TSA Numbers
10-06-2020, 11:28 AM
#881
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2020
Posts: 39
When you see selfish people, I assume you are referring to the people who have locked themselves in their homes and refuse to spend money? Are you talking about the governors abusing their powers and forcing businesses closed? Or are you referring to me who refuse to change my way of living because life is too short, covid isn't going anywhere, and it's not nearly as dangerous as the news has made it out to be? People like me are the ones spending money keeping the economy going.
I locked down for a month and a half. Never again. It's not worth it.
I locked down for a month and a half. Never again. It's not worth it.
The comment references what you consider to be draconian abuses of power by Governors of states but in the same breath derides people making personal choices for their own happiness or benefit.
You shouldn't simultaneously advocate for personal freedoms (no lockdowns imposed) and also call people selfish for exercising their own personal freedoms (choosing to quarantine with their social bubble).
You have no right to that person's money nor is it their moral or civic obligation to spend. As long as they pay their mortgage, property tax, etc., they are free to live life as they see fit and spend (or not spend) on what they want.
You can't have it both ways.
10-06-2020, 02:12 PM
#883
That/It/Thang
Joined APC: Aug 2020
Posts: 2,962
I usually don't enter these types of arguments but there is a certain level of hypocrisy in your first paragraph that I needed to address.
The comment references what you consider to be draconian abuses of power by Governors of states but in the same breath derides people making personal choices for their own happiness or benefit.
You shouldn't simultaneously advocate for personal freedoms (no lockdowns imposed) and also call people selfish for exercising their own personal freedoms (choosing to quarantine with their social bubble).
You have no right to that person's money nor is it their moral or civic obligation to spend. As long as they pay their mortgage, property tax, etc., they are free to live life as they see fit and spend (or not spend) on what they want.
You can't have it both ways.
The comment references what you consider to be draconian abuses of power by Governors of states but in the same breath derides people making personal choices for their own happiness or benefit.
You shouldn't simultaneously advocate for personal freedoms (no lockdowns imposed) and also call people selfish for exercising their own personal freedoms (choosing to quarantine with their social bubble).
You have no right to that person's money nor is it their moral or civic obligation to spend. As long as they pay their mortgage, property tax, etc., they are free to live life as they see fit and spend (or not spend) on what they want.
You can't have it both ways.
10-06-2020, 02:27 PM
#884
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 1,303
AA just cancelled 44% of their November flights. UA and Delta are cutting back too. Why book ahead on a flight that’s going to be cancelled anyway? If I were a passenger, I wouldn’t book any further ahead than three weeks right now either. There is no certainty to anything further out. The schedules are written in smoke.
10-06-2020, 02:55 PM
#885
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,240
How many times does someone have to get a booking three months ahead cancelled for them to get the clue that booking ahead is senseless? In your expert opinion? Or do you regard your customers as too stupid ever to figure out they are wasting their time?
10-06-2020, 03:04 PM
#886
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 1,303
You really want me to answer that question? You must be new to the industry.
10-06-2020, 03:54 PM
#887
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2020
Position: Gummed
Posts: 1,060
I usually don't enter these types of arguments but there is a certain level of hypocrisy in your first paragraph that I needed to address.
The comment references what you consider to be draconian abuses of power by Governors of states but in the same breath derides people making personal choices for their own happiness or benefit.
CA, WI, MI, NY, NJ, OH, PA, IL, IN, OR, WA, NV, VA, MD, NC. Those governors have defaulted to their health commissioners to dictate draconian tyrannical health policy. Health emergency power legislation was mostly passed between 1919-1924. These were to ostensibly combat spanish flu and typhoid. We never executed the provisions contained therein for smallpox or polio outbreaks. Never did we use them for chicken pox, measles, meningitis, SARS, MERS, Ebola or H1N1. Yet all of a sudden, this time around, we are snapping away freedoms for a flu bug using these outdated laws. Hockey is merely highlighting this fact. Truly the intent is for 14-28 day emergency executive authority followed by legislative actions. If you look back at the history of epidemics in this country, when invoked, the legislative process takes over rather quickly. To limit and check the power of the executive. This time, it has not happened. Certain Governors are operating well outside the scope of their authority. Hockey is illustrating that. As individuals we do share some responsibility. We should probably not be going out and about if we are sick. Should not sneeze in other peoples faces. Shouldn't lick door knobs either. Hockey is stating that as well. I don't see a contradiction as you are pointing out and labeling it as hypocritical on his part.
You shouldn't simultaneously advocate for personal freedoms (no lockdowns imposed) and also call people selfish for exercising their own personal freedoms (choosing to quarantine with their social bubble).
Why not? He's a proponent of individual choice here. Simple as that. If you want to hide under your bed - so be it. Don't you tell me to hide under mine because you want it that way. That's what hockey is telling you. The best thing about his statement is CHOICE. The freedom we have to make a CHOICE and not be ordered.
You have no right to that person's money nor is it their moral or civic obligation to spend. As long as they pay their mortgage, property tax, etc., they are free to live life as they see fit and spend (or not spend) on what they want.
Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion from what he posted. I didn't get that. Care to expound further?
You can't have it both ways.
He's not. He's simply stating that as a country founded on the principles of all men are granted certain inalienable rights - we all get a choice. This fiasco of government overreach has only illustrated and highlighted how far, and how wrong, a government can be. That is why we have the Constitution. Our founding fathers understood the evil and tyranny of men. That is why we are a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Our government only exists because we permit it. They serve us. No one else. Time for you to understand that. I think hockey does.
The comment references what you consider to be draconian abuses of power by Governors of states but in the same breath derides people making personal choices for their own happiness or benefit.
CA, WI, MI, NY, NJ, OH, PA, IL, IN, OR, WA, NV, VA, MD, NC. Those governors have defaulted to their health commissioners to dictate draconian tyrannical health policy. Health emergency power legislation was mostly passed between 1919-1924. These were to ostensibly combat spanish flu and typhoid. We never executed the provisions contained therein for smallpox or polio outbreaks. Never did we use them for chicken pox, measles, meningitis, SARS, MERS, Ebola or H1N1. Yet all of a sudden, this time around, we are snapping away freedoms for a flu bug using these outdated laws. Hockey is merely highlighting this fact. Truly the intent is for 14-28 day emergency executive authority followed by legislative actions. If you look back at the history of epidemics in this country, when invoked, the legislative process takes over rather quickly. To limit and check the power of the executive. This time, it has not happened. Certain Governors are operating well outside the scope of their authority. Hockey is illustrating that. As individuals we do share some responsibility. We should probably not be going out and about if we are sick. Should not sneeze in other peoples faces. Shouldn't lick door knobs either. Hockey is stating that as well. I don't see a contradiction as you are pointing out and labeling it as hypocritical on his part.
You shouldn't simultaneously advocate for personal freedoms (no lockdowns imposed) and also call people selfish for exercising their own personal freedoms (choosing to quarantine with their social bubble).
Why not? He's a proponent of individual choice here. Simple as that. If you want to hide under your bed - so be it. Don't you tell me to hide under mine because you want it that way. That's what hockey is telling you. The best thing about his statement is CHOICE. The freedom we have to make a CHOICE and not be ordered.
You have no right to that person's money nor is it their moral or civic obligation to spend. As long as they pay their mortgage, property tax, etc., they are free to live life as they see fit and spend (or not spend) on what they want.
Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion from what he posted. I didn't get that. Care to expound further?
You can't have it both ways.
He's not. He's simply stating that as a country founded on the principles of all men are granted certain inalienable rights - we all get a choice. This fiasco of government overreach has only illustrated and highlighted how far, and how wrong, a government can be. That is why we have the Constitution. Our founding fathers understood the evil and tyranny of men. That is why we are a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Our government only exists because we permit it. They serve us. No one else. Time for you to understand that. I think hockey does.
10-06-2020, 05:28 PM
#888
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2020
Posts: 39
The bulk of your response centers around the "draconian tyrannical health policy", while bypassing the primary reason for my comment. I did not make a value statement or judgement regarding "draconian tyrannical health policy" in my comment.
He said he assumed the selfish people are the ones "who have locked themselves in their homes and refuse to spend money". I would wager that the reason he is concerned is about their money and not the social fabric of society because they "have locked themselves in their homes".
I replied "You have no right to that person's money nor is it their moral or civic obligation to spend. As long as they pay their mortgage, property tax, etc., they are free to live life as they see fit and spend (or not spend) on what they want."
In turn, you commented "Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion from what he posted. I didn't get that. Care to expound further?"
People deciding how to spend (or not spend) their own money were identified as "selfish" because they didn't align to how Hockeypilot44 thought they should be spending it. In turn, both you and him detail the processes by which you feel your personal freedoms have been infringed upon.
How can he:
1. criticize exercising one's personal freedoms as selfish
2. rail against the limiting of personal freedoms by way of "draconian tyrannical health policy"
I'm not going to reply further to your comments as you seem to have missed the point entirely and are trying to expand beyond the specific critique that I had of the original comment.
Cheers,
AirlineAnalyst
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
