and it not be a belief just as long as the feelings are not being taken for truth. I accept that the logic and evidence alone proves my case. Which is why I've used logic and evidence alone to successfully prove my case on this site.

Well there was an attempt.

I've always told you that I'm willing to weed out any beliefs or emotions that I've used for accepting something as true. So even if it did a plan my past, it certainly doesn't apply now.

Again, I don't accept emotions as true because I KNOW they are unreliable for truth. Only logical evidence can prove something true.

My view is proven so it's not a belief.

But you just told me that only the part that is supported logic and evidence alone is proven.

No, I didn't. You're confusing yourself which happens when you keep repeating the same thing and thinking that doing so will eventually make you right. It doesnt. I never said only part of my view is proven. I said all of my view proven.

Refer to the definition for the word "if" which I posted earlier.

Refer to your own post history for the missing "if."

Refer to the multiple times that I used the word if. Perhaps you should consider that if I didn't use it then it was a mistake? Perhaps you can back up your statement by showing where I didn't use the word "if" in the same statement as I use the word "goal". I'd like to see that context.

But that is what the governor's are saying. They don't want to open up the economy because it would lead to high deaths and I've shown otherwise. That means they can open the economy. So I am pushing them based on their own standards.

But that's not their standard, you have a different threshold for acceptable risk than they do.[\quote]
So tell me then, why won't they open the economy? What is the purpose of stay-at-home orders? I'll help you out. It is to stunt the spread. But why do they want to stunt the spread? What is dangerous about it spreading?

Here is Minnesota governor Tim Walz talking about wanting to reduce deaths in the context of opening businesses:

Once businesses and schools reopen, Walz hopes to use testing and targeted quarantines to keep new cases in check.

But he acknowledged there will be more deaths. "It’s agonizing and I find it nearly unacceptable," he said. "My job is to reduce it down."

Wait here's more on the goals of other governors:

Other governors in states with fewer cases are forging ahead with plans to try to limit both deaths and economic damage.

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reu ... SKBN21H1B4

PLEASE do some research.

Only one of my views is hypothetical...

Then why did you say it was proven by logic and evidence, making the view true and that it is the reason you accept it as truth? I repeat my earlier advice, get your story straight.

The view about the goal is not proven. It's just a hypothetical. My other view is proven.

As for the hypothetical one...

So can I get you on record affirming that the goal is not to lessen damages cause by closure; you do not hold that as true; it is not prove by logic and evidence alone; you simply assume it as a premise for the sake of argument?

Well the goal may not be objectively true. I only assumed that it is true as a hypothetical. However, it is a fact that some governors are using it as a goal.

I'm not sure why you would use the word proof at all if it doesn't involve logic and evidence. You seem to be implying that something other than logic and evidence can serve as proof. If so please tell me what that is.

Feelings, something along the lines of, If I feel that it's a good idea to lessen damages cause by closure, then the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure. I feel that it is a good idea. Therefore the goal is to lessen said damages.

Can you quote verbatim where I made that statement? I also remember telling you the feelings do not prove anything. I don't even accept them as a means of Truth.

What are you talkin about? It's either proven or it's not proven. There's no middle level proof.

Those were your words, you said there was a scale of proof. If there is no middle level proof, then why call it a scale? While we are here, what would you call my feelings therefore goal argument, if not a middle level proof. It uses logic and evidence, plus my feelings as a premise.[\quote]
I would call this two misrepresentations of my statement. I said that they were levels evidence or even of opinions but I don't remember ever saying that there are levels of proof. Can you show me where I made such claims?

I agree that intelligible things do not go with incoherence. I would not be able to determine that two different statements contradicted each other if I wasn't able to understand each statement separately. If something was incoherent did I wouldn't be able to understand the meaning of it.

Okay. So are you ready to accept that some people accept incoherent idea as the truth, as they understand bits of the idea separately, (e.g. lifting, heavy and omnipotence.)

You can judge a contradiction. In all cases it they would be false. You can even say that they can not exist beyond being a concept. but you cannot do the same for an incoherent statement because you do not know what it is or means. You can't say that it's true or false nor tell him if it exists or not.

Extra:
Contradictions can be conceptualized.

Having insufficient (less than 100%) evidence would also count as an opinion. I clarified the type of evidence that I was looking for in my last post. Opinion would have ZERO proof.

Right, that's better. So feelings -> the goal is this, would be an opinion.

Can you please explain to me how insufficient evidence amounts to feelings to fill in the gap as opposed to opinion feeling in the gap? Also, claiming that my view is insufficiently evidence who is basin feelings does not make it so. You are misrepresenting me by continuing to make unsubstantiated claims.

My view about the goal is a HYPOTHETICAL. I never claimed that it that I accept the goal.as being true so therefore it is not a belief nor something that I need to support with logic and evidence. If I assume God's existence then that doesn't mean that I believe in God.

Science cannot confirm that statement so I would remain agnostic on if that should be to goal. That is the way to think like a scientist. You withhold judgment until the facts are in.

How can you even operate in day to day life without accepting any "this is the goals" statement as truth?

I can operate in a debate and other purely intellectual matters without having to accept a goal as truth.

That would be irrelevant to showing that science approach can be used in all intellectual matters.

And that would be irrelevant to showing that scientists use the scientific approach on all intellectual matters. That's the claim I was challenging, you do remember stating that, right?

If your point was that it can't be done, then ive disproven it. I can avoid beliefs when it comes to religion, politics, and philosophy. To be scientific, I can just ask for scientific evidence before I accept any claim as truth.

Oh, I thought you would have figured it out by his constant requests for verifiable evidence on all matters. That's scientific.. But here goes one comment

Are you also a liberal?

No I am not. Nor am I a conservative, moderate, or a Democrat or a Republican; or an Atheist or Agnostic, etc.

I was after a quote of him saying he is scientists who do use a science approach on all matters.[\quote]
That was his response to my suggesting that he had beliefs. clearly he's trying to show that he has no beliefs in political matters nor religious matters. when you combine that with the fact that he always request verifiable evidence than that is science minded.]

Desire doesn't apply to all goals. Goals can also be based on needs, like the need to limit damage to the economy.

There is no need without desire either. No one needs an economy apart from their desire. I need to breath, drink and eat as so far as I desire to live.

Actually, wants or desires often conflict with "needs". So needs are not always based on desire. For example, I need save money but I don't want to give up my unnecessary spending habits. Just because I should do it does it automatically mean that I want to do it. Also you can survive without a desire but you can't survive. If both concepts when I went with each other then they would both apply to survival, but they don't by definition.

Also, in my last post I brought up a purely economic reason. That economic reason can be anything from keeping unemployment rates low to to keeping businesses from closing. those are strictly economic reasons and not emotional reasons.

Well at least you're acknowledging that some views are not based in feelings.

As if I've ever implied otherwise.

So views can be based on things other than feelings (desire is a feeling). This certainly takes away from your last point.

Which means you have to discard all goals from your view, or keep them but classify them as something other than a view?

I only use goals in the context of hypotheticals. I don't have to prove hypothetical statements.

Extra: Now I can show that a conclusion follows from a hypothetical statement but that's different than saying that the goal is true. I always say, if true

Actually, I'm not sure that there is a low risk group for the flu since it affects all age ranges.

Of course there is. People with preexisting conditions are going to suffer much more from the flu than the young and fit.

How would it be harder for the high-risk groups to isolate? I mean if they're already in isolation, and one difference is that they're just not working like the lowest population is. But even if they do go out among the low-risk population crowd then all they have to do is practice social distancing which is what they're doing now when they go into supermarkets and other places where the low-risk populations are as well.

You would have far more asymptomatic carrier around, and they would still have to interact with people some time.

