Hacker News Reader

Comment by PopeUrbanX | Hacker News Reader

Good. Take away their free healthcare, too, so that they stop taking up ICU beds that smarter people might need.

Please do not post flamewar comments to Hacker News, regardless of how wrong other people are, or how much smarter you are, or how wrong you feel they are, or how smart you feel you are. Flamewar hell is not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: actually, you've been breaking the site guidelines so egregiously that I've banned the account. It's not ok to post like this here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29674183

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29674176

We're trying for a different sort of website, one in which people have thoughtful, curious conversation across differences. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the intended spirit in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Dang you spend more time banning accounts than constructively participating on the site. Just look at your comment history.

This goes against the spirit of HN. We value open discussion here.

Your actions should be brought to PGs attention. It seems you are abusing your power as moderator. This is not in HN’s best interest.

Just because you disagree with someone doesnt mean you should ban or silence them.

If you look at my comments more closely you'll see that banning accounts is a small portion of what I do. Mostly I try to persuade and explain to users what kind of site we're trying to have here, what the site guidelines are, and how we apply them.

It always feels like the mods are against you (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), but you can't take that as evidence that we disagree with you. The people with opposite views to yours are just as sure that we're secretly agreeing with you and moderating the site to privilege your views. That's just how it goes.

I would like to push against moral judgement being used to determine if treatment should be offered at all. (To be clear: I’m a fully vaccinated and boosted person that masks consistently.)

My understanding is that the field of medicine is heavily against this because they have historical cases where moral judgement to deprive care have resulted in human rights abuses and medical neglect due to bigotry. It might end up disproportionately affecting the homeless, those afflicted with addiction, single mothers, and the poor.

I agree with this comment and am fully vaccinated as well, and would like to just comment on the

> (To be clear: I’m a fully vaccinated and boosted person that masks consistently.)

Dear COVID scientogists, if you engage in a public discourse where your opponents have to write a disclaimer like this to prevent getting downvoted, you have failed at civic discourses and even if all vaccines were 100% effective and had 0 side effects, your behaviour would still be abhorrent.

I agreed with GP sentiment (and wrote a similar comment myself), but absolutely disagree with your sentiment.

Being able, but unwilling, to get vaccinated substantially shifts my priors of where your comment is coming from. It is useful information, and I appreciate when people disclose it.

If you replace vaccination with an analogous, more politically one-sided limit case (say [not being a Nazi]:[supporting a policy of Hitler] - in typical Godwinian fashion), you can see why this sort of information would be useful.

Your line of thinking is a typical ad hominem; you should evaluate an argumentation based on its merits, not what the meatball behind the online handle happens to do in his free time.

From a Bayesian perspective, the provenance of the information you are basing a decision on is of obvious relevance to how you shape your beliefs.

Ad hom is only fallacious if the information really is irrelevant to the argument [0][1]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/e01b9z/is_ad...

Beware what you wish for. There is no bottom to this rabbit hole. Everyone does something potentially harmful to their bodies. Drivers, airplane travelers, meat eaters, people who stress themselves too much, suicide attempt survivors, people who live next to a polluting industrial plant even if they could afford to move elsewhere.

There is a reason why the Hippocratic oath does not have exceptions for currently unpopular groups. Even captured Nazi war criminals weren't denied medical care in prison.

No. People are stupid along many different axes.

I am not in favor of sentencing people to death just because their stupidity happened to lie on the vaccination axis, while other stupid people get to live.

Good.

Do fat people, smokers, and drinkers next.

Paradoxically, those people actually use fewer healthcare resources, and pension resources, since they die earlier after retirement.

Healthy people with long, drawn-out illnesses use the greatest healthcare and pension resources.

https://taxfoundation.org/new-study-shows-smokers-and-obese-...

Vitamin D and air quality is the major underlying factor behind COVID severity - its why the virus exhibits such seasonality. Pushing vaccines doesn't address underlying public health problems.

Except they aren't jamming up hospitals all at once due to their choices. That's the critical difference.

Hospitals are being jammed up by liberals hopped up on fear porn, going to the ER bc they have a positive covid test but little to no symptoms.

The healthcare isn't free. It is paid for through taxation. They have paid into the same healthcare system (through taxation) as everyone else and should be entitled to the care.

Draconian measures such as what you suggest just make people more suspicious of authority not less.

Vaxxed in the US here, can you direct me to the free healthcare? Thanks.

This post is about Canada.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com