Swine Flu has been declared a national emergency

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by Dragonelf68

Just so you know, those stats were from the CDC.

What I meant was it is the CDC who has decided that Swine flu is, or at least could be, a threat. Obama didn't declare a national emergency on his own he did it because of the CDCs advice.

[Zach]

OMGWTFBBQ SWINE FLU.

...really? is it that big of a problem? Our population needs thinning anyways.

[AlDaja]

Originally Posted by Zach

OMGWTFBBQ SWINE FLU.

...really? is it that big of a problem? Our population needs thinning anyways.

Agreed...I was always partial to anthrax...besides it has a more sinister name.

[Mr. Pedantic]

Obama and his [some] advisors are becoming stupider and stupider.

It's a tricky one, isn't it? Who to trust...a bunch of rather intelligent people who are paid to analyze risk factors in disease and pandemic control, or some person posting on an internet forum and taking facts at face value...? Jeeze...such a hard decision...

Just so you know, the danger from swine flu isn't about how many people have already died. It's about how many people will die...just the same as with every single other public health risk. There's nothing you can do to revive people who have already died, but hopefully you can reduce the number of total, or future, fatalities that occur. This is the case of swine flu. Just because at the moment it is relatively harmless, does not mean that it will stay relatively harmless. It is completely naive and foolish to say that just because we have more pressing problems at the moment, that it's not worth it trying to reduce the impact of this one.

Having said that, I still think this is an overreaction.

Agreed...I was always partial to anthrax...besides it has a more sinister name.

If you got it? What about your wife? Children? Parents? Best mate? FFS, people. Have some empathy.

[Nemmerle]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

If you got it? What about your wife? Children? Parents? Best mate? FFS, people. Have some empathy.

I find it ironic you're talking about empathy while trying to appeal to the loss of specific people as if they're more valuable than the others. It's entirely because they're something more than just the common muck that we care about them; entirely because of the investment, the shared memories, the mutual support - and those things don't transfer over to the general population.

I mean most people will claim that they do, for convenience sake. They'll claim they care about life and so on, but it's just self-serving bullshit. They care for all the parts that are unlikely to obligate them to change their lives and the rest they reject. It's why there are so few activists and so many advocates.

It's obvious really: People rarely earn their values through suffering or mental effort; for the majority they're something they inherit through being told a thing is so, while at the same time living relatively opulent lifestyles. It's hardly any great surprise that the symbols with which they express these apparent, 'values,' don't vouch for the actual existence of a significantly internalised concept since the application for that value has never shown up anywhere in their lives for the symbol to refer to it.

All most people mean by their values, whatever symbolic system they use to express them, is a maintenance of the current, self-beneficial, order and maybe a few hundred pounds worth of pity money to the third world every now and then by way of reassurance. Respect for life, respect for a cause, value aside from lethargy; coins that have lost their faces and are now worth no more than the metal.

Empathy doesn't exist in this world. You'll see, when times get hard. All these nice civilised people with their symbolic justice systems. You'll see how quickly they tear each other apart just for another little bit of life. Those who don't bother spouting the lies of generalised empathy are just a bit ahead of the curve.

[Mr. Pedantic]

I find it ironic you're talking about empathy while trying to appeal to the loss of specific people as if they're more valuable than the others. It's entirely because they're something more than just the common muck that we care about them; entirely because of the investment, the shared memories, the mutual support - and those things don't transfer over to the general population.

I wrote what I wrote because I figured that if he doesn't care about people he doesn't know, then maybe he'll care sufficiently for people he does know and love. In any case, 'value' in this sense is completely subjective.

I mean most people will claim that they do, for convenience sake. They'll claim they care about life and so on, but it's just self-serving bullshit. They care for all the parts that are unlikely to obligate them to change their lives and the rest they reject. It's why there are so few activists and so many advocates.

All those doctors, surgeons, specialists who treat people that are sick and/or dying, they have been obligated to change their lives to help save others. They've literally thrown away at least a decade of the most productive, healthy period of their lives on top of what most other people sacrifice (school, university, whatnot) to train in their professions so that when people come to them asking for help, they can give it.