Well remember, the high-risk population would just be isolated to their homes or two essential businesses. The high-risk population are already encountering the low risk population at these essential businesses. Sure they'll be more lorw risk population occupying more places, like restaurants but those won't be the places that the high-risk population would be going to because they'd be banned from them since they are not "essential". The only exception I can think of is if the high-risk population are able to adequately socially distance.

You also bring up hospitalizations but they can handle it just like they can handle it for the flu.

Except they would have to handle the flu cases plus COVID-19 on top. Why do you think there was a rush to build temporary field hospital in the first place?

The low risk population makes up a small percentage of the hospitalization cases. One New York report found that at one time there were 300 people from the low risk population that required hospitalization source]/url]. You assume that the number would be high and and that it would lead to some type of crisis. In fact, if you factor in underlying disease, then you would find that a nice chunk of the low risk crowd that required hospitalization were the ones that had an underlying disease. That's why I classified the lowest population as not only being for those who are 44 years old and younger but also does without any underlying disease. he is a study that did factoring underlying diseases in hospitalized patients in New York:

A new study of thousands of hospitalized coronavirus patients in the New York City area, the epicenter of the outbreak in the United States, has found that nearly all of them had at least one major chronic health condition, and most — 88 percent — had at least two.

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/health/coronavirus-patients-risk.amp.html

In fact, the hospitalization rate for the flu is actually higher than that for coronavirus.

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

Ah huh, have you considered that rate is going to translate to a far higher number when COVID-19 is far more contagious than the flu?

Actually, saying that the hospitalization rate would increase if we no longer restrict the low risk population is an assumption on your part. Why wouldn't the majority of those and that population who may become infected just remain asymptomatic Orlando even require hospitalization given the fact that only a small percentage of them require hospitalization to begin with. not to mention that a lot of those who do require hospitalization wear those with underlying diseases as one study shows. But wait, it gets worse. It's also an assumption that sting isolated under the stay-at-home borders wood protect you from getting infected but one finding shows that's not the case:

Most new Covid-19 hospitalizations in New York state are from people who were staying home and not venturing much outside, a "shocking" finding, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday.

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/05/06/ny-gov-cuomo-says-its-shocking-most-new-coronavirus-hospitalizations-are-people-staying-home.html

We also know that staying isolated can lead to increases in anxiety and stress which in turn weakens your immune system so perhaps all of that plays a role. By the way, this shows me that many many many more people are infected then what's previously thought and we may very well be getting a picture of an infection rate where does little to no protection from it's spread.

But most if not all would agree that 15 is not a high number. Let's just say that number that you're asking about for the flu virus is only five people. Be honest, is 10 more deaths such a big difference and so much so that you would shut down the economy for it?

It's not going to be just 10 more deaths when the quarantine is lifted prematurely though, is it?[\quote]
Well we can project what it would be like for any new people who get it based on what happens to the people who do have it. In fact, let's look at Sweden which actually implements my plan of allowing the young to go free in an open economy. how many of the lowest population have died in Sweden?
According to one [url=https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/]source, 19. According to another source( pg. 4), just 1 death.

Is 1 to 19 deaths a big increase from 15 deaths?

But 15 is a low death count correct? So your standard isn't about keeping the death count low but rather you don't want any deaths at all. That's interesting given that the flu has a higher death count but yet you would still keep economy open for it. That's hypocritical.

Flu is less dangerous. My response is proportionate to the risk.[\quote]
Covid-19 and the flu are on the same level of dangerousness when you factor in how covid-19 affects the lowest population. Sure it spreads easily but spreading is not dangerous, especially when it's just mild symptoms. Death is dangerous.

I really question if you know what you're talkin about. The more people that have the virus and that don't die from it would actually lower the death rate. I can demonstrate that for you mathematically if you'd like.

Lets say 100 people is infected, all 100 of them are young and fit; now lets say all 100 of them are over 50%, which scenario would have the higher death rate, demonstrate that for me please.[\quote]
Instead of saying over 50%, did you mean to say over 50 years old? That's not the point I was referring to. The mortality rate is calculated by dividing the number of deaths by the number of cases. 100 cases with 15 deaths gives a mortality rate of 15%. Now if the number of cases increased to 100,000 with the number of deaths staying the same then the mortality rate is .01% so the death rate has decreased. You are suggesting that the death rate is low because of people being isolated from the infection. But that's not necessarily true. I just gave an example where the mortality rate would actually decrease when there's an increased number of covid-19 reflections.

[AgnosticBoy]

Refer to the definition for 'belief' which I posted in my last post.

Definition? You mean the merriam-webster one? Or does entirely conversations about proofs, logic and evidence count as a definition?

The definition is clear enough and you know that because I posted the definition multiple times and you haven't disagreed with it. The definition clearly states "acceptance". Can't get any more clearer than that.

Then it is also not a belief for anyone, by definition.

Right, which means the number of believers does matter, by definition.

Just as long as they "accept" the view as being true.

Um, no I didn't. Saying "IF that's the goal" , doesn't mean that it is the goal or should be.

Well, your post history says otherwise. There were multiple occasion where you spoke of the goal without the IF, going as far as to say it's proven by logic and evidence.

The very first time I bought up the word goal as part of my view, I used it with the word "if". Multiple times after that I always stressed the word "IF". So clearly that is what I meant. Show me otherwise and then I will gladly retract that statement.

I would rather say it is a belief if it is not supported by logic and evidence alone.

Then showing that a view is not supported by logic and evidence alone is sufficient, there is no need to show how or why your view is not based on logic and evidence.

Then show me where or how I relied on emotion as part of my proof or as part of accepting something as true.

As I mentioned before feelings can be involved and it not be a belief just as long as the feelings are not being taken for truth. I accept that the logic and evidence alone proves my case. Which is why I've used logic and evidence alone to successfully prove my case on this site.

Well there was an attempt.

I've always told you that I'm willing to weed out any beliefs or emotions that I've used for accepting something as true. So even if it did a apply in the past, it certainly doesn't apply now.

Again, I don't accept emotions as true because I KNOW they are unreliable for truth. Only logical evidence can prove something true.

My view is proven so it's not a belief.

But you just told me that only the part that is supported logic and evidence alone is proven.

No, I didn't. You're confusing yourself which happens when you keep repeating the same thing and thinking that doing so will eventually make you right. It doesnt. I never said only part of my view is proven. I said all of my view proven.

Refer to the definition for the word "if" which I posted earlier.

Refer to your own post history for the missing "if."

Refer to the multiple times that I used the word if. Perhaps you should consider that if I didn't use it then it was a mistake? Perhaps you can back up your statement by showing where I didn't use the word "if" in the same statement as I use the word "goal". I'd like to see that context.

But that is what the governor's are saying. They don't want to open up the economy because it would lead to high deaths and I've shown otherwise. That means they can open the economy. So I am pushing them based on their own standards.

But that's not their standard, you have a different threshold for acceptable risk than they do.

So tell me then, why won't they open the economy? What is the purpose of stay-at-home orders? I'll help you out. It is to stunt the spread. But why do they want to stunt the spread? What is dangerous about it spreading?

Here is Minnesota governor Tim Walz talking about wanting to reduce deaths in the context of opening businesses:

Once businesses and schools reopen, Walz hopes to use testing and targeted quarantines to keep new cases in check.

But he acknowledged there will be more deaths. "It’s agonizing and I find it nearly unacceptable," he said. "My job is to reduce it down."

Wait here's more on the goals of other governors:

Other governors in states with fewer cases are forging ahead with plans to try to limit both deaths and economic damage.

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reu ... SKBN21H1B4

PLEASE do some research.

Only one of my views is hypothetical...

Then why did you say it was proven by logic and evidence, making the view true and that it is the reason you accept it as truth? I repeat my earlier advice, get your story straight.

The view about the goal is not proven. It's just a hypothetical. My other view is proven.

As for the hypothetical one...

So can I get you on record affirming that the goal is not to lessen damages cause by closure; you do not hold that as true; it is not prove by logic and evidence alone; you simply assume it as a premise for the sake of argument?

Well the goal may not be objectively true. I only assumed that it is true as a hypothetical. However, it is a fact that some governors are using it as a goal.

I'm not sure why you would use the word proof at all if it doesn't involve logic and evidence. You seem to be implying that something other than logic and evidence can serve as proof. If so please tell me what that is.

Feelings, something along the lines of, If I feel that it's a good idea to lessen damages cause by closure, then the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure. I feel that it is a good idea. Therefore the goal is to lessen said damages.

Can you quote verbatim where I made that statement? I also remember telling you the feelings do not prove anything. I don't even accept them as a means of Truth.

What are you talkin about? It's either proven or it's not proven. There's no middle level proof.

Those were your words, you said there was a scale of proof. If there is no middle level proof, then why call it a scale? While we are here, what would you call my feelings therefore goal argument, if not a middle level proof. It uses logic and evidence, plus my feelings as a premise.

I would call this two misrepresentations of my statement. I said that they were levels evidence or even of opinions but I don't remember ever saying that there are levels of proof. Can you show me where I made such claims?

I agree that intelligible things do not go with incoherence. I would not be able to determine that two different statements contradicted each other if I wasn't able to understand each statement separately. If something was incoherent did I wouldn't be able to understand the meaning of it.

Okay. So are you ready to accept that some people accept incoherent idea as the truth, as they understand bits of the idea separately, (e.g. lifting, heavy and omnipotence.)

You can judge a contradiction. In all cases it they would be false. You can even say that they can not exist beyond being a concept. but you cannot do the same for an incoherent statement because you do not know what it is or means. You can't say that it's true or false nor tell him if it exists or not.

Having insufficient (less than 100%) evidence would also count as an opinion. I clarified the type of evidence that I was looking for in my last post. Opinion would have ZERO proof.

Right, that's better. So feelings -> the goal is this, would be an opinion.

Can you please explain to me how insufficient evidence amounts to feelings to fill in the gap as opposed to opinion feeling in the gap? Also, claiming that my view is insufficiently evidence who is basin feelings does not make it so. You are misrepresenting me by continuing to make unsubstantiated claims.

My view about the goal is a HYPOTHETICAL. I never claimed that it that I accept the goal.as being true so therefore it is not a belief nor something that I need to support with logic and evidence. If I assume God's existence then that doesn't mean that I believe in God.

Science cannot confirm that statement so I would remain agnostic on if that should be to goal. That is the way to think like a scientist. You withhold judgment until the facts are in.

How can you even operate in day to day life without accepting any "this is the goals" statement as truth?

I can operate in a debate and other purely intellectual matters without having to accept a goal as truth.

That would be irrelevant to showing that science approach can be used in all intellectual matters.

And that would be irrelevant to showing that scientists use the scientific approach on all intellectual matters. That's the claim I was challenging, you do remember stating that, right?

If your point was that it can't be done, then ive disproven it. I can avoid beliefs when it comes to religion, politics, and philosophy. To be scientific, I can just ask for scientific evidence before I accept any claim as truth.

Oh, I thought you would have figured it out by his constant requests for verifiable evidence on all matters. That's scientific.. But here goes one comment
I was after a quote of him saying he is scientists who do use a science approach on all matters.

That was his response to my suggesting that he had beliefs. clearly he's trying to show that he has no beliefs in political matters nor religious matters. when you combine that with the fact that he always request verifiable evidence than that is science minded.

Desire doesn't apply to all goals. Goals can also be based on needs, like the need to limit damage to the economy.

There is no need without desire either. No one needs an economy apart from their desire. I need to breath, drink and eat as so far as I desire to live.

Actually, wants or desires often conflict with "needs". So needs are not always based on desire. For example, I need save money but I don't want to give up my unnecessary spending habits. Just because I should do it does it automatically mean that I want to do it. Also you can survive without a desire but you can't survive. If both concepts when I went with each other then they would both apply to survival, but they don't by definition.

Also, in my last post I brought up a purely economic reason. That economic reason can be anything from keeping unemployment rates low to to keeping businesses from closing. those are strictly economic reasons and not emotional reasons.

Well at least you're acknowledging that some views are not based in feelings.

As if I've ever implied otherwise.

So views can be based on things other than feelings (desire is a feeling). This certainly takes away from your last point.

Which means you have to discard all goals from your view, or keep them but classify them as something other than a view?

I only use goals in the context of hypotheticals. I don't have to prove hypothetical statements.

Actually, I'm not sure that there is a low risk group for the flu since it affects all age ranges.

Of course there is. People with preexisting conditions are going to suffer much more from the flu than the young and fit.

How would it be harder for the high-risk groups to isolate? I mean if they're already in isolation, and one difference is that they're just not working like the lowest population is. But even if they do go out among the low-risk population crowd then all they have to do is practice social distancing which is what they're doing now when they go into supermarkets and other places where the low-risk populations are as well.

You would have far more asymptomatic carrier around, and they would still have to interact with people some time.

Well remember, the high-risk population would just be isolated to their homes or two essential businesses. The high-risk population are already encountering the low risk population at these essential businesses. Sure they'll be more lorw risk population occupying more places, like restaurants but those won't be the places that the high-risk population would be going to because they'd be banned from them since they are not "essential". The only exception I can think of is if the high-risk population are able to adequately socially distance.

You also bring up hospitalizations but they can handle it just like they can handle it for the flu.

Except they would have to handle the flu cases plus COVID-19 on top. Why do you think there was a rush to build temporary field hospital in the first place?

The low risk population makes up a small percentage of the hospitalization cases. One New York report found that at one time there were 300 people from the low risk population that required hospitalization source]. You assume that the number would be high and and that it would lead to some type of crisis. In fact, if you factor in underlying disease, then you would find that a nice chunk of the low risk crowd that required hospitalization were the ones that had an underlying disease. That's why I classified the lowest population as not only being for those who are 44 years old and younger but also does without any underlying disease. he is a study that did factoring underlying diseases in hospitalized patients in New York:

A new study of thousands of hospitalized coronavirus patients in the New York City area, the epicenter of the outbreak in the United States, has found that nearly all of them had at least one major chronic health condition, and most — 88 percent — had at least two.

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... k.amp.html

In fact, the hospitalization rate for the flu is actually higher than that for coronavirus.

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

Ah huh, have you considered that rate is going to translate to a far higher number when COVID-19 is far more contagious than the flu?

Actually, saying that the hospitalization rate would increase if we no longer restrict the low risk population is an assumption on your part. Why wouldn't the majority of those and that population who may become infected just remain asymptomatic Orlando even require hospitalization given the fact that only a small percentage of them require hospitalization to begin with. not to mention that a lot of those who do require hospitalization wear those with underlying diseases as one study shows. But wait, it gets worse. It's also an assumption that sting isolated under the stay-at-home borders wood protect you from getting infected but one finding shows that's not the case:

Most new Covid-19 hospitalizations in New York state are from people who were staying home and not venturing much outside, a "shocking" finding, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday.

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.c ... -home.html

We also know that staying isolated can lead to increases in anxiety and stress which in turn weakens your immune system so perhaps all of that plays a role. By the way, this shows me that many many many more people are infected then what's previously thought and we may very well be getting a picture of an infection rate where does little to no protection from it's spread.

