Once COVID-19 is resolved would you continue to wear a mask to reduce the chance of spreading the flu which could unfortunately reach an elderly person and potentially result in their death as not everybody shows flu symptoms initially as it would be a minor inconvenience compared to a terrible outcome you may not be aware you're potentially putting in the works?
Yes. In the future when I get the flu, I will be wearing a mask if I go out. The low flu numbers this year are impressive.
Fortunately, you can't asymtomatically spread the flu. You know when you have it & I think it should be normalized to wear a mask in public if you're sick.
Interesting. Just a heads up, we both agree on the masks point, I'm just picking your brain.
So how far would that go? Would it be exclusive to illness that could be fatal or all things that has potential to be fatal? For example, if you drive would you give up the car for cycling so that there's less potential for an unexpected crash that is fatal?
I mean, I'm a normal person. I'm not some paradigm of constant ethical choices. It's like any decision. You weigh the convenience, the feasibility, and the drawbacks against the benefits of whatever choice you're making.
Like, I actually mostly do cycle everywhere. Right now I'm in Chicago. It's snowy & icy & freezing. Am I gonna cycle now, even if it's better for the environment? Fuck no. I'd probably die. Risks outweigh the benefits.
Wearing a mask isn't gonna kill me though. Easy decision.
Sorry for the late response, ended up taking the dog out. It's fuckin' cold as shit.
So what would the line be? Would there be things other people consider minor inconveniences that you aren't willing to endure even if it would lessen the potential for a fatal incident? It's quite interesting the parallels between this topic and the vegan one now that I think of it.
I'm actually a horrendous person to query about this. I'm honestly a moral reletavist. So what your asking is if I have a personal line in the sand where there is a definitive definition of something being too costly or inconvenient or risky to justify doing what I think is right?
Not particularly. If I make a decision, and most of the decisions that I make throughout the day aren't even conscious, I just tend to weigh the positives and negatives.
For example, when I'm driving, i don't drive drunk. I don't drive recklessly. I don't tailgate. I use the turn signal. Drawbacks? Gotta take the bus sometimes. Maybe I don't get where I'm going as fast. The turn signal noise is annoying. Possible consequences if I don't do those things? I could kill someone or run over a bunch of schoolchildren. Easy choice. Minor inconvenience vs serious consequences.
Now you could say driving at all assumes a certain amount of risk. You could have an accident even when you do everything right. It's also bad for the environment. So is it wrong to drive period? Idk...sometimes I need to get somewhere that's too far to bike. Sometimes I need to haul something. Sometimes the weather is bad. Sometimes you need to drive to be a functioning adult with a job. I try to avoid driving when I can, but I still do it if I need to. Does that make me a bad person? Maybe to some hippies it does.
So any choice that's made involves looking at the risks and the consequences and what's involved. There is no set of rules that determine what is and isn't worth it. It depends. & do I always make the right choice. No fucking way.
With regards to masks it's easy. The downside is that it's kinda uncomfortable & unpleasant. The upside is that you're less likely to kill someone.
The covid discussion does bring up other issues that aren't so straightforward though. Like lockdown restrictions. If everything's open, people will get sick & they will die. If everything stays closed, people will lose their income & their business. There will be poverty. People will die.
Both choices have horrible consequences. That raises moral problems for everyone.
Now, if you want to know what I think about that?? I think there's a middle ground, where things could be open, predicated with restrictions - capacity limits, social distancing, mask mandates. So to me...that's where it becomes too much of a sacrafice. If you're gonna lose your business or your income or your food security to keep others safe, that's too much. But that doesn't mean it's ok to do nothing & to not be careful. It's a matter of proactively doing the best you can.
So I don't expect anyone to never drive or never go outside. Don't drive like a fucking asshole. Maybe drive less if you can. That's great. It's something.
I have to walk about in it four to five hours a day when on the day shift, I'm pretty much a yeti at this point.
The whole concept has been bugging me, even now I'm trying to wrap my head about it. For example, the driving situation, it's not likely you're going to cause a fatal crash but always possible, there are ways to work around to substitute driving but some things are dependent on the usage of vehicles but are those things that are dependent on vehicles worth the potential cost of a life? Is it the odds that make the minor inconveniences justified in enforcing or is it the gambling with a potential fatal outcome at all that justifies the enforcement of minor inconveniences?
If someone's life is on the line then what is the justification for not justifying not only minor inconveniences enforced on people but grand inconveniences enforced on them if the overall goal is to save lives?
