Decisions made under the context of a global pandemic, which needed to be consistent, easy to understand, and easily enforceable. I'm comfortable with the way that was handled in these circumstances. A mask is hardly an inconvenience.
Anyway, to get back on topic, which country do you think is the best example of the level of government you think is optimal?
I get why people from certain countries instinctively see any government involvement as bad, but I don’t think that’s a universal truth? Yes, bad government can do enormous harm, but I think good government can also raise society above what would happen if everyone were simply left to their own devices.
As others have noted, we already accept a long list of age-based rules: alcohol, driving, tobacco, gambling, movies and games, compulsory schooling, consent, marriage, tattoos, credit cards, pornography, firearms, etc.
Seen in that context, restricting social media for children isn’t some unprecedented intrusion - it’s another attempt to limit access to something that appears harmful for younger people. Will it work? I can only hope. But it seems reasonable to at least try.
I’m not claiming this opinion fits every country - it may be due to biases of where I live. Where I am (and in my opinion), social media seems like a clear and massive net negative, especially for kids. Perhaps in some places social media is a genuinely positive part of daily life, and from that perspective the same law might look like needless government overreach.
The part re excess mortality due to non-covid causes means Fauci killed lots of people. Even if he had saved more from covid (he had not), it would not change the fact that his policies killed many who would not have died otherwise.
> The part re excess mortality due to non-covid causes means Fauci killed lots of people.
No. To establish that "Fauci killed lots of people" you would have to show that
cumulative deaths would have been lower without actions that Fauci was responsible for (=> difficult because you lack a good baseline). This report most definitely does NOT show that.
Then, to have an actual case, you would also have to show that those decisions were made in a manner criminally neglecting facts known at the time (=> not 4 years later!).
> cumulative deaths would have been lower without actions that Fauci was responsible for
Ethically, it is enough to show that his policies killed people. I cannot go into a tobacco factory, kill the night guard, burn the factory to the ground and expect recognition for saving lives. So starting from the position that unjust things were done during COVID, it is now the time to investigate what specific laws were breached, so that justice can be sought. Hence the slogan 'arrest Fauci'.
The report mentions excess death from non-COVID causes. Is it disputable that these were due to non-pharmaceutical interventions? There is also a large number of contemporary warnings regarding the effect of lockdowns on diagnosis and treatment of other diseases.
> The report mentions excess death from non-COVID causes. Is it disputable that these were due to non-pharmaceutical interventions?
From what I can see the article makes no effort to separate Covid related excess mortality from direct or indirectly covid related, which would be crucial to support your argument.
Consider e.g.:
- Death by delayed/cancelled medical procedures/diagnostics (because healthcare was busy with people dying from covid at the time)
- Weaker immune system because of lack of exposure during/after covid
If your hypothesis is "by ignoring covid and skipping lockdowns we could have avoided this excess mortality" then that hypothesis is quite contrarian in first place AND not supported by the facts presented in the article.
I'm always desperate to understand the mechanisms around this, so thank you for the insights.
Regarding the opening line of your last paragraph, are you in disagreement with the idea that eating meat is immoral, or are you just saying it is offensive for someone to tell you what you're doing is immoral full stop (whatever the topic)?
I ask because at the start you say you arent offended by the facts about factory farming and climate impacts - so it sounds like you realise the immoralness? But your key issue is with someone judging you for that immoral action, and for suggesting you should change? Or have I misinterpreted?
Of course, thank you for the understanding response!
I don't think that eating meat is immoral, animals eat each other every day, and I think that most people are okay with this.
But I can recognize that the conditions in factory farms are not okay, the misery that the animals experience is not ethical, and I think if you show any carnivore a video of the inside of a factory farm they will agree. Working to improve the lives of farm animals will encounter very little resistance from even the most vocal carnivore.
I also don't deny that meat production releases methane, and that is not good for the planet. Most carnivores will not have a problem with trying to use technology and new techniques to lower the carbon footprint of farming. For example feeding cows seaweed instead of traditional feed is supposed to cause a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
But as soon as you start actively trying to take away my ability to eat meat or my ability to feed my family with meat, then that is where I take offense. i.e. you can show me the facts and let me come to my own conclusion. You can raise awareness, you can put in place regulations for humane treatment of animals, you can implement new technologies to reduce emissions. But if you try to forcibly change my diet, or even _imply_ that someone should forcibly change my diet, that is where I take offense.
Would your opinion be different in the case where your ability to consume meat is hampered by making the price of meat higher so that the negative externalities (i.e the many environmental impacts, treatment of the animals) of its production are truly accounted for?
Gramps Web is distributed as a collection of containers, with a provided compose file. It works really well, if you're an HN reader with a place to host some containers and an nginx proxy for SSL.
Can you explain your opposition to Singer's views? I understand he argues in favor of legalising voluntary euthanasia, and increased abortion rights. As a non-religious person, his arguments generally seem quite rational to me, but I'm keen to understand more.
Given that his producer was arrested by what amounts to Australia's secret police, at the request of the then deputy premier, I'm not certain that it's easy to dismiss. There's been a pretty strong condemnation of the way that situation was handled, both in the political and legal sphere, that wrong-doing took place.
As for the firebombing, to me that feels much more like ClubsNSW/Bikey gang related hush tactics.
OK, but you did seem to be holding the firebombing incident up as an example of Australia's "ridiculous authoritarianism".
I'm just not quite seeing how it shows authoritarianism if you weren't suggesting government involvement?
Also your original comment sounds like you're saying Aus and UK are worse than the US on this front, but the worst case example you've just provided is from the US.
Well, a journalist goes after a politician for corruption and then his house is firebombed... The government itself doesn't have to "organize" that but a corrupt politician with friends certainly could.
>Aus and UK are worse than the US on this front
They are. Just look at how people were treated during COVID and how you can literally get arrested for tweeting "offensive content." That wouldn't happen in the US.
And yes, the example shows that it is not above a politician to literally kill a journalist with their own hands because their corruption is being uncovered. I guess in this case, the dude unfortunately succeeded but there's still two attempted murders and arson cases in AUS over a journalist uncovering corruption. Seems much more organized and deeper than a dude singlehandedly breaking into a house to do such things.
Would it require it to have gov't involvement to be bad? Let's say that the leader of a country stood up on a stage during a speech (which was preceded by years of pro-violence rhetoric) that was very suggestive of committing acts of violence. Would that be gov't involvement even if it the violence was actually perpetrated by private citizens?
I don't follow Australian politics closely, so what has/hasn't been said by its leaders is unknown to me. I was merely suggesting that if a leader has insinuated that something like that wouldn't be a bad idea, then some might say you now how a gov't official involved.
Are you familiar with Metalstorm? Pretty fantastic site for all things metal music related. The 'New Releases' and 'Upcoming Releases' section under 'News and Events' at the top would provide something similar to your Wikipedia page.
Anyway, to get back on topic, which country do you think is the best example of the level of government you think is optimal?