But most if not all would agree that 15 is not a high number. Let's just say that number that you're asking about for the flu virus is only five people. Be honest, is 10 more deaths such a big difference and so much so that you would shut down the economy for it?

It's not going to be just 10 more deaths when the quarantine is lifted prematurely though, is it?

Well we can project what it would be like for any new people who get it based on what happens to the people who do have it. In fact, let's look at Sweden which actually implements my plan of allowing the young to go free in an open economy. how many of the lowest population have died in Sweden?
According to one source, 19. According to another source( pg. 4), just 1 death.

Is 1 to 19 deaths a big increase from 15 deaths?

But 15 is a low death count correct? So your standard isn't about keeping the death count low but rather you don't want any deaths at all. That's interesting given that the flu has a higher death count but yet you would still keep economy open for it. That's hypocritical.

Flu is less dangerous. My response is proportionate to the risk.

Covid-19 and the flu are on the same level of dangerousness when you factor in how covid-19 affects the lowest population. Sure it spreads easily but spreading is not dangerous, especially when it's just mild symptoms. Death is dangerous.

I really question if you know what you're talkin about. The more people that have the virus and that don't die from it would actually lower the death rate. I can demonstrate that for you mathematically if you'd like.

Lets say 100 people is infected, all 100 of them are young and fit; now lets say all 100 of them are over 50%, which scenario would have the higher death rate, demonstrate that for me please.

Instead of saying over 50%, did you mean to say over 50 years old? That's not the point I was referring to. The mortality rate is calculated by dividing the number of deaths by the number of cases. 100 cases with 15 deaths gives a mortality rate of 15%. Now if the number of cases increased to 100,000 with the number of deaths staying the same then the mortality rate is .01% so the death rate has decreased. You are suggesting that the death rate is low because of people being isolated from the infection. But that's not necessarily true. I just gave an example where the mortality rate would actually decrease when there's an increased number of covid-19 reflections.

[Bust Nak]

The definition is clear enough and you know that because I posted the definition multiple times and you haven't disagreed with it. The definition clearly states "acceptance". Can't get any more clearer than that.

Of course it can. This entirely conversation is the result of your unclear definition. It's not until the previous post that you've confirmed less than 100% proven by logic and evidence counts as a belief.

The very first time I bought up the word goal as part of my view, I used it with the word "if". Multiple times after that I always stressed the word "IF". So clearly that is what I meant. Show me otherwise and then I will gladly retract that statement.

Here is an example, there are plenty more:

No, you don't. Not this view: the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure. It's based on your feelings, regardless of whether it is your feelings that makes it true or not.

Feelings are not why I accept the view as being proven or true. Feelings are why I "LIKE" the view but liking something does not make it proven nor true. It is logic and evidence that makes a view true, and that is the only reason I accept it as truth.

Then show me where or how I relied on emotion as part of my proof or as part of accepting something as true.

Limited to pure intellectual matters or all matters?

Again, I don't accept emotions as true because I KNOW they are unreliable for truth. Only logical evidence can prove something true.

There is a huge difference between "I feel this is true" and "I feel this need, therefore we should do this thing to met that feeling." How can you operate day to day without the latter?

No, I didn't. You're confusing yourself which happens when you keep repeating the same thing and thinking that doing so will eventually make you right. It doesnt. I never said only part of my view is proven. I said all of my view proven.

You say lots of contradictory stuff so you probably don't remember. Your view include non-propositional stuff, non-propositions cannot be proven.

Refer to the multiple times that I used the word if.

That doesn't make the statements without the "if" disappear.

Perhaps you should consider that if I didn't use it then it was a mistake?

I did thought about that, which is why I checked and double checked with you, making it very clear I was not talking about a conditional statement, and right up 'till your last post you've spoke of "the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure" as if it was proven fact.

So tell me then, why won't they open the economy? What is the purpose of stay-at-home orders? I'll help you out. It is to stunt the spread. But why do they want to stunt the spread? What is dangerous about it spreading?

Here is Minnesota governor Tim Walz talking...

PLEASE do some research.

There isn't anything in those quotes that conflict with what I said, not sure what more research was suppose to do.

The view about the goal is not proven. It's just a hypothetical. My other view is proven.

Ah huh, let me just remind you of what you just told me: "I never said only part of my view is proven. I said all of my view proven." Like I said, get your story straight.

Well the goal may not be objectively true. I only assumed that it is true as a hypothetical. However, it is a fact that some governors are using it as a goal.

May not be objectively true as in there is a possibility that it is objectively true? How is that even possible without appealing to feelings?

Can you quote verbatim where I made that statement? I also remember telling you the feelings do not prove anything. I don't even accept them as a means of Truth.

First of all, you asked me what other than logic and evidence can serve as part of a proof. I am telling you how I formulate conclusions based on my feelings, so can I get a comment how you feel about that first?

As for a quote from you, I don't know if it qualifies but this is what you said days ago: "A goal isn't a true or false issue - it's not a proposition. I have desires and wants but not beliefs. I want a good economy because I love my country. Furthermore, I like being able to have a good job instead of unemployment." We've since established that a goal is indeed a true or false issue - a proposition.

I would call this two misrepresentations of my statement. I said that they were levels evidence or even of opinions but I don't remember ever saying that there are levels of proof. Can you show me where I made such claims?

I don't think you said that. The question remains, if there aren't levels of proofs, why did you call the levels of evidence or opinion, "scale of proof." You hasn't answered my question re: using feelings as premises for arguments. Do they not count as half way point between proofs and opinion?

You can judge a contradiction. In all cases it they would be false. You can even say that they can not exist beyond being a concept. but you cannot do the same for an incoherent statement because you do not know what it is or means. You can't say that it's true or false nor tell him if it exists or not.

You are still talking about unintelligible. We've move beyond that, we were making some progress in your last post and now you want to reset the conversation. Square circle is intelligible, you understand what a square is and you understand what a circle is. Put them together and you don't know what it is or what it means, beyond a square that is circular. As opposed to "asidfhlakjhfklahdf" which is unintelligible. Both square circle and "asidfhlakjhfklahdf" are both incoherent.

Can you please explain to me how insufficient evidence amounts to feelings to fill in the gap as opposed to opinion feeling in the gap?

Again see my example re: feelings -> goal.

Also, claiming that my view is insufficiently evidence who is basin feelings does not make it so. You are misrepresenting me by continuing to make unsubstantiated claims.

Well, you've only got your post history to blame.

My view about the goal is a HYPOTHETICAL. I never claimed that it that I accept the goal.as being true so therefore it is not a belief nor something that I need to support with logic and evidence. If I assume God's existence then that doesn't mean that I believe in God.

Right, but that was before you affirmed explicitly that the goal is only a HYPOTHETICAL and not accepted. Right up to that point I was under the impression that you accepted the goal, given that you said the view was proven.

I can operate in a debate and other purely intellectual matters without having to accept a goal as truth.

That sounded very much to me like you are conceding that you cannot operate without accepting goals as truth outside of debate and purely intellectual matters. Time to come clean.

If your point was that it can't be done, then ive disproven it. I can avoid beliefs when it comes to religion, politics, and philosophy. To be scientific, I can just ask for scientific evidence before I accept any claim as truth.

Religion okay. But politics too? Goals play a huge part in politics, how are you gonna be able to deal with politic as a purely intellectual matter. As for philosophy, can you prove the existence of an external world, or the existence of other minds, or the basic reliability of your senses without circular reasoning?

That was his response to my suggesting that he had beliefs. clearly he's trying to show that he has no beliefs in political matters nor religious matters. when you combine that with the fact that he always request verifiable evidence than that is science minded.

