CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Both politics and economics and the reality that you can't hide from the virus. It will still be there when you come out, so we're going to have to try to function with that in mind.
I feel that the governors of the states in question recognize that this Chinese disease is going to last indefinitely and that people cannot live in lock-down for what will be measurable in years, or as is more realistic, decades.
Those who have been sufficiently pragmatic to accept the harsh realities presented by Covid-19 can also see that the economy cannot remain dormant forever.
As these states start to get back to business every precaution should, and of course will be employed to contain the spread of this killer Chinese disease by having everyone wear state-of-the-art personal protective equipment.
Once the wheels of industry/commerce begin to turn again even the implementation of the strictest safety measures will not stop an enormous increase in those contracting the Chinese disease, but this is a reality which will have to be faced up to sooner or later.
The longer it takes to accept the facts the more difficult it will be to dig ourselves out of the huge, ever worsening economic hole in which we find ourselves.
The Chinese have changed the lives of mankind for the foreseeable future and maybe forever, but still there are those who are blinded by hatred and prejudice who will childishly try to apportion blame onto those with whose political ideologies they disagree rather than where it belongs.
As governors are explicitly political agents it seems obvious that their reasons are primarily political. Science also does not provide answers to ethical questions, which opening/closing heavily concerns, so it is difficult to see how science could have any especially significant impact on the decision (beyond informing what the costs and benefits of a decision might be, but, again, without guiding how to weigh those costs and benefits).
The impetus to restrict movement and activity is motivated by an appeal to the (alleged) absolute value of human life. The impetus to open movement and activity is motivated by an appeal the quality of human life. Personally, I'm sympathetic to the latter (from the outset, but particularly after such an extended period of time and in light of the growing toll shutdowns are taking on people and social networks).
Politics. But people ARE hurting right now, not just from the virus and issues because of it. People need to get back to their jobs. While I think it's premature to open the state and act like it's business as usual, I can see why there is a want to do it.
Socialist no one needs to work we all should depend on the government to pay us. But stupid where does the government get it's money. Try to stumble through it stupid.
Why do you suppose that 'opening' the state equates to business as usual? I'm not familiar with any state or nation which is pursuing business as usual. Even Sweden, arguably the posterchild for an 'open' approach, has maintained certain limitations that go against 'business as usual'. This rhetoric seems misleading to me, in that it creates an artificial 'all or nothing' dichotomy.
When do you think it would be appropriate to open the state? Many places have been shut down except for essential services for over a month now, and the toll of that is already being heavily felt for many people (economically, psychologically, and otherwise). I'm sympathetic to the call to flatten the curve and minimize the cost in human life, but there is a trade off and the right to human life is not so absolute that it categorically trumps all other considerations (a fact we routinely recognize in other contexts).
I'm not sure how things are going to change really. I think people believe that it'll be business as usual, I think people are still acting like it's business as usual. Only time will tell if there really are going to be changes made.
I believe it would be prudent to see a reduced number in cases for a certain period of time, like 10 days or so but that's really going to be for experts to decide, before we start opening up businesses. It's even possible that they may need to adjust how many people are allowed in the store at any given time. In all honesty I don't know how they will do that or even what is best, but I do believe just opening everything with no addendum's could bring us right back to another round of the virus.
What people? I think the people who think that way are in a minority who are over-represented in media (social and mainstream). My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of people have practiced social distancing. Where I live, many people were already socially distancing and (small) businesses were already taking steps to improve sanitation and pace or reduce traffic flow.
I think you're still in something of an either-or mindset. Opening businesses is not incompatible with limiting traffic flow through stores (or other businesses). As far as I've seen, places that have begun lifting advisories and/or restrictions have done so incrementally (e.g. with seating proximity restrictions for restaurants). Even Sweden, the poster child for staying open, has not been 'business as usual'.
Relaxing restrictions will absolutely lead to an increase in cases. I'm not questioning that (although I expect some folks do). There still remains a question of whether or not the lives saved are worth the costs to those living. It's not a comfortable issue to address, and it's easy to just assert the value of life without further argument, but it is nevertheless a substantive issue that does have to be addressed. COVID-19 is not going away anytime soon (projections are for months, if not years) and most people cannot endure the 'new usual' that long. At some point, things have to be relaxed and no matter when that is done it will come at cost of life.
