COVID-19 (artist formerly known as Wuhan strain novel Corona virus)

Ehhh. You asked "Why is it always about oneself, and never about others?" You're suggesting selfishness. But if he truly believes that it can't be passed to people who have already had it, then how is that selfish?

 

Because wearing a mask is not about oneself, but about others. So if they aren't wearing a mask, even if they can't spread it, it's still just about them.

Should vaccinated people not wear a mask? No, they should wear a mask. Because the mask is about others, not whether you can get it or, really, even spread it. We know a negative test then and there is negative... should still wear a mask.

 

What? If the reason for wearing a mask is to prevent from spreading it to others, but you can't (or at least are under the impression you can't) spread it to others, then there is literally no reason to wear a mask. You're not selfish if you then choose not to wear one. You can't spread it (or at least are under the impression you can't). The mask serves no purpose.

 

Right, selfishness. Thinking of oneself. Looking inward. I can't spread it. I don't need a mask. I I I.

That's selfishness. You've got it!

We're not talking about effectiveness, we're talking about selfishness.

But also, second infection likely can spread. So...

 

Lol the mental gymnastics you do to get around admitting you were wrong are astounding.

By your application of the definition, anyone who steps foot outside his or her home is selfish. Why stop at masks? Are they 100% effective? Anyone without a full face shield is selfish. Hell, make it a full motorcycle helmet! Oh, you don't own a motorcycle helmet? SELFISH! Gloves too! If you're not wearing gloves, you're obviously selfish. And if you're not changing your gloves after every single surface you touch, you're clearly selfish. I I I. SELFISH!

 

Selfish means "lacking consideration of others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure."

So, if your thought process is "I'm literally unable to spread this to anyone else, so I don't need to wear a mask," you are not being selfish. You have considered others and concluded that you are not putting them in any danger by not wearing a mask.

For once, can you just admit you were wrong and move on with your life? I know that's asking a lot of you, but it would be nice.

 

If those were the guidelines, that would be absolutely true. The guidelines are established so that society has a say in which behavior is considered good for society, or not. Good for society is not selfish.

There are no mental gymnastics necessary, nor is it a wrong statement.

 

It is not for you to decide what puts someone else at danger, or not. That's why society has developed a body for arbitrating these things. And not following that body is selfish.

 

To borrow your favorite word - all that is immaterial. This isn't about whether you are right or wrong in your thought process. It's about whether you're selfish. So while thinking you know better than the body arbitrating these things may be wrong, if you are considering others in your decision making process, you are not being selfish.

You've never been wrong, ever, have you?

 

It is absolutely material. You can't decide if you are being selfish or not, because that decision is inherently internal. How do you not see this? If I decide that I'm not being selfish... I decided it! Me. Putting myself as the arbitrator of what is and is not selfish is as lacking in objectivity as can be. So I cannot decide if I am being selfish or not. That's why we have 3rd party arbitration, so I can compare what I'm doing, to the arbitrator, to measure whether the action I'm doing is objectively selfish or not.

The guidelines are the minimum. Going beyond the guidelines doesn't make you selfish, so long as you meet the minimum.

I've often been wrong. But if you can't see that a person deciding whether they themselves are selfish or not is as lacking in objectivity as can be, then I can't help you be right.

 

Not wearing a mask because I know I am not contagious and also cannot get the disease again due to immunity, especially when there is no vaccine yet so no one KNOWS I am not contagious and cannot get it, is self-centered if I am only doing it for my own comfort.

I am right.
But I am still being selfish because I am putting my physical comfort above the mental/emotional comfort of others.

Until this thing passes, just wear a mask, make others around you feel better. Be less self centered.

This is not directed at you, Indy, or anyone else, just pronouns make for awkward talking sometimes.

 

Whether someone is being selfish is not based on a decision that person makes about whether they are being selfish. This is a perfect example of the mental/verbal gymnastics. You've put words in my mouth, suggesting that I'm stating that a person decides whether they themselves are selfish or not. I have not said that. You do this literally every single time we argue.

The only factor that matters in determining whether someone is or isn't being selfish is whether he or she considers others in his or her decision making process. If he or she considers others in his or her decision making process, then he or she isn't being selfish because selfish is defined as "lacking consideration for others." It's not the person deciding that he or she isn't being selfish. It's the literal definition of the word deciding that the person is not being selfish.

 

That if seems pretty important.

And your argument is different from Float's, which is interesting. You're also assuming a lot here:

• You assume that the person's decision not to wear a mask is based on physical comfort
• You assume that the person not wearing the mask will be detrimental to the mental/emotional comfort of others.

That's a lot of different added criteria in order to get to the point of this situation being selfish.

Bottom line for me: If the point of wearing the pass is to avoid passing it to others, and a person chooses not to wear a mask because he is or is under the impression that he is incapable of passing it to others, he is not being selfish. Period. He thought about others and their well-being. Not selfish.

 

You said it right here, man: "So while thinking you know better than the body arbitrating these things may be wrong, if you are considering others in your decision making process, you are not being selfish." You "considering others" in your decision making process is an inherent thing, you did the considering. That's internal. That's individual.

Let's look at it from your view, that all I have to do is consider other people, to not be selfish. Great, I decide I want to die, so I go blow up a bunch of other people. A person with a rational argument here would conclude that the one doing the blowing up was selfish. But if we were to take your idea, that all we had to do was consider others, then we'd have to say that the action of blowing up other people wasn't selfish. So therefore it cannot just be consideration of others. And you can't say "consideration of others, and have it be good for them as well," because the person deciding whether it is good for them is still the same person. That person doing the blowing up could have decided that what was good for those people was their death. Still selfish.

So, do you think a person who blows other people up, but considered them beforehand, was not selfish?

 

You should really try to come up with a better example. This one is incredibly dumb.

 

Then it'll be easy for you counter it.

 

If you're defining "consider others" as just having them enter your thoughts, at all, then yeah, your example makes sense. But I don't think anyone defines it that way.

"Considering others" is satisfied in the first example through the legitimate concern for their safety. The decision to not wear a mask because you can't pass COVID to others implies that if you could pass it to others, you would wear the mask. You're considering the health and safety of others and factoring it in to drive your decision making process.

That's not happening in the blowing up example. In that example, the person blowing people up is making his decision despite the wants/needs of others. Their wants and needs/what's good for them isn't factoring into his decision. If it was, he would go blow himself up away from people. Unless, of course, he truly believed that the people wanted to be blown up and that it would be good for them to be blown up. In that case, I would call him crazy, not selfish.

 

"Considering others" is a societal decision, which is why selfishness is as well. We're not talking about what I define, we're talking about what you define, as this is your definition of selfishness, not mine. As such, we can only see it from your eyes.

So you have to tell us what it means. You're using the literal definition of selfishness, but the figurative definition of consideration? I'm asking, because that seems to be the case, with your first example. As in, why is "considering others" only to do with concern for their safety? Can I not "consider others" when deciding a greater good, such as killing 10 to save 10,000? Your logic fails here.

You cannot be crazy and selfish at the same time? If the guy truly believes this, is he selfish?

 

Two kids at my wife and son's school tested positive, one kid in my son's class. The best part is their mom is a DCS case worker for Knox County and tested positive but continued to send her kids to school for almost a week "allegedly".

 

Which is why I don't bother dude. I like Float, I just don't care to chase my tail, or his tail with these arguments.