But that's a long way from being scientific on all matters. But I guess that's moot now that you've qualified all matters with all intellectual matters.

Actually, wants or desires often conflict with "needs". So needs are not always based on desire. For example, I need save money but I don't want to give up my unnecessary spending habits. Just because I should do it does it automatically mean that I want to do it.

You are wrong. Needs are always based on desire. That's just an example of you basing you need to save money on your desire to have more money for necessary stuff. Without that desire, there is no need to save money. While you don't want to save money, but you also want to save money. That's a conflicting desire.

Also you can survive without a desire but you can't survive. If both concepts when I went with each other then they would both apply to survival, but they don't by definition.

What does that have to do with needs? Whether you can survive or not, is irrelevant as to whether needs goes hand in hand with desire.

Also, in my last post I brought up a purely economic reason. That economic reason can be anything from keeping unemployment rates low to to keeping businesses from closing. those are strictly economic reasons and not emotional reasons.

Except they aren't a reason to do anything without the corresponding desire for a good economy.

So views can be based on things other than feelings (desire is a feeling). This certainly takes away from your last point.

How?

I only use goals in the context of hypotheticals. I don't have to prove hypothetical statements.

In the context of pure intellectual matter, you mean? It's clear that you do use goals outside of hypotheticals.

Well remember, the high-risk population would just be isolated to their homes or two essential businesses. The high-risk population are already encountering the low risk population at these essential businesses...

And now their risk would be higher. You aren't addressing my actual claim.

The low risk population makes up a small percentage of the hospitalization cases. One New York report found that at one time there were 300 people from the low risk population that required hospitalization.

Again, you are not addressing my actual point. The rate of hospitalization for the young isn't gonna change, but the actual number is gonna increase, that's not an assumption, that's just math.

In fact, if you factor in underlying disease, then you would find that a nice chunk of the low risk crowd that required hospitalization were the ones that had an underlying disease. That's why I classified the lowest population as not only being for those who are 44 years old and younger but also does without any underlying disease.

That sounds fair to those 44 years old and younger with underlying disease.

Actually, saying that the hospitalization rate would increase if we no longer restrict the low risk population is an assumption on your part...

I didn't assume the rate would increase though. I said the actual numbers would increase.

Well we can project what it would be like for any new people who get it based on what happens to the people who do have it. In fact, let's look at Sweden which actually implements my plan of allowing the young to go free in an open economy...

Is 1 to 19 deaths a big increase from 15 deaths?

No.

Covid-19 and the flu are on the same level of dangerousness when you factor in how covid-19 affects the lowest population. Sure it spreads easily but spreading is not dangerous, especially when it's just mild symptoms. Death is dangerous.

Hospitalisation is dangerous.

Instead of saying over 50%, did you mean to say over 50 years old?

Yep.

That's not the point I was referring to...

Then you are not addressing my point.

[AgnosticBoy]

The definition is clear enough and you know that because I posted the definition multiple times and you haven't disagreed with it. The definition clearly states "acceptance". Can't get any more clearer than that.

Of course it can. This entirely conversation is the result of your unclear definition. It's not until the previous post that you've confirmed less than 100% proven by logic and evidence counts as a belief.

Nice dodge. There is no unclarity about a view not being a belief unless someone accepts it as true. This is the issue here which you have chosen to ignore yet again.

The very first time I bought up the word goal as part of my view, I used it with the word "if". Multiple times after that I always stressed the word "IF". So clearly that is what I meant. Show me otherwise and then I will gladly retract that statement.

Here is an example, there are plenty more:

Feelings are not why I accept the view as being proven or true. Feelings are why I "LIKE" the view but liking something does not make it proven nor true. It is logic and evidence that makes a view true, and that is the only reason I accept it as truth.

Did you bother to read what my comment about "IF" referred to or what I was responding to at all? It was in response to you stating that I said the goal was true. I clearly told you that I ASSUMED the goal was true when I used the word "if". Your supposed example does not address my point.

I may have to start covering one topic at a time if you are unable to keep up.

Then show me where or how I relied on emotion as part of my proof or as part of accepting something as true.

Limited to pure intellectual matters or all matters?

On a purely intellectual matter, like this debate.

Again, I don't accept emotions as true because I KNOW they are unreliable for truth. Only logical evidence can prove something true.

There is a huge difference between "I feel this is true" and "I feel this need, therefore we should do this thing to met that feeling." How can you operate day to day without the latter?

The only time I used "should" as part of my view is within the context of a hypothetical. We "should" do something when it's truly something that is supposed to be done.

As far as my personal life goes, I just do things. I don't claim that I'm doing it because it's true or that anyone should do it. In a DEBATE, this issue is completely avoidable.

So tell me then, why won't they open the economy? What is the purpose of stay-at-home orders? I'll help you out. It is to stunt the spread. But why do they want to stunt the spread? What is dangerous about it spreading?

Here is Minnesota governor Tim Walz talking...
"Once businesses and schools reopen, Walz hopes to use testing and targeted quarantines to keep new cases in check.
But he acknowledged there will be more deaths. "It’s agonizing and I find it nearly unacceptable," he said. "My job is to reduce it down.""

But he acknowledged there will be more deaths. "It’s agonizing and I find it nearly unacceptable," he said. "My job is to reduce it down."

PLEASE do some research.

There isn't anything in those quotes that conflict with what I said, not sure what more research was suppose to do.

Based on my evidence, the governors goals are to limit covid-19 deaths while opening the economy. For the record, do you agree that is part of their goal?

Well the goal may not be objectively true. I only assumed that it is true as a hypothetical. However, it is a fact that some governors are using it as a goal.

May not be objectively true as in there is a possibility that it is objectively true? How is that even possible without appealing to feelings?

Ever heard of objective morality or purpose? It could be true on that basis, but either way I'm agnostic on the issue until it can be disproven.

Can you quote verbatim where I made that statement? I also remember telling you the feelings do not prove anything. I don't even accept them as a means of Truth.

First of all, you asked me what other than logic and evidence can serve as part of a proof. I am telling you how I formulate conclusions based on my feelings, so can I get a comment how you feel about that first?

And are those conclusions that you formulate based off of feelings, true? Let me repeat myself again. I do not use emotion to support any of my views. The ONLY thing that makes my view proven is that it's supported by logic and evidence.

As for a quote from you, I don't know if it qualifies but this is what you said days ago: "A goal isn't a true or false issue - it's not a proposition. I have desires and wants but not beliefs. I want a good economy because I love my country. Furthermore, I like being able to have a good job instead of unemployment." We've since established that a goal is indeed a true or false issue - a proposition.

As for the goal comment, I've revised it to say that it's a hypothetical. Saying that I want a good economy is not a belief or claim. I'm not claiming that having a good economy is what should happen or that it's true. As for the comment about feelings, It's my personal taste based on my feelings - again not using it to say that something should happen or that it proves the goal to be true.

I would call this two misrepresentations of my statement. I said that they were levels evidence or even of opinions but I don't remember ever saying that there are levels of proof. Can you show me where I made such claims?

I don't think you said that. The question remains, if there aren't levels of proofs, why did you call the levels of evidence or opinion, "scale of proof." You hasn't answered my question re: using feelings as premises for arguments. Do they not count as half way point between proofs and opinion?

I don't use feelings as a premise for an argument. I never used the words "scale of proof".

You can judge a contradiction. In all cases it they would be false. You can even say that they can not exist beyond being a concept. but you cannot do the same for an incoherent statement because you do not know what it is or means. You can't say that it's true or false nor tell him if it exists or not.

You are still talking about unintelligible. We've move beyond that, we were making some progress in your last post and now you want to reset the conversation. Square circle is intelligible, you understand what a square is and you understand what a circle is. Put them together and you don't know what it is or what it means, beyond a square that is circular. As opposed to "asidfhlakjhfklahdf" which is unintelligible. Both square circle and "asidfhlakjhfklahdf" are both incoherent.

I still disagree. The error of a contradictory statement(s) is not that they are meaningless but rather it's that the conflicting statements can never be put together or one negates the other. So it is a problem of two meanings conflicting with each (so they can never go together) other as opposed to there not being a meaning at all. I can also judge such statements "logically" and they are false according to the laws of logic. If they were incoherent, then I could not judge them in a logical way.

The problem with incoherent statements is that they are meaningless. I can't judge what they are so therefore can not conclude that they are true or false. If I can't establish that they are true or false, then I certainly can't say or "accept" that they are true (i.e. can't believe in it one way or another).

Let's say the planet akdkfjdklajfdkl is big. This is an incoherent statement and keep in mind there's also no contradiction involved.

My view about the goal is a HYPOTHETICAL. I never claimed that it that I accept the goal.as being true so therefore it is not a belief nor something that I need to support with logic and evidence. If I assume God's existence then that doesn't mean that I believe in God.

Right, but that was before you affirmed explicitly that the goal is only a HYPOTHETICAL and not accepted. Right up to that point I was under the impression that you accepted the goal, given that you said the view was proven.

Now that you understand, it's time to move on and stop claiming that I accept the goal as true. In other words, you have not proven that either of the two views I've mentioned in this thread, one involving a goal and the other without it, are beliefs. Again, even if you were convincing, then I would weed out the belief, and then I'd be in good terms in reference to my claim of having no beliefs on intellectual matters.

If you prove your case = I win (with I win being that I have no beliefs)
If I prove my case= I win (with I win being that I have no beliefs)

I can operate in a debate and other purely intellectual matters without having to accept a goal as truth.

That sounded very much to me like you are conceding that you cannot operate without accepting goals as truth outside of debate and purely intellectual matters. Time to come clean.

We've already cleared this issue up. You now know that I'm referring to goals in the context of a hypothetical. And as I said before, coming clean would mean weeding out the belief if you can convince me. This is part of what shunning beliefs involves so I can maintain a no-belief stance when it comes to debate.

If your point was that it can't be done, then ive disproven it. I can avoid beliefs when it comes to religion, politics, and philosophy. To be scientific, I can just ask for scientific evidence before I accept any claim as truth.

Religion okay. But politics too? Goals play a huge part in politics, how are you gonna be able to deal with politic as a purely intellectual matter.

Well I simply don't make any claims that can't be backed up with logic and evidence. If that can't be done then I stay away from it. The only exception is if I'm arguing for something in a hypothetical context.

As for philosophy, can you prove the existence of an external world, or the existence of other minds, or the basic reliability of your senses without circular reasoning?

I don't need to prove the axioms of logic to apply it. I'm agnostic on the things you mentioned but I assume they're true just so I can debate.

Actually, wants or desires often conflict with "needs". So needs are not always based on desire. For example, I need save money but I don't want to give up my unnecessary spending habits. Just because I should do it does it automatically mean that I want to do it.

You are wrong. Needs are always based on desire. That's just an example of you basing you need to save money on your desire to have more money for necessary stuff. Without that desire, there is no need to save money. While you don't want to save money, but you also want to save money. That's a conflicting desire.

I don't agree with your response to my example because I didn't see where you acknowledged the "need" part. You simply relabeled the need as a want. Here's another example. Breathing. My body needs oxygen and works to get it whether I desire it or not. So this is one example of something being carried out because of "needs" and not "wants". Needs are physiological and often involuntary but wants are psychological and often voluntary.

Also you can survive without a desire but you can't survive. If both concepts when I went with each other then they would both apply to survival, but they don't by definition.

What does that have to do with needs? Whether you can survive or not, is irrelevant as to whether needs goes hand in hand with desire.

It is relevant. In terms of survival, needs are necessary and wants are optional. Refer to my example about breathing.

Also, in my last post I brought up a purely economic reason. That economic reason can be anything from keeping unemployment rates low to to keeping businesses from closing. those are strictly economic reasons and not emotional reasons.

Except they aren't a reason to do anything without the corresponding desire for a good economy.

So then you agree that an economic reason, like the one I mentioned, is not an emotional one. The emotional reason would be different or separate. We can even say that the desire is to lower unemployment as opposed to the desire being based just on a feeling.

Either way, my goal was a hypothetical. I threw it out there not to say that it was true, but to argue a scenario where we should open the economy. I also did it to show how the GOVERNORS can meet their own standards on covid-19 (i.e. low death counts while opening economy). So bringing up "desire" here is a moot point, not to mention that I would not even accept the view as true if my support was emotions.

I only use goals in the context of hypotheticals. I don't have to prove hypothetical statements.

In the context of pure intellectual matter, you mean? It's clear that you do use goals outside of hypotheticals.

I don't in debate unless it is a hypothetical matter.

Well remember, the high-risk population would just be isolated to their homes or two essential businesses. The high-risk population are already encountering the low risk population at these essential businesses...

And now their risk would be higher. You aren't addressing my actual claim.

The high risk population would have a higher risk of being infected? How so? They wouldn't be going anywhere more than where they're going now. Only the low risk population would be in more places than they are now.

The low risk population makes up a small percentage of the hospitalization cases. One New York report found that at one time there were 300 people from the low risk population that required hospitalization.

Again, you are not addressing my actual point. The rate of hospitalization for the young isn't gonna change, but the actual number is gonna increase, that's not an assumption, that's just math.

Sure, it will increase, but what is the problem with that? The hospital is for sick people afterall.

In fact, if you factor in underlying disease, then you would find that a nice chunk of the low risk crowd that required hospitalization were the ones that had an underlying disease. That's why I classified the lowest population as not only being for those who are 44 years old and younger but also does without any underlying disease.

That sounds fair to those 44 years old and younger with underlying disease.

Yeah, and quarantining everyone like they have the same risk as an OLD person is also fair.

Covid-19 and the flu are on the same level of dangerousness when you factor in how covid-19 affects the lowest population. Sure it spreads easily but spreading is not dangerous, especially when it's just mild symptoms. Death is dangerous.

Hospitalisation is dangerous.

Going to the hospital causes harm? Obviously not to the point of shutting down the economy. If what you were saying was right, then I'd rather shut down the economy for the flu than for covid-19. The reason being, the flu hospitalization rate is higher.

[Bust Nak]

Nice dodge. There is no unclarity about a view not being a belief unless someone accepts it as true. This is the issue here which you have chosen to ignore yet again.

That was questionable too, we had a few back and forth about Greek myths being beliefs or not, remember?

Did you bother to read what my comment about "IF" referred to or what I was responding to at all?

Yes. And I am pointing out you forgot the "IF."

It was in response to you stating that I said the goal was true. I clearly told you that I ASSUMED the goal was true when I used the word "if".

Yes, and a) you didn't use the "if," and b) I was very explicit that I was referring to the goal without the "if" and you still called it proven.

I may have to start covering one topic at a time if you are unable to keep up.

Good idea. I think you should start covering one topic at a time because you are unable to keeping your own story straight.

On a purely intellectual matter, like this debate.

Ah huh. Sounds to me like you are ready to concede that you do not live by the principle of applying logic and evidence standard to ALL areas.

The only time I used "should" as part of my view is within the context of a hypothetical. We "should" do something when it's truly something that is supposed to be done.

As far as my personal life goes, I just do things. I don't claim that I'm doing it because it's true or that anyone should do it.

Well there you go, you are on record for saying you just doing things without regards to whether it is true or should be done. Not exactly the rational approach to life, is it?

