[ExI] UN worried about police brutality against protestors

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Sat Dec 25 03:03:56 UTC 2021

On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 12:13 AM Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>

> On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 at 15:54, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> ### You are not even wrong. Completely off subject.
>> Rafal
> Maybe I didn’t say it simply enough. If no road rules are enforced, all
> drivers suffer, not just the ones who venture onto the road. If no public
> health rules are enforced (given that the public health problem that can be
> mitigated with such rules), everyone suffers, not just those who venture
> into public. This is because restricting yourself from driving or
> restricting yourself from going out due to fear of the consequences is a
> harm. Do you disagree that the argument is sound, or do you just disagree
> with the premise, that there are any public health problems that can be
> mitigated by public health measures?
### If you look at my post you were responding to, it was a very specific
and precise argument, only assessing the moral justification for lockdowns.
I explained that John's accusation that people venturing out in a lockdown
are selfish polluters and criminally stupid is logically unsound.
Subsequently, to make the argument more vivid I used the analogy to driving
vs. not driving. Your answer to this post didn't acknowledge my point,
dispute the point, or refute it, you went off on a tangent, i.e. off
subject. I didn't argue about "public health rules", I argued specifically
about the moral justification for lockdowns, not about other actions
related to public health, and you didn't address this argument.

OK, now you are asking about whether I refuse "public health measures" in
general. Is it an interesting question?

Well, all I care about is to avoid stupid, destructive and evil actions and
to promote smart, constructive and therefore good actions. Whether such
actions are called "public health measures" or not is beside the point. It
only matters if they are smart and useful.

Are there any smart and useful public health measures at all? Yes, of
course. Vaccinations against Covid in at-risk individuals are smart and
useful. Did you expect a different answer?

Arguing about inappropriately broad categories is useless. The devil is in
the details, so the holy war must be a very detail-oriented business. Which
specific "public health measures" do you support, and why? Are you in favor
of lockdowns, and why? Are you in favor of putting the unvaccinated in
indefinite detention? If you were a German citizen in the 1930s, would you
have supported the elimination of "Lebensunwertes Leben" as part of
"Nationalsozialistiche Rassenhygiene", which was a "public health measure"
by any other name?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20211224/6004a3ca/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list