> You can say you are fine with the casualties. You can become an expert and identify a mistake in the argumentation. You can't vote on what the facts are, and whether or not 'do not leave the house' moves case rates up or down is a fact
No, I have been trying to say since the original post that we cannot be fine with a system in which it is either practiced or plausible or both that people are or are deemed incapable of understanding proper behaviour, such as "virus spreading: stay far from people" - which cannot be considered technical, because it is not a matter of higher expertise but a very trivial idea. In light of people not understanding "collective risk: stay far" and of the de-dignification that embraced the former ("the population is imbecile and accident prone: do not touch any tool in the shed"), the point of "freedom" that the article writer proposed as first comes later.
Unless you mean: are you fine with car crashes casualties which could be prevented by forbidding transportation - in which case I would say that yes, such casualties in the general framework are overwhelmed by the benefit given by the opportunity that enables them as a possible side effect. So yes, if a citizen acted responsibly and all precautions seriosly taken the remote ugly case happened, then yes, "too bad". Forbidding cars to avoid accidents would be insane.
Only yesterday, by coincidence, I was told by an acquaintance of somebody fined 500e for having gone running in the woods - a guy exercising in mountain paths.
There is no need to gather any expertise beyond "primary school" level to highlight the expected behaviour I mentioned.
And sure "not leaving the house" avoids a class of accidents, just like "not using cars" avoids car accidents: but it is psychotic to reduce numbers that way. And it is absurd to confuse "do not meet people", direct, with "do not leave the house", indirect - and the absurd is satanic. So in front of psychopathology (taking goals as absolute), of satanistic absurd, of the prospect of a "citizenship of the mindless" etc., the goal about "mass casualties" goes in the background in importance and similarly for the mistaken issue of freedom.
No, I have been trying to say since the original post that we cannot be fine with a system in which it is either practiced or plausible or both that people are or are deemed incapable of understanding proper behaviour, such as "virus spreading: stay far from people" - which cannot be considered technical, because it is not a matter of higher expertise but a very trivial idea. In light of people not understanding "collective risk: stay far" and of the de-dignification that embraced the former ("the population is imbecile and accident prone: do not touch any tool in the shed"), the point of "freedom" that the article writer proposed as first comes later.
Unless you mean: are you fine with car crashes casualties which could be prevented by forbidding transportation - in which case I would say that yes, such casualties in the general framework are overwhelmed by the benefit given by the opportunity that enables them as a possible side effect. So yes, if a citizen acted responsibly and all precautions seriosly taken the remote ugly case happened, then yes, "too bad". Forbidding cars to avoid accidents would be insane.
Only yesterday, by coincidence, I was told by an acquaintance of somebody fined 500e for having gone running in the woods - a guy exercising in mountain paths.
There is no need to gather any expertise beyond "primary school" level to highlight the expected behaviour I mentioned.
And sure "not leaving the house" avoids a class of accidents, just like "not using cars" avoids car accidents: but it is psychotic to reduce numbers that way. And it is absurd to confuse "do not meet people", direct, with "do not leave the house", indirect - and the absurd is satanic. So in front of psychopathology (taking goals as absolute), of satanistic absurd, of the prospect of a "citizenship of the mindless" etc., the goal about "mass casualties" goes in the background in importance and similarly for the mistaken issue of freedom.