even with the virus issue...

my own argument has been that governments across the world have bought into the pseudoscience of social distancing without properly evaluating the evidence for it, and that it's almost certainly not going to actually work. so, i'm not prioritizing the economy over health, so much as i'm pointing out that this isn't going to work, and arguing that focusing on the weak while otherwise loosening restrictions would actually be more effective - i'm having a debate over which policy best prioritizes health, and in the process pulling out a policy that also has minimal effects on the economy, but not actually because of it. if i thought social distancing was the best health policy, i would support it; i don't. and, i'm being proven more and more right every day, it seems.

but, which side of the spectrum is rooting their policies in religious concepts about the sanctity of life and insistent on passing rules and laws to uphold those religious concepts, and which side sees the universe as an empty, barren place where life has no inherent meaning?

so long as government exists, it should do what it can to protect the weak, and i've been absolutely consistent on that point.

but, i don't believe that life is sacred; life has no inherent meaning, no value, no purpose. the difference is that i advocate for mutual aid, but i am far closer to the nihilist republican position than i am to the religious democratic one.

now, if you could only explain this to the moral majority voters that still think they're voting for reagan, or to the cultural left that thinks it's still voting for bill clinton....