Empathy doesn't exist in this world. You'll see, when times get hard. All these nice civilised people with their symbolic justice systems. You'll see how quickly they tear each other apart just for another little bit of life. Those who don't bother spouting the lies of generalised empathy are just a bit ahead of the curve.

That is a completely baseless conclusion. All you've given in evidence for it is an argument that says that many people don't have what you would deem a significant level of empathy. The two are obviously not the same.

EDIT: Oh, I completely missed this. Having empathy means that you can use your imagination in a way that allows you to understand how other people are feeling. It does not mean that you necessarily have to do something about it.

[Nemmerle]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

I wrote what I wrote because I figured that if he doesn't care about people he doesn't know, then maybe he'll care sufficiently for people he does know and love. In any case, 'value' in this sense is completely subjective.

Fair enough, my mistake

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

All those doctors, surgeons, specialists who treat people that are sick and/or dying, they have been obligated to change their lives to help save others. They've literally thrown away at least a decade of the most productive, healthy period of their lives on top of what most other people sacrifice (school, university, whatnot) to train in their professions so that when people come to them asking for help, they can give it.

If they were really interested in helping others as their highest value then there are much more efficient ways to go about it. Much less profitable ones too come to think of it. They're interested in fulfilling a certain archetype that has been presented to them as desirable, or in getting money, or in the education, or the prestige, or any of a myriad explanations interacting. Their 'empathy' is of a form that still allows them to live very comfortable lives - if it wasn't this job it would be some other; arguably with less pay, less job protection... you can certainly explain a doctor's position as being irrespective of Empathy. There's nothing wrong with that, they may even get off on it. But it doesn't neccessarily have anything to do with caring for others... A great part of internships concern taking feelings for others and crushing them as far as possible anyway.

Frankly if the actions of current medical culture are the result of people with empathy, we must live in a world full of absolute bastards.

Even if we grant that it is though they make up what? A percent of the general population; more, less? And to pretend they throw great chunks of their lives away is also untrue, I've seen med students and interns; they come out drinking just as much as the rest of us. If you want to talk about people throwing their lives away it's the poor bastards taking multiple science degrees; I mean, ouch.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

That is a completely baseless conclusion. All you've given in evidence for it is an argument that says that many people don't have what you would deem a significant level of empathy. The two are obviously not the same.

EDIT: Oh, I completely missed this. Having empathy means that you can use your imagination in a way that allows you to understand how other people are feeling. It does not mean that you necessarily have to do something about it.

Then, 'Have some empathy.' seems a pointless command in the context of the discussion. If that's the standard it seems perfectly reasonable even for a sociopath to turn around and say something to the effect of:

Alright I empathise with them. Now I'm going to skin them alive and laugh as I bathe in their blood.

Empathy as a concept I'd argue, at least within this context, comes with a host of supposedly enobling connotations that you were trying to exploit that are simply incompatible with an apathetic interpretation.

[Afterburner]

Nemm, though I'd grant you that many people are not empathetic towards those they are not connected with there are certainly people who are empathetic towards others, and genuinely care solely about other people. You could argue that deep down they are doing it for themselves, so they'd feel good or whatever, but I don't think that detracts from their kindness. I have a friend who spent the summer in Mexico helping to build homes and teach children, for example.

Edit: But, uh, yeah swine flu.

Nazoa, did you actually catch swine flu, or do you just think you caught it? Has anyone else caught it or know someone who has?

[AlDaja]

Empathy is crap, it's the equivalent of meeting someone on the street and saying, "good morning, how are you?" Their response should be "good" or something of equal superficial gesture and move on. No one really cares how you or your day is going - and you regret the curtsy if they should stop and actually give you a blow by blow. That would be me, I do not care nor pretend to. As sarcastically noted, most civilized people are superficial in their gestures and concerns and most people who are effected by events need more than patronizing "get well" notions.

