|Posted: 25 March 2020 at 12:58pm | IP Logged | 10
That's what you believe.
Matt, profanity and obvious anger aside, I don't think it would be super productive for us to sit and caricature each other. You apparently think I want all old people to die and don't care. I could respond by accusing you of not caring about hungry children of millions of parents who are already unemployed and whose jobs won't be coming back. We could have ourselves a downright compassion Olympics here/ Maybe you'd win.
Or, if we went past the lines in my earliest posts in this thread that clearly triggered you, we could try to understand each other's positions and have a discussion.
There are not only two options here. It is not a choice between doing absolutely nothing to protect the at-risk population or doing absolutely nothing to prevent an economic depression. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, we have to find the right balance in the middle which harms the fewest number of people.
I am not a government official. I do not have all the data. It is not my job to sift through all of that data and try to come up with a balanced proposal. We're not going to do that collectively in this internet message board thread either. All I've tried to point to on this thread is that there is, legitimately, a second area of compassion and concern for human life and well-being that has to be balanced against the medical one. Being concerned about one does not necessarily make you unconcerned about the other.
And yeah, though this may set you off again, I'm sorry, but we have a lot of extremely wealthy members of the older generation in this country who could very clearly care less about anyone's well-being other than their own. If you think any of the major government figures working on this, from either party, care in the least about the health or economic well-being of poor and working people, you're deluding yourself.