 |
|
RE: No, I'm simply responding to the original post, which says
Posted on: November 18, 2020 at 16:46:16 CT
*M* KC
Posts:
31599
Member For:
23.99 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
The point I was originally trying to make is this:
It is cavalier and cruel for the original poster to state, or to strongly imply, that since 99.98% of us will survive, this is not all that big of a deal. Because 2% of a very large number is still a very large number.
I was pointing out the intrinsic weakness of arguing his position the way he was arguing it.
I'm opposed to total lockdowns, and I think the schools should stay open until the last teacher dies (almost).
But I hate it when people make weak, foolish arguments, which the OP did.
It is cavalier and cruel for the original poster to state, or to strongly imply, that since 99.98% of us will survive, this is not all that big of a deal. Because 2% of a very large number is still a very large number.
I was pointing out the intrinsic weakness of arguing his position the way he was arguing it.
I'm opposed to total lockdowns, and I think the schools should stay open until the last teacher dies (almost).
But I hate it when people make weak, foolish arguments, which the OP did.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
100K died in 5 months in the Hong Kong flu epidemic of 1968 - Bulldog Bob Brown STL - 11/18 16:33:15RE: No, I'm simply responding to the original post, which says - *M* KC - 11/18 16:46:16
-