XFool wrote:onthemove wrote:...
Ignoring all the nonsense.
So you've quoted me, but removed all my words completely.
With none of my words quoted, but attribution for the empty space assigned to me, you've then derogatively dismissed my contribution as nonsense.
So you've not even had the courtesy to let people know what you are dismissing as nonsense.
Nor have you provided any kind of substance or rational to back up your derogative assertion to which I could respond.
This is pretty much by definition as personal an attack as you can get. You haven't included any substance of what I said, and you haven't added any substance of your own... you've simply identified me, and proclaimed that you are ignoring "all the nonsense".
Perhaps I shouldn't have expected anything more. It's a fairly common tactic on the internet that once someone realises they have lost the argument, that they switch tactic to attacking the opponent rather than responding to the argument.
XFool wrote:onthemove wrote:I find it staggering, how some people scream "IT'S INFECTIOUS" to argue for restrictions on liberty, mandates on what people must wear, when those same people were never demanding such things in response to other INFECTIOUS agents that can and do KILL people with compromised immune systems, etc.
Now that REALLY is what you call a non sequitur! Not to mention a whopping case of whataboutery.
Perhaps you could clarify...?
I've looked up the meaning of "non sequitur" and it means "
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement."
Let's recap...
You keep banging on about covid being "infectious"... in fact, you even repeat your exasperation...
XFool wrote:I find it "staggering" how some people, in the midst of a global pandemic, can still dismiss the significance and meaning of "infectious".
Yet, you seem to be positioning this as being specific to covid... perhaps I've missed it, but have you been vocal about the common cold being "infectious" or the flu being "infectious", and therefore needing restrictions or similar?
You see, to put it into propositional logic form...
Your argument - repeatedly complaining that people 'don't seem to understand the meaning of infectious' - seems to be describable by this logical proposition...
- Claim = (X is infectious ⇒ Restrictions on freedom required to combat X)
Yet we also have these facts (propositions in propositional logic terms)...
- P = Flu is infectious
- Q = Covid is infectious
- R = Common cold is infectious
I don't believe that any of the above 3 propositions are in any way contentious. Unless you have a different meaning of "infectious" in mind?
If we apply the rules of propositional logic combining the
Claim with each of these 3 propositions, we arrive at these 3 new propositions...
- (P ∧ Claim) ⊢ Restrictions on freedom required to combat Flu
- (Q ∧ Claim) ⊢ Restrictions on freedom required to combat Covid
- (R ∧ Claim) ⊢ Restrictions on freedom required to combat Common Cold
Yet, in the real world, based on observation, these 3 propositions appear to be true...
X ⇒ ¬(Restrictions on freedom required to combat Flu)
Y ⇒ ¬(Restrictions on freedom required to combat the Common Cold)
Z ⇒ (Restrictions on freedom required to combat Covid)
(Note the negation symbols on X and Y)
In other words, it only seems to be in the context of covid being infectious, that requires any restrictions in the real world.
But we can see from this a clear logical contradiction in relation flu where we have both...
- ¬(Restrictions on freedom required to combat flu) ∧
(Restrictions on freedom required to combat flu)
And same for the Common Cold.
In logical terms, this is called a contradiction and is an indication that some aspect of the model/argument is flawed.
In simple terms it is not rational to argue that because covid is infectious, restrictions on freedom are require to combat covid, and yet hold that another infectious agent (e.g. flu or common cold) doesn't necessitate restrictions on freedom.
What this logic demonstrates is that whether or not restrictions on freedom are 'required' or not, does
not automatically depend (solely) on the "meaning of infectious".
Whether or not something is infections does
not (at least on its own) determine whether restrictions are needed. It may play a part, but it clearly is not the only part by a long shot.
Therefore repeated assertions that people don't understand the meaning of the word "infectious", without considering other factors, makes no logical sense.
Clearly, in the real world, the reason the flu and the common cold don't necessitate restrictions on freedoms, etc, is (amongst other things) because the level of deaths that these diseases cause, is considered an acceptable balance for society.
And as such, I believe it is perfectly logical and rational to view covid in the same way, and that simply arguing that 'covid is infectious' and 'why don't people understand what infectious means', is logically inconsistent with how society views other 'infectious' diseases.
ConclusionIt is perfectly reasonable and rational, and entirely consistent with our approach to other infectious diseases, to consider what level of trade off in terms of deaths vs restrictions on freedoms is considered acceptable by society.
)