This is primal gut rage. The educated class hates to be found out as stupid and gullible. From their end it boils down to "why didn't all those loathsome people die?"
And the degree of damage they did--I don't think any mea culpas can reasonably be expected to be accepted with gracious understa…
This is primal gut rage. The educated class hates to be found out as stupid and gullible. From their end it boils down to "why didn't all those loathsome people die?"
And the degree of damage they did--I don't think any mea culpas can reasonably be expected to be accepted with gracious understanding.
Do you think I can ever be made to forgive them, with the damage I believe they did to a very beloved friend, and that they coerced, mandated or persuaded other people extremely precious to me, in a younger demographic, to take the vax whose risks outweigh any purported benefit? If I had an incineration laser I'd use it and let the cosmos decide later if I'd been a little over-impetuous.
I'm not asking you to forgive them. I'm suggesting that, if they would like to be respected for their opinions again, they need to stop pretending they were right all along. I believe my exact phrasing was, "- we might be more sympathetic."
Fair enough. "We" might have been a little broad, I suppose.
I'm sorry you lost someone close to you. I really am. But it's all Fun and Games until someone goes all Scorched Earth on a bunch of nameless, faceless people.
Again, I'm not seeking to be "more sympathetic." I'm suggesting that _if they wish to regain our trust_ that would be step one. And wholly agree that, the fact that they won't or can't, is indicative of exactly what you said: "
"They don't want to be respected. They want to be not wrong. They will fight to the death to find any way to demonstrate they were right."
I didn't lose her. She lost everything that had kept her independent and reasonably well-functioning. I will never forgive though she is of a different nature to mine. I don't know if she believes the vax harmed her and it's not exactly something one ought in decency to discuss with a person who may have paid so dearly for trusting the experts.
We can quibble on this all day. They, in my view, don't want to regain our trust. They want to keep and expand their power. I think there's a little bit of subtle but crucial difference. They think they know better and it's their life's mission to invalidate anyone who thinks evidence is more valuable than trust.
Moral failures engender their own punishment eventually in however one thinks that may happen.
But crimes for which evidence can be discovered, examined and proven should result in significant jail time in the less pleasant penal facilities. A lust for vengeance is pleasant to feed in one's own heart. In the public sphere I despise injustice. Justice is rarely delivered and it never makes the injured whole, but at least holding the accountable guilty must be considered a useful job for government. Of course governments are often the worst transgressors. Society has its complications.
If they have lied about the data, resulting in harm, they should be prosecuted. If they have withheld data, resulting in harm, they should be prosecuted. If they have enabled entities that caused harm, they should be prosecuted. Etc. etc.
If they have refused to publish truthful information, that's more challenging. If they have slandered those trying to provide truthful information, that can be prosecuted.
Where no crime has been committed or can be discoverable--well, ridicule is a wonderful implement.
I think you're incorrect in both assessments.
This is primal gut rage. The educated class hates to be found out as stupid and gullible. From their end it boils down to "why didn't all those loathsome people die?"
And the degree of damage they did--I don't think any mea culpas can reasonably be expected to be accepted with gracious understanding.
Do you think I can ever be made to forgive them, with the damage I believe they did to a very beloved friend, and that they coerced, mandated or persuaded other people extremely precious to me, in a younger demographic, to take the vax whose risks outweigh any purported benefit? If I had an incineration laser I'd use it and let the cosmos decide later if I'd been a little over-impetuous.
I'm not asking you to forgive them. I'm suggesting that, if they would like to be respected for their opinions again, they need to stop pretending they were right all along. I believe my exact phrasing was, "- we might be more sympathetic."
Nothing more, nothing less.
They don't want to be respected. They want to be not wrong. They will fight to the death to find any way to demonstrate they were right.
PS: You want to be more sympathetic you got all the rights to handle yourself any way you choose. I ain't in your "we."
Fair enough. "We" might have been a little broad, I suppose.
I'm sorry you lost someone close to you. I really am. But it's all Fun and Games until someone goes all Scorched Earth on a bunch of nameless, faceless people.
Again, I'm not seeking to be "more sympathetic." I'm suggesting that _if they wish to regain our trust_ that would be step one. And wholly agree that, the fact that they won't or can't, is indicative of exactly what you said: "
"They don't want to be respected. They want to be not wrong. They will fight to the death to find any way to demonstrate they were right."
I didn't lose her. She lost everything that had kept her independent and reasonably well-functioning. I will never forgive though she is of a different nature to mine. I don't know if she believes the vax harmed her and it's not exactly something one ought in decency to discuss with a person who may have paid so dearly for trusting the experts.
We can quibble on this all day. They, in my view, don't want to regain our trust. They want to keep and expand their power. I think there's a little bit of subtle but crucial difference. They think they know better and it's their life's mission to invalidate anyone who thinks evidence is more valuable than trust.
Losing everything is pretty terrible, for sure. It's not my intention to minimize this.
I do agree that they seek to keep and expand their power.
And, again, that they can't just step and say, "Dag. Sorry." completely supports your point.
I think the only thing on which we disagree is the extent to which they should be punished for it.
Moral failures engender their own punishment eventually in however one thinks that may happen.
But crimes for which evidence can be discovered, examined and proven should result in significant jail time in the less pleasant penal facilities. A lust for vengeance is pleasant to feed in one's own heart. In the public sphere I despise injustice. Justice is rarely delivered and it never makes the injured whole, but at least holding the accountable guilty must be considered a useful job for government. Of course governments are often the worst transgressors. Society has its complications.
I also hate injustice and wish there could be This-World Justice.
But it's not clear to me what crime they've committed.
If they have lied about the data, resulting in harm, they should be prosecuted. If they have withheld data, resulting in harm, they should be prosecuted. If they have enabled entities that caused harm, they should be prosecuted. Etc. etc.
If they have refused to publish truthful information, that's more challenging. If they have slandered those trying to provide truthful information, that can be prosecuted.
Where no crime has been committed or can be discoverable--well, ridicule is a wonderful implement.
"If they have enabled entities that caused harm, they should be prosecuted. Etc. etc."
I hear you. But with what infraction do you charge them?
I mean, I'm not a lawyer but I can't figure out what crime they've committed.
Aaaaaaannndddd... We disagree on what?
Except for that Shoot First-Evaluate My Impetuousness Later thing.
I ain't had my tea yet. I can live without caffeine but that will certainly have its effects on my temperament.
LOL I'll drink to that!!
*clinks caffeine recepticles with SCA*
I use hearty mugs so it's gonna be a nice pleasant sound. Earthy validation of cordiality.
Like the man said, “I’m not Jesus Christ and I don’t have Alzheimer’s- so I can’t forgive and I can’t forget.”
Nailed it.
PS: I'd just change it to *won't.*