In a DEBATE, this issue is completely avoidable.

Okay, that much is fine.

Based on my evidence, the governors goals are to limit covid-19 deaths while opening the economy. For the record, do you agree that is part of their goal?

Sure, which is why I thought it's odd for you to bring up the obvious.

Ever heard of objective morality or purpose? It could be true on that basis, but either way I'm agnostic on the issue until it can be disproven.

You might not have noticed, but I am the resident subjectivist here, I'd like to see them try to prove objective morality or purpose.

And are those conclusions that you formulate based off of feelings, true?

I think it is true that the goal should be such and such, "the goal is true" however, sounds incorrect. I want to hear what you think.

Let me repeat myself again. I do not use emotion to support any of my views. The ONLY thing that makes my view proven is that it's supported by logic and evidence.

Yes, yes, but conditions applies, right? "All" as in "all purely intellectual matter, like this debate."

As for the goal comment, I've revised it to say that it's a hypothetical. Saying that I want a good economy is not a belief or claim. I'm not claiming that having a good economy is what should happen or that it's true. As for the comment about feelings, It's my personal taste based on my feelings - again not using it to say that something should happen or that it proves the goal to be true.

Wanting a good economy is not a belief, okay, but not even a claim? That's new. What is a claim? It's cans after cans of worms with your epistemology, isn't it.

I don't use feelings as a premise for an argument. I never used the words "scale of proof".

Well, your post history says otherwise "I clarified my point. I was referring to evidence on the scale of proof. I was using 'opinion' in sharp distinction with 'knowledge' or 'fact'." One topic at a time?

I still disagree. The error of a contradictory statement(s) is not that they are meaningless but rather it's that the conflicting statements can never be put together or one negates the other. So it is a problem of two meanings conflicting with each (so they can never go together) other as opposed to there not being a meaning at all.

So what does the term "square circle" mean when they are put together?

I can also judge such statements "logically" and they are false according to the laws of logic. If they were incoherent, then I could not judge them in a logical way.

The problem with incoherent statements is that they are meaningless. I can't judge what they are so therefore can not conclude that they are true or false. If I can't establish that they are true or false, then I certainly can't say or "accept" that they are true (i.e. can't believe in it one way or another).

But you are not understanding the term as a whole, just the two incompatible parts in isolation.

Let's say the planet akdkfjdklajfdkl is big. This is an incoherent statement and keep in mind there's also no contradiction involved.

That's perfectly coherent and intelligible.

Now that you understand, it's time to move on and stop claiming that I accept the goal as true. In other words, you have not proven that either of the two views I've mentioned in this thread, one involving a goal and the other without it, are beliefs. Again, even if you were convincing, then I would weed out the belief, and then I'd be in good terms in reference to my claim of having no beliefs on intellectual matters.

If you prove your case = I win (with I win being that I have no beliefs)
If I prove my case= I win (with I win being that I have no beliefs)

Well, I think I've gotten as much out of the goal issue as I can, as least as far as whether it is a belief goes, there is still a side point about carelessness when it comes to forgetting the "if."

We've already cleared this issue up. You now know that I'm referring to goals in the context of a hypothetical. And as I said before, coming clean would mean weeding out the belief if you can convince me. This is part of what shunning beliefs involves so I can maintain a no-belief stance when it comes to debate.

Well I simply don't make any claims that can't be backed up with logic and evidence. If that can't be done then I stay away from it. The only exception is if I'm arguing for something in a hypothetical context.

That's when you are debating, what about when you vote? Apparently you just vote for whoever without claiming it is the right choice or that anyone should vote for the same guy.

I don't need to prove the axioms of logic to apply it.

But you do accept the axioms are true, no?

I'm agnostic on the things you mentioned but I assume they're true just so I can debate.

Are you sure you just assume they are true to debate, you presumably talk to people outside of debate, for that you assume we exist outside of your mind, right? What is that, if not a belief - held as a view, accepted to be true, is a proposition, unproven. Seems to fit the bill.

I don't agree with your response to my example because I didn't see where you acknowledged the "need" part. You simply relabeled the need as a want. Here's another example. Breathing. My body needs oxygen and works to get it whether I desire it or not.

That's the point, there is no need without a corresponding want. You body doesn't need anything. Without oxygen it simply shuts down. You need oxygen because you want your body to function.

It is relevant. In terms of survival, needs are necessary and wants are optional.

Survival is optional.

So then you agree that an economic reason, like the one I mentioned, is not an emotional one.

Nah, I am saying it's not a reason at all outside of the context of emotion.

I don't in debate unless it is a hypothetical matter.

That sounds like you are saying you use goals not as a hypothetical matter outside of debate. But above seem to be saying you don't use goals at all, but just do stuff. Care to clarify a bit more?

The high risk population would have a higher risk of being infected? How so?

Because there are not a lot more carriers around, many asymptomatic.

Sure, it will increase, but what is the problem with that? The hospital is for sick people afterall.

Capacity.

Yeah, and quarantining everyone like they have the same risk as an OLD person is also fair.

Right, who is gonna get fired, the guy who can work, or the one who is stuck in isolation?

Going to the hospital causes harm?

Well yes, but that's not the angle I was going for.

Obviously not to the point of shutting down the economy. If what you were saying was right, then I'd rather shut down the economy for the flu than for covid-19. The reason being, the flu hospitalization rate is higher.

But the infliction rate is lower.

[AgnosticBoy]

Nice dodge. There is no unclarity about a view not being a belief unless someone accepts it as true. This is the issue here which you have chosen to ignore yet again.

That was questionable too, we had a few back and forth about Greek myths being beliefs or not, remember?

What was the logical and/or evidential basis for questioning it? I recall that I established three options: A view can be my belief. It can be someone else's belief while not being mine. Or it's not a belief for anyone when no one accepts it.

It was in response to you stating that I said the goal was true. I clearly told you that I ASSUMED the goal was true when I used the word "if".

Yes, and a) you didn't use the "if," and b) I was very explicit that I was referring to the goal without the "if" and you still called it proven.

For the record, I don't accept any view involving a goal unless it is hypothetical.

On a purely intellectual matter, like this debate.

Ah huh. Sounds to me like you are ready to concede that you do not live by the principle of applying logic and evidence standard to ALL areas.

It is interesting that atheists who claim to be guided by reason would want to find unreasonable aspects of life. So much for complaining about religion and Republicans, right?

The only time I used "should" as part of my view is within the context of a hypothetical. We "should" do something when it's truly something that is supposed to be done.

As far as my personal life goes, I just do things. I don't claim that I'm doing it because it's true or that anyone should do it.

Well there you go, you are on record for saying you just doing things without regards to whether it is true or should be done. Not exactly the rational approach to life, is it?

As I mentioned before, it's interesting to find so called champions of reason, the atheists, finding joy in the unreasonable areas of life. You would think that so called reasonable people would be more than willing to apply reason to all of the areas that it could be applied.

Based on my evidence, the governors goals are to limit covid-19 deaths while opening the economy. For the record, do you agree that is part of their goal?

Sure, which is why I thought it's odd for you to bring up the obvious.

I appreciate that you now acknowledge the obvious.

And are those conclusions that you formulate based off of feelings, true?

I think it is true that the goal should be such and such, "the goal is true" however, sounds incorrect. I want to hear what you think.

I see no reason to believe that your goal is based on feelings as opposed to an objective morality or some other reason. Either way, none of my views involves a goal being true unless the truth is ASSUMED.

Let me repeat myself again. I do not use emotion to support any of my views. The ONLY thing that makes my view proven is that it's supported by logic and evidence.

