Click here for Arsenal FC news and reports

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51

Thread: Brace yourselves: Bobby Ball gone.

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    Well medical science has created average life expectancies of 80-fķck+ and we haven't had a proper war in ages, so the concept of suffering an early death seems even more egregious and unfair to people now than it ever has before.
    Stoicism is borne of hardship and we in the west have lived in a condition of ease for a long, long time. Put simply, you can't create a society that minimises risk to an unprecedented degree and then expect everyone to happily accept and embrace risk.
    Well I do, as do loads of people I know. How come the hard of thinking get a pass?

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir C View Post
    Well I do, as do loads of people I know. How come the hard of thinking get a pass?
    You do for yourself, which is fine. But of course your risk calculation is relatively simple by virtue of having (for instance) no living parents and no kids.
    But others need to consider the risk not only to themselves, but to their vulnerable relatives, neighbours, etc. In other words, not everyone's risk calculation is the same or can be managed as easily.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    You do for yourself, which is fine. But of course your risk calculation is relatively simple by virtue of having (for instance) no living parents and no kids.
    But others need to consider the risk not only to themselves, but to their vulnerable relatives, neighbours, etc. In other words, not everyone's risk calculation is the same or can be managed as easily.
    Meh. I smell fudge.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir C View Post
    Meh. I smell fudge.
    Take my folks, for instance. They are (touch wood) very healthy; mentally acute; active and are very much enjoying their later years. Given which, they - not unreasonably - would prefer not to expose themselves unduly to the risk of catching a virus that would have a very good chance of killing them.
    As a result, I tend to take a dim view of people who boldly assert that they just should strap on a pair and potentially shorten the lives they are very much enjoying because the rest of us are finding the whole thing a bit tiresome. Now you can take the view that their determination to cling to life is selfish in a societal sense if you like, but you probably need to accept that your view comes from an equally selfish place.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    Take my folks, for instance. They are (touch wood) very healthy; mentally acute; active and are very much enjoying their later years. Given which, they - not unreasonably - would prefer not to expose themselves unduly to the risk of catching a virus that would have a very good chance of killing them.
    As a result, I tend to take a dim view of people who boldly assert that they just should strap on a pair and potentially shorten the lives they are very much enjoying because the rest of us are finding the whole thing a bit tiresome. Now you can take the view that their determination to cling to life is selfish in a societal sense if you like, but you probably need to accept that your view comes from an equally selfish place.
    In which case they are free to take the decision to self-isolate.

    Or to decide for themselves which risks they are willing to take and to act accordingly.

    Asking the rest of us to put our lives on hold, load our children down with debt and wreck the economy in order to minimise risk that they are fully capable of controlling strikes me as really, really stupid.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    Take my folks, for instance. They are (touch wood) very healthy; mentally acute; active and are very much enjoying their later years. Given which, they - not unreasonably - would prefer not to expose themselves unduly to the risk of catching a virus that would have a very good chance of killing them.
    As a result, I tend to take a dim view of people who boldly assert that they just should strap on a pair and potentially shorten the lives they are very much enjoying because the rest of us are finding the whole thing a bit tiresome. Now you can take the view that their determination to cling to life is selfish in a societal sense if you like, but you probably need to accept that your view comes from an equally selfish place.
    It's not exactly the bubonic plague, mate. Two old dears in a nursing home died three weeks earlier than they would have otherwise and a number of people (including me) got a nasty cough.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by WES View Post
    In which case they are free to take the decision to self-isolate.

    Or to decide for themselves which risks they are willing to take and to act accordingly.

    Asking the rest of us to put our lives on hold, load our children down with debt and wreck the economy in order to minimise risk that they are fully capable of controlling strikes me as really, really stupid.
    They are and they have - because they are fortunate enough to have the support network, technological skills and- let's face it - money to do so comfortably. Not everyone has. Equally, they are a couple and so issues of isolation and loneliness are less pressing to them than they are to single vulnerable people.
    This 'oh, they should just lock themselves away so the rest of us can get on with it' attitude is profoundly callous, heartless and unthinking. These are actual people you're talking about here, not mere inconveniences.
    I also worry about the factors you mention, but I think there's something deeply wrong with thinking the way you do about people.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    Take my folks, for instance. They are (touch wood) very healthy; mentally acute; active and are very much enjoying their later years. Given which, they - not unreasonably - would prefer not to expose themselves unduly to the risk of catching a virus that would have a very good chance of killing them.
    As a result, I tend to take a dim view of people who boldly assert that they just should strap on a pair and potentially shorten the lives they are very much enjoying because the rest of us are finding the whole thing a bit tiresome. Now you can take the view that their determination to cling to life is selfish in a societal sense if you like, but you probably need to accept that your view comes from an equally selfish place.
    Someone in the Tele the other day was considering these YouGov polls that show the large majority of the people support the current restrictions or think we should go farther. His point was that the questions are really loaded and geared towards that outcome.

    The question he felt everyone should really be asked was, and I paraphrase 'are you prepared to significantly curtail the social aspect of your life, no longer travel abroad and add enormous amounts of debt in order to for a small reduction in the likelihood that you live into your 90s?'.

    And he's right.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    They are and they have - because they are fortunate enough to have the support network, technological skills and- let's face it - money to do so comfortably. Not everyone has. Equally, they are a couple and so issues of isolation and loneliness are less pressing to them than they are to single vulnerable people.
    This 'oh, they should just lock themselves away so the rest of us can get on with it' attitude is profoundly callous, heartless and unthinking. These are actual people you're talking about here, not mere inconveniences.
    I also worry about the factors you mention, but I think there's something deeply wrong with thinking the way you do about people.
    But I'm not suggesting we lock them or anyone else away, I'm suggesting we allow them to decide the risk they are prepared to take.

    And your moral perspective excludes the issues faced by people in the non-vulnerable category. Why is it bad to think about people in the way you describe but it's ok to ignore the impact of lockdown on mental health, domestic abuse, cancer patients etc etc ?

    My main issue with our approach to Covid is that we don't look at it holistically, we seem to care only about Covid statistics rather than the impact of lockdown generally.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by WES View Post
    Someone in the Tele the other day was considering these YouGov polls that show the large majority of the people support the current restrictions or think we should go farther. His point was that the questions are really loaded and geared towards that outcome.

    The question he felt everyone should really be asked was, and I paraphrase 'are you prepared to significantly curtail the social aspect of your life, no longer travel abroad and add enormous amounts of debt in order to for a small reduction in the likelihood that you live into your 90s?'.

    And he's right.
    Sure. I agree about the polls for what it's worth. And I think that to make those calculations regarding one's own personal risk are absolutely fine. But it's not just about the risk to yourself. You're also taking risks with other people's lives. And at that point your calculation of the risk to yourself ceases to be the only factor.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •