Skip to main content

I've been thinking about this as I've been have a few more drinks:

But what's up with all this hero worshipping?  Truck drivers, food delivery folks, super market workers, health care, sports figures, the perennial union favorite: cops.

Everything is all about hero worshipping.  Don't folks realize that we are all part of the same society?  And being part of a society means we all have our respective jobs to do to keep society going.  What about the people who goto work to put food on their tables so their kids dont starve or go out and rob other folks?  What about the tax payers who keep this society going?  Where's the hero worship for those who put on some pants and head to work everyday for 30 years?

Is hero worship just a veiled attempt to extract more payment out of the tax payers and move closer to a true socialist society?

Is it something simpler?  People just insist on worshipping something in this godless society??

Original Post

This post could probably use a few fewer drinks. 

A lot of folks, myself included, have the option of working remotely, away from crowds of people. I’m also very fortunate to not be living paycheck to paycheck. Doctors and nurses can’t avoid people who have this virus, or other transmitted diseases. They have to share space and air with sick people. Nor can grocery store workers, who have to deal with lowlife, ignoramus assholes who walk through stores with their entire families because they are bored. The same selfish jagoffs who after exiting those stores dispose of their rubber gloves on the ground in the parking lot. And there are also workers in restaurants with drive-through windows who have to handle credit cards and cash passed to them by someone who could be contagious with a deadly virus. 

Whether or not they are “heroes” is a discussion I’m not interested in. I appreciate them being available for me to get what I need/want, and I’ve been telling them so.

Last edited by billhike

MERS killed people so fast, that they died before they were able to spread it.

SARS was similar, but with the advent of masks, social distancing measures were reduced from 6 feet down to as little as a few inches esince your dirty dirty sneezes wouldn't affect as many people around you as if you weren't wearing a mask.

CV19 is dangerous because apparently you dont have to show symptoms and you can spread (at  least that's the prevailing theory)

billhike posted:

This post could probably use a few fewer drinks. 

A lot of folks, myself included, have the option of working remotely, away from crowds of people. I’m also very fortunate to not be living paycheck to paycheck. Doctors and nurses can’t avoid people who have this virus, or other transmitted diseases. They have to share space and air with sick people. Nor can grocery store workers, who have to deal with lowlife, ignoramus assholes who walk through stores with their entire families because they are bored. The same selfish jagoffs who after exiting those stores dispose of their rubber gloves on the ground in the parking lot. And there are also workers in restaurants with drive-through windows who have to handle credit cards and cash passed to them by someone who could be contagious with a deadly virus. 

Whether or not they are “heroes” is a discussion I’m not interested in. I appreciate them being available for me to get what I need/want, and I’ve been telling them so.

Personal sentiments you are 100% correct.  But like any vegan, it's like an army of these folks who insist that you don't know better and must hero worship <insert profession>, else you won't be deemed woke.

Last edited by g-man

I believe that SARS was not nearly as transmissible as the flu or the Wuhan virus, the current corona virus.  Not nearly as many people were infected, so it died out.

In my mind there are two different kinds of heros.  One is a person who takes tremendous risks and sacrifices to help fellow people.  This can be seen on the battlefield where risks mean mortality or someone who forgoes personal advancements such as Mother Teresa.

The other and lesser hero is someone like a sports figure who does spectacular things and has great achievements.  Michael Jordan or LeBron James can be viewed as heros to some.

I have respected and enjoyed sports "heros" but never think of them as having sacrificed themselves for the greater good, so they are just people who excel at what they do and are there for the enjoyment of the masses.  When I see someone who like Pat Tillman who had a great future in sports but dedicated himself to protecting our country and ultimately paid the biggest price, he is a hero to me and worthy of respect.  There are many heros who do not get the recognition and do things that should be recognized for what they do

The worst heros are those that clamor for public recognition and get much acclaim, but are doing things for selfish reasons.  There are many of those in the social media and in the arts.