I believe it would be prudent to see a reduced number in cases for a certain period of time, like 10 days or so but that's really going to be for experts to decide, before we start opening up businesses. It's even possible that they may need to adjust how many people are allowed in the store at any given time. In all honesty I don't know how they will do that or even what is best, but I do believe just opening everything with no addendum's could bring us right back to another round of the virus.
A lot of these people know that. They don't care if a bunch of poor folks die. They are just angry because they aren't making as much money as usual.
It's time somebody took a long hard look at the type of people this system is producing.
I think that is overly simplistic. There are certainly those sorts of people, but the people I know (self included) who favor relaxing restrictions are not indifferent to the deaths that will cost. A number of the people I know who take this position are themselves vulnerable, or have loved ones who are. The difference in perspective is a difference over the relative value of life not to money, but to quality of life. There is a cost to being shut down which is not strictly, nor even primarily, monetary.
Within a capitalist context, it is also important to recognize that money is a prerequisite to satisfying basic needs. I don't give a flying shit about 'the economy' for its own sake and I favor a broader economic restructuring (e.g. universal guaranteed income, universal healthcare, etc.). But that's an ideal, and right now there are people who are struggling with this closure. Whether that's people who have lost their jobs or been furloughed, or small business owners who invested their lives into their business and staked the well-being of their families on its success, or people who are homeless and rely upon public places like parks, libraries, or public transit to get by (or any other number of people).
Elsewhere, we commonly recognize that there are limits to what can be legally compelled from people for the well-being (even the lives) of others. No one is obliged to donate blood or donate organs, even though that would save lives. No one is obliged to sacrifice their economic security (i.e. their ability to provide for self and loved ones) to help another either. As much as it may be problematic to go all out Sweden, it is also problematic to be authoritarian in how we restrict personal autonomy (particularly over sustained periods of time).
I think that is overly simplistic. There are certainly those sorts of people, but the people I know (self included) who favor relaxing restrictions are not indifferent to the deaths that will cost.
I think that's self-contradictory. If you were not indifferent to the deaths it will cost you wouldn't be arguing for restrictions to be relaxed in the middle of a pandemic.
Within a capitalist context
I'm not interested in capitalist context because capitalists are idiots. They are hedonists. People who have let the pursuit of pleasure override all capacity for critical thought.
I think that's self-contradictory. If you were not indifferent to the deaths it will cost you wouldn't be arguing for restrictions to be relaxed in the middle of a pandemic.
I can care about someone dying from kidney failure without believing that the government should compel people to donate their kidneys. Choosing one value over another does not mean that someone doesn't appreciate both values. It just means that when two values are competing one has to choose. To conclude that someone is indifferent to a value simply because they do not favor it absolutely over all other values is unsound.
I doubt that you are indifferent to someone losing the ability to provide for their family due to economic retraction caused by restrictions, even though you value life more than that cost. The difference between us is not that we have different values but that we weight those values differently. Quality of life and autonomy are what give life value to me, whereas the value of life is more absolute to you (in this context at least).
I'm not interested in capitalist context because capitalists are idiots. They are hedonists. People who have let the pursuit of pleasure override all capacity for critical thought.
The capitalist context is not synonymous with capitalism, and being cognizant of the former is not an endorsement of the latter. Capitalism exerts a pervasive influence on most human lives. I view that as problematic and I oppose it, but that does not mean that my actions cease to exert effects conditioned by the capitalist context in which myself and others exist.
That is, whatever action I may take (or whatever policy I may favor) has material consequences for other people quite independent of whatever economic system I might favor. "Fuck capitalism" is a nice bit of virtue-signaling rhetoric that has very little to do with the everyday, lived realities of most people (and you call me indifferent).
I'm not interested in capitalist context because capitalists are idiots. They are hedonists. People who have let the pursuit of pleasure override all capacity for critical thought.
The people moving the left's strings in the world are the richest people on Earth.
Politics. Science says we'll have a food shortage if we stay closed
Food manufacturers aren't closed you lying Nazi wanker. They are on the list of essential businesses permitted to remain open. Lying and science are not the same thing you absolutely spectacular idiot.
Food manufacturers shift into overdrive to keep shelves full
Nobody but nobody is questioning food manufacturers’ inclusion on the list of essential businesses.
I have yet to see any science which says we will have a food shortage if we stay closed. Paid advertising by obviously motivated, non-scientific entities is itself politics.