Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja01ur1 wrote

Reply to comment by 547610831 in The Supreme Court Actually Understands the Internet by rejs7

Yes they lied--to avoid worsening the public health crisis. From the POV of the welfare of the population, their lie was the right decision.

Telling the truth is not always the right thing to do. If telling the truth gets more people killed than lying, then you lie--lying is morally obligatory when it saves lives.

−3

547610831 t1_ja02fr0 wrote

Sorry, but if your argument is that people who speak the truth the government doesn't want to you to hear should be silenced and government propaganda should be praised then we will never agree. Perhaps you would be more at home in Communist China? That sort of attitude is exactly WHY the Supreme Court needs to defend freedom of speech.

8

CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja02oqn wrote

My argument is that people who do things that can get people killed or worsen a public health crisis should be silenced.

You're arguing for the principle of freedom of speech, but the moment any principle causes more harm than good, that principle should be immediately abandoned. I care about human lives--you seem to care more about blind ideology. That is, by definition, evil.

−2

547610831 t1_ja039uu wrote

>You're arguing for the principle of freedom of speech, but the moment any principle causes more harm than good, that principle should be immediately abandoned.

If you abandon your principles as soon as its convenient then you don't actually have any principles. Besides, wearing a mask wasn't going to kill anyone to begin with so your hypothetical is kinda useless.

8

CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja03ivh wrote

>If you abandon your principles as soon as its convenient then you don't actually have any principles.

And if your principles get people killed, then having principles is demonstrably not virtuous.

>Besides, wearing a mask wasn't going to kill anyone to begin with so your hypothetical is kinda useless.

It was going to deprive medical professionals of masks, which would lead to them getting sick and causing a shortage of healthcare professionals in the face of an unknown and deadly pandemic threat. Yes--it was going to. My hypothetical wasn't a hypothetical--it was an objective description of what was going to happen and what they avoided.

2

Prophayne_ t1_ja06teg wrote

I'm with group of assembled numbers. The good of everyone is a societal problem, what's good for myself is an individual one. If the government is telling me not to wear masks in a pandemic, they have failed their end of the bargain and have done society a disservice. It is now my problem. I'm gonna go buy some masks and flip the ole red white and blue the bird.

5

CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja0flgs wrote

Congratulations. You just failed the tragedy of the commons. This is why individuals shouldn't be allowed to make decisions that impact entire societies.

2

theannotator t1_ja1nllt wrote

But in this specific case, if they knew masks would be in short supply they could have recommended cloth coverings as a placebo that wouldn’t actually be harmful. The government is demonstrably not infallible.

2

Prophayne_ t1_ja5zupg wrote

But me going out to buy masks is a me problem, not a societal one. Society lied and said "Don't wear masks, they are useless!" and I said "I don't believe you" and wore masks.

Some people followed societies ill informed guidance, some people mocked it, some people just shrugged and did what worked for them because you can't trust a politicized agenda to actually know what's best for anyone but themselves. I'm in group c. The government was wrong, and I as a nurse could see it laughably so, and chose to take care of myself. Funnily enough, it worked.

1

whatweshouldcallyou t1_ja2v20x wrote

Awesome, so since the government lied about masks at the outset of the pandemic, which could have and probably did get people killed, they should be silenced, right?

Moreover, both the state of NY and PA forced nursing homes to take back in COVID positive patients. It is proven that in NY this resulted in many more deaths. So again, they should be silenced, right?

1

theannotator t1_ja1n5h2 wrote

What is good for humanity as a whole isn’t the same as what is best for any individual. Why should the government get to tell me to expose myself to a virus with an initially reported mortality rate that would have resulted in death carts in the streets. If the government told you to take six six cylinder revolvers, load one round in one of the three pistols, and randomly select one to play Russian roulette with would you do it? The early reports of dying from covid were worse percentages than that.

1

whatweshouldcallyou t1_ja2uvkw wrote

How did lying to people about the efficacy of masks and convincing them to not wear masks when at that point masking was better help the welfare of the population? Unless getting more people infected and killed was helping the population???

1