Anywho, I would not want my family to get anthrax, but if they did, I'd hope for the best and if they died, well...people die everyday, such is life. I grew up on a ranch with horses, cows and sheep and anthrax was a constant threat when dealing with feces of large herds, especially during winter months. Long barns are usually built to allow air flow to dry out the fungus to keep sporing from happening and usually good ol' sh't shoveling is needed to keep the barns clean. The best time to avoid contact with anthrax spores is to do this in early spring or late fall (preferably). People in that line of profession die on a yearly basis from anthrax, and you never hear anything about it, save for in professional horseman magazines or farming bulletins. A kind word or two might be said if someone knew (and I did) of people who died from anthrax, but such is life on a farm or ranch. Then anthrax became a big deal when a few spores found there way among the populace and I'm suppose to be empathetic...don't think so.

[Mr. Pedantic]

Then, 'Have some empathy.' seems a pointless command in the context of the discussion.

Yes. Have some empathy. Have some understanding for other peoples' motives and desires, right to life, and emotions.

If that's the standard it seems perfectly reasonable even for a sociopath to turn around and say something to the effect of:
Alright I empathise with them. Now I'm going to skin them alive and laugh as I bathe in their blood.
Empathy as a concept I'd argue, at least within this context, comes with a host of supposedly enobling connotations that you were trying to exploit that are simply incompatible with an apathetic interpretation.

Of course. It's just that most people with empathy don't do that sort of thing, because they can understand why someone would not want to be skinned alive.

If they were really interested in helping others as their highest value then there are much more efficient ways to go about it. Much less profitable ones too come to think of it. They're interested in fulfilling a certain archetype that has been presented to them as desirable, or in getting money, or in the education, or the prestige, or any of a myriad explanations interacting. Their 'empathy' is of a form that still allows them to live very comfortable lives - if it wasn't this job it would be some other; arguably with less pay, less job protection... you can certainly explain a doctor's position as being irrespective of Empathy.

People have to live, and to live it seems that you need money. There are plenty of doctors, especially those later on in their careers, who work for a discounted rate or for nothing, especially for people who they know cannot afford treatment. If we were in it for the money, we would have ditched Med long ago for IT; that pays similarly (and a lot more for people who really know what they are doing) for much less effort.

I don't think it's really plausible to say that just because someone doesn't want to change their whole life around and live in subsistence for eternity doesn't mean that they don't want to sincerely help people.

Frankly if the actions of current medical culture are the result of people with empathy, we must live in a world full of absolute bastards.

And what actions are those?

Even if we grant that it is though they make up what? A percent of the general population; more, less? And to pretend they throw great chunks of their lives away is also untrue, I've seen med students and interns; they come out drinking just as much as the rest of us. If you want to talk about people throwing their lives away it's the poor bastards taking multiple science degrees; I mean, ouch.

I never claimed the entire human population had empathy (did I? I can't remember). I just asked one person to have some empathy. Surely that's not too much to ask.

Empathy is crap, it's the equivalent of meeting someone on the street and saying, "good morning, how are you?" Their response should be "good" or something of equal superficial gesture and move on. No one really cares how you or your day is going - and you regret the curtsy if they should stop and actually give you a blow by blow.

Really? When I ask people how their day is, I really mean it. If I don't mean it, I don't say it.

As sarcastically noted, most civilized people are superficial in their gestures and concerns and most people who are effected by events need more than patronizing "get well" notions.

I don't do that either, unless I mean it.

People in that line of profession die on a yearly basis from anthrax, and you never hear anything about it, save for in professional horseman magazines or farming bulletins. A kind word or two might be said if someone knew (and I did) of people who died from anthrax, but such is life on a farm or ranch. Then anthrax became a big deal when a few spores found there way among the populace and I'm suppose to be empathetic...don't think so.

I call bullshit on this. Deaths from anthrax are very rare in the developed world, there is a vaccine for it, and it is very easily treatable with antibiotics. Deaths from inhalantional anthrax are very rare, maybe five or six per year throughout the whole developed world. Even if the incidence of death from anthrax is significantly greater, I doubt it occurs on a yearly basis within the community of people you knew/associated with.

Also, the reason behind that anthrax is such a big deal as a biological agent is that in agricultural areas, population density is very low. Whereas urban areas often hold over 1000 people/km^2, where the possibility of someone having contact with anthrax, and then spread it during its incubation period to the thousands of people they contact every day, and so on, develops into a much greater risk.