Yes, yes, but conditions applies, right? "All" as in "all purely intellectual matter, like this debate."

I try to apply reason alone when it comes to all of the areas that I can do that. A debate is one example.

As for the goal comment, I've revised it to say that it's a hypothetical. Saying that I want a good economy is not a belief or claim. I'm not claiming that having a good economy is what should happen or that it's true. As for the comment about feelings, It's my personal taste based on my feelings - again not using it to say that something should happen or that it proves the goal to be true.

Wanting a good economy is not a belief, okay, but not even a claim? That's new. What is a claim?

It's a desire and I don't use it to assert anything. It's certainly not an assertion that the economy is good or that it should be good.

I don't use feelings as a premise for an argument. I never used the words "scale of proof".

Well, your post history says otherwise "I clarified my point. I was referring to evidence on the scale of proof. I was using 'opinion' in sharp distinction with 'knowledge' or 'fact'." One topic at a time?

"Scale of proof" does not refer to different levels of proof but rather it refers to evidence that is at the level (or point) of proof. There's a difference between those two statements.

I still disagree. The error of a contradictory statement(s) is not that they are meaningless but rather it's that the conflicting statements can never be put together or one negates the other. So it is a problem of two meanings conflicting with each (so they can never go together) other as opposed to there not being a meaning at all.

So what does the term "square circle" mean when they are put together?

You're missing the point. The fact is that a square and a circle can't go together. Putting them together in the same sentence does not mean you're putting them together in actuality or even in meaning. If they were able to go together then that would be unintelligible. But again, the fact is that they can't be put together so there is nothing unintelligible to it.

I can also judge such statements "logically" and they are false according to the laws of logic. If they were incoherent, then I could not judge them in a logical way.

The problem with incoherent statements is that they are meaningless. I can't judge what they are so therefore can not conclude that they are true or false. If I can't establish that they are true or false, then I certainly can't say or "accept" that they are true (i.e. can't believe in it one way or another).

But you are not understanding the term as a whole, just the two incompatible parts in isolation.

The two can not go together as a whole at all. When they conflict, that means they "oppose" each other. If they were able to be put together then we'd be getting into unintelligible idea but the fact is that they don't go together because they CAN'T be put together.

Let's say the planet akdkfjdklajfdkl is big. This is an incoherent statement and keep in mind there's also no contradiction involved.

That's perfectly coherent and intelligible.

"Perfectly"? Oh, then that's a bad example. Here's a better one, My adkjflkajfkldjakf is akdjklafjdklfjaklfjkladjfajkfjfalkfjkljaakjdklfj. Is that coherent view? Also point out the contradiction if any.

Well I simply don't make any claims that can't be backed up with logic and evidence. If that can't be done then I stay away from it. The only exception is if I'm arguing for something in a hypothetical context.

That's when you are debating, what about when you vote? Apparently you just vote for whoever without claiming it is the right choice or that anyone should vote for the same guy.

Stick to what I said. In intellectual matters, I only deal in logic and evidence. There is NO excuse why this can't be done in a debate. Like I said, it's telling that you're looking for one when many atheists claim to be champions of reason and complain about Christians on these forums.

I don't need to prove the axioms of logic to apply it.

But you do accept the axioms are true, no?

I'm agnostic on those issues.

I'm agnostic on the things you mentioned but I assume they're true just so I can debate.

Are you sure you just assume they are true to debate, you presumably talk to people outside of debate, for that you assume we exist outside of your mind, right? What is that, if not a belief - held as a view, accepted to be true, is a proposition, unproven. Seems to fit the bill.

I assume that it's true as opposed to accepting that it's true. But either way, in a debate, the standard to go by logic and evidence can be held. Otseng expects that according to the forum rules.

I don't agree with your response to my example because I didn't see where you acknowledged the "need" part. You simply relabeled the need as a want. Here's another example. Breathing. My body needs oxygen and works to get it whether I desire it or not.

That's the point, there is no need without a corresponding want. You body doesn't need anything.

Keep in mind, that I don't even have a goal that I'm claiming is true outside of a hypothetical context. So even if goals are based on desire it still has no relevance to my views here on covid-19. But I'm willing to entertain you some on your claim regarding desires and needs always going together.

Your claim that the body has no needs is the most UNscientific statement that you've made thus far. It's a fact that the body needs oxygen to function. This is biological need and not some personal issue. The body carries out this function naturally and involuntarily.

Without oxygen it simply shuts down.

How does this support your point? If anything, I see that it supports my point about the body having needs. If the body didn't need oxygen, then it would not shutdown.

You need oxygen because you want your body to function.

You are saying that I require oxygen because of my "wants" as opposed to biology? Perhaps you're trying to say that your "desire" or "want" can accompany that need as opposed to being the cause or basis for that need. I could just as easily be apathetic (no desire) about my breathing, and that would be an example of a need without a desire.

It is relevant. In terms of survival, needs are necessary and wants are optional.

Survival is optional.

Naturally speaking, it is not. We are hard-wired to survive. I gave one example of how our body works through "involuntary" mechanisms to ensure our survival. Another example of this would be the fight-or-flight response. Even viruses try to survive and it's not because of a "desire" but because of BIOLOGY.

So then you agree that an economic reason, like the one I mentioned, is not an emotional one.

Nah, I am saying it's not a reason at all outside of the context of emotion.

No, earlier you said it was a reason. Acting on that reason is a separate issue. Don't confuse the two. I certainly wouldn't act on opening the economy unless I had a PROVEN way to do it while limiting covid-19 deaths. So if desire is a prerequisite of choice as you're suggesting, then perhaps we can say that my desire is to follow logic and evidence and act on it accordingly.

Desire by itself is certainly not a belief. It certainly is not a basis for truth.

I don't in debate unless it is a hypothetical matter.

That sounds like you are saying you use goals not as a hypothetical matter outside of debate. But above seem to be saying you don't use goals at all, but just do stuff. Care to clarify a bit more?

In a purely intellectual context, I don't have any goals that I refer to as "true" with the exception of hypotheticals.

The high risk population would have a higher risk of being infected? How so?

Because there are not a lot more carriers around, many asymptomatic.

So not restricting the low risk population would involve more of them being out and about? Perhaps, but I can think of ways to work around that. Again, the high risk population should only be in "essential" areas when outdoors. So that limits the location where they would encounter the low risk population. Essential businesses are already limiting crowd capacity in their stores so that would help reduce the number of contact with the low risk crowd.

Sure, it will increase, but what is the problem with that? The hospital is for sick people afterall.

Capacity.

What about it? Are you saying they can't handle it? Are you saying that the low risk population that mostly experiences MILD symptoms will suddenly be flooding the hospitals when current stats shows that it's mostly the high risk population that needed hospitalization?

Yeah, and quarantining everyone like they have the same risk as an OLD person is also fair.

Right, who is gonna get fired, the guy who can work, or the one who is stuck in isolation?

People from the low risk and high risk populations are getting fired now. So what's your point? It would be better if one group experience this and not EVERYONE.

Going to the hospital causes harm?

Well yes, but that's not the angle I was going for.

People go to the hospital to get treatment. Is that part harmful? Care to scale back on your absolute claim there?

Obviously not to the point of shutting down the economy. If what you were saying was right, then I'd rather shut down the economy for the flu than for covid-19. The reason being, the flu hospitalization rate is higher.

But the infliction rate is lower.

This is an UNSUBSTANITATED claim. You did not do your research, Mr. Atheist.

The cases of people infected with the flu far outnumbers the covid-19 cases. There are approximately 4,194,326 confirmed covid-19 cases worldwide. There are anywhere between 39 million to 56 million cases of flu and that's just in the US and not worldwide. Here goes my source.