Why are people so anti mask?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Once COVID-19 is resolved would you continue to wear a mask to reduce the chance of spreading the flu which could unfortunately reach an elderly person and potentially result in their death as not everybody shows flu symptoms initially as it would be a minor inconvenience compared to a terrible outcome you may not be aware you're potentially putting in the works?
--
CountessDouche
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes. In the future when I get the flu, I will be wearing a mask if I go out. The low flu numbers this year are impressive.
Fortunately, you can't asymtomatically spread the flu. You know when you have it & I think it should be normalized to wear a mask in public if you're sick.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Interesting. Just a heads up, we both agree on the masks point, I'm just picking your brain.
So how far would that go? Would it be exclusive to illness that could be fatal or all things that has potential to be fatal? For example, if you drive would you give up the car for cycling so that there's less potential for an unexpected crash that is fatal?
--
CountessDouche
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Nah, it's fine. No worries.
I mean, I'm a normal person. I'm not some paradigm of constant ethical choices. It's like any decision. You weigh the convenience, the feasibility, and the drawbacks against the benefits of whatever choice you're making.
Like, I actually mostly do cycle everywhere. Right now I'm in Chicago. It's snowy & icy & freezing. Am I gonna cycle now, even if it's better for the environment? Fuck no. I'd probably die. Risks outweigh the benefits.
Wearing a mask isn't gonna kill me though. Easy decision.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Sorry for the late response, ended up taking the dog out. It's fuckin' cold as shit.
So what would the line be? Would there be things other people consider minor inconveniences that you aren't willing to endure even if it would lessen the potential for a fatal incident? It's quite interesting the parallels between this topic and the vegan one now that I think of it.
--
CountessDouche
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Ikr fuck this winter!
I'm actually a horrendous person to query about this. I'm honestly a moral reletavist. So what your asking is if I have a personal line in the sand where there is a definitive definition of something being too costly or inconvenient or risky to justify doing what I think is right?
Not particularly. If I make a decision, and most of the decisions that I make throughout the day aren't even conscious, I just tend to weigh the positives and negatives.
For example, when I'm driving, i don't drive drunk. I don't drive recklessly. I don't tailgate. I use the turn signal. Drawbacks? Gotta take the bus sometimes. Maybe I don't get where I'm going as fast. The turn signal noise is annoying. Possible consequences if I don't do those things? I could kill someone or run over a bunch of schoolchildren. Easy choice. Minor inconvenience vs serious consequences.
Now you could say driving at all assumes a certain amount of risk. You could have an accident even when you do everything right. It's also bad for the environment. So is it wrong to drive period? Idk...sometimes I need to get somewhere that's too far to bike. Sometimes I need to haul something. Sometimes the weather is bad. Sometimes you need to drive to be a functioning adult with a job. I try to avoid driving when I can, but I still do it if I need to. Does that make me a bad person? Maybe to some hippies it does.
So any choice that's made involves looking at the risks and the consequences and what's involved. There is no set of rules that determine what is and isn't worth it. It depends. & do I always make the right choice. No fucking way.
With regards to masks it's easy. The downside is that it's kinda uncomfortable & unpleasant. The upside is that you're less likely to kill someone.
The covid discussion does bring up other issues that aren't so straightforward though. Like lockdown restrictions. If everything's open, people will get sick & they will die. If everything stays closed, people will lose their income & their business. There will be poverty. People will die.
Both choices have horrible consequences. That raises moral problems for everyone.
Now, if you want to know what I think about that?? I think there's a middle ground, where things could be open, predicated with restrictions - capacity limits, social distancing, mask mandates. So to me...that's where it becomes too much of a sacrafice. If you're gonna lose your business or your income or your food security to keep others safe, that's too much. But that doesn't mean it's ok to do nothing & to not be careful. It's a matter of proactively doing the best you can.
So I don't expect anyone to never drive or never go outside. Don't drive like a fucking asshole. Maybe drive less if you can. That's great. It's something.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
I have to walk about in it four to five hours a day when on the day shift, I'm pretty much a yeti at this point.
The whole concept has been bugging me, even now I'm trying to wrap my head about it. For example, the driving situation, it's not likely you're going to cause a fatal crash but always possible, there are ways to work around to substitute driving but some things are dependent on the usage of vehicles but are those things that are dependent on vehicles worth the potential cost of a life? Is it the odds that make the minor inconveniences justified in enforcing or is it the gambling with a potential fatal outcome at all that justifies the enforcement of minor inconveniences?
If someone's life is on the line then what is the justification for not justifying not only minor inconveniences enforced on people but grand inconveniences enforced on them if the overall goal is to save lives?