And yes, I posted this while having a cocktail before dinner, I assume that was a requirement for posting on this thread.

Cheers.

I'm attaching a post from last night, from my boss's boss. Pretty sure he was drinking when he posted it.

"I just saw that all schools will remain closed for this academic year.  If anyone needs them, my teenage boys are available to tutor philosophy/ethics.  Last night they spent 45 minutes actively debating which would be easier to defeat – a pack of 40 seven-year-olds or a group of 7 forty-year-olds.  They are available free of charge.  And immediately."

g-man posted:

Here's another one.

Why do people equate mushy/tender foods as "delicious"?  One of the best things i love about Chinese cuisine is the plethora of textures, but it seems most new american it's either tender or its not good.

Chinese  cuisine is positively fantastic...flavors and textures, as mentioned are great.  I think mushy foods are comfort foods in the US like mashed potatoes and the like.

That’s a great dilemma, the forty 7 year old vs. 7 forty year old one.

As a cardiac surgeon who is dealing with things “on the front lines” right now, I would say that “hero” is in what you do and what you give up to do it.  I can’t imagine that sports icons like Lebron or Joe Montana (both of whom I respect for their achievements) should be mentioned in the same breath as doctors and nurses in the ED in New York City right now, or in Italy, or anywhere else where people are risking their lives to help others. 

g-man posted:

Is it wrong to allow the very rich to give to their selective charities instead of just taxing them more and directing the same funds to where society needs it the most? 

Allow?  No. But the real tax rate on the extraordinarily rich should be much higher than it is in order to help fund what society needs most. The reliance upon charity may not be ideal. 

winetarelli posted:
g-man posted:

Is it wrong to allow the very rich to give to their selective charities instead of just taxing them more and directing the same funds to where society needs it the most? 

Allow?  No. But the real tax rate on the extraordinarily rich should be much higher than it is in order to help fund what society needs most. The reliance upon charity may not be ideal. 

But you hear all those great go fund me feelgood stories!

jgwino posted:

That’s a great dilemma, the forty 7 year old vs. 7 forty year old one.

As a cardiac surgeon who is dealing with things “on the front lines” right now, I would say that “hero” is in what you do and what you give up to do it.  I can’t imagine that sports icons like Lebron or Joe Montana (both of whom I respect for their achievements) should be mentioned in the same breath as doctors and nurses in the ED in New York City right now, or in Italy, or anywhere else where people are risking their lives to help others. 

What about the husband who no longer has any income, family, two young kids at home, alot of bills to pay but is trying to find any hourly job at home depot to get any spare change to at least feed the family?  Aren't these folks part of the same society too?

"But what's up with all this hero worshipping?  Truck drivers, food delivery folks, super market workers, health care, sports figures, the perennial union favorite: cops."

I reject the premise of your arguement. Calling someone a hero, even if they aren't really, is not the same as worshipping them. 

"Everything is all about hero worshipping.  Don't folks realize that we are all part of the same society?  And being part of a society means we all have our respective jobs to do to keep society going.  What about the people who goto work to put food on their tables so their kids dont starve or go out and rob other folks?  What about the tax payers who keep this society going?"

Without a date stamp I don't know when the original post was written, but if it was written this week I really think it's off base. I sure think the medical professionals, firemen and police men (and yes even the store clerks, who are in the midst of this crisis and risk exposure to a deadly virus} are heroes. I just don't worship them and I don't think most people do either.

g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:
g-man posted:

Is it wrong to allow the very rich to give to their selective charities instead of just taxing them more and directing the same funds to where society needs it the most? 

Allow?  No. But the real tax rate on the extraordinarily rich should be much higher than it is in order to help fund what society needs most. The reliance upon charity may not be ideal. 

But you hear all those great go fund me feelgood stories!

Just to be clear, I was saying it isn't wrong to allow it.  Just that it isn't the ideal way to get funds to the people and projects most in need.

 

Also, in this time of crisis, certain jobs -- often with very little pay -- have unusually massive positive externalities.  "Heros" or not, doctors, nurses, Amazon workers, FedEx workers, Instacart workers, and everyone else who is interacting with the world because failure to do so would bring our entire system to a halt, while the rest of us stay in our homes, should be acknowledged and commended, imo. 

g-man posted:

Is it wrong to allow the very rich to give to their selective charities instead of just taxing them more and directing the same funds to where society needs it the most? 

You are assuming that the government knows best about where money should go.  I disagree with that premise.  For example, Bill Gates is directing money to fund the manufacturing of 7 different drugs that show the most promise, knowing that several of them would not be useful  This would advance the production of drugs faster than waiting for testing to confirm to determine what to manufacture.  Why didn't the government think of that?

thistlintom posted:
g-man posted:

Is it wrong to allow the very rich to give to their selective charities instead of just taxing them more and directing the same funds to where society needs it the most? 

You are assuming that the government knows best about where money should go.  I disagree with that premise. 

Well certainly not the government headed by this guy: The 24 most wildly irresponsible lines from Donald Trump's latest interview with Sean Hannity

winetarelli posted:
g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:
g-man posted:

Is it wrong to allow the very rich to give to their selective charities instead of just taxing them more and directing the same funds to where society needs it the most? 

Allow?  No. But the real tax rate on the extraordinarily rich should be much higher than it is in order to help fund what society needs most. The reliance upon charity may not be ideal. 

But you hear all those great go fund me feelgood stories!

Just to be clear, I was saying it isn't wrong to allow it.  Just that it isn't the ideal way to get funds to the people and projects most in need.

 

 

Need is in the eye of the beholder.  To some, whose income, business or livelihood depend on it, an oil pipeline is of greater need than the arts or the ballet or health care or any other myriad of things.  determining need or the best use of resources is entirely subjective. That's why.  

The Old Man posted:
thistlintom posted:
g-man posted:

Is it wrong to allow the very rich to give to their selective charities instead of just taxing them more and directing the same funds to where society needs it the most? 

You are assuming that the government knows best about where money should go.  I disagree with that premise. 

Well certainly not the government headed by this guy: The 24 most wildly irresponsible lines from Donald Trump's latest interview with Sean Hannity

g-man posted:

Is the government's stay at home orders followed by Fines and possibly jail time a direct violation of the 1st amendment's Right to Assemble?

I have seen stories of people getting tickets for being out without a valid reason even though they aren't violating space issues., such as being in a park alone.  Really?  Have a little common sense.

The Old Man posted:

What an embarrassment of a president.  How about #7:

7. "I just saw on your show and a couple of other people just reported back to me that everyone is in great shape from the standpoint of ventilators, which are very hard, because they're expensive and they're big and like -- it's, you know -- it's -- and they're very high-tech."

My 8-year old is more articulate than this moron.

The President said yesterday that he has to make a tough decision soon, namely, whether and when to end the social distancing thing.  It's a tough decision, sure.  But the decision to close schools, restaurants, etc., and to limit group activities,  was made mostly by the governors of various states, and people who host group activities, like the sports people, the entertainment venues, houses of worship, businesses.... Not by him.

So, if he announces on, say, April 30 or May 15 that the federal gov't no longer advises social distancing, some governors will say, "Really? My state will continue, thanks."

 

irwin posted:

The President said yesterday that he has to make a tough decision soon, namely, whether and when to end the social distancing thing.  It's a tough decision, sure.  But the decision to close schools, restaurants, etc., and to limit group activities,  was made mostly by the governors of various states, and people who host group activities, like the sports people, the entertainment venues, houses of worship, businesses.... Not by him.

So, if he announces on, say, April 30 or May 15 that the federal gov't no longer advises social distancing, some governors will say, "Really? My state will continue, thanks."

 

Not Florida, I bet.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×