I understand were you are coming from with a comment like that, but I would argue that the large majority of people read about and get emotionally invested in news stories that have no impact on their lives. Take, for example, the stories of refugees being taken in by European countries, and those of Donald Trump's view of healthcare. It's nearly physically impossible to be affected by those two things. We can think of plenty of such 'pairs' of stories that people get interested in which it's impossible to be affected by both. And beyond what marginal information you get to inform your voting preferences via those stories, it is pretty pointless to get invested in them.
I was under the impression that the new healthcare plan would affect a lot of people, especially the chronically ill. I remember a lot of panic in my social circle that my peers might have to rush marriages to get chronically ill partners under the healthcare of their employer, and the great gnashing of teeth about how something wonderful as marriage might turn into a desperate tool that many other people don't have.
>>I understand were you are coming from with a comment like that, but I would argue that the large majority of people read about and get emotionally invested in news stories that have no impact on their lives.
That's because most people care about those other than themselves.
For example, I'm not gay, but I care about gay marriage as an issue because I have friends who are gay, and when some state or country far away treats gays badly, it gets me worked up.
I live in Hannover, Germany. I am physically impacted by both stories:
For obvious reasons by the refugee one;
And also by Trump's bullshitting with healthcare due to having multiple friends in the USA whose lives are directly and acutely endangered by him and his murderous troupe, which in turn impacts my ability to meet them again.
Its not the impact itself, but with activism people can influence local outcomes much better than national and much much better than international outcomes. Almost any one can go to City council meeting and let their presence know, and with enough patience can get audience of the council both in public and private forum. To do that at National and International level the costs involved are high and there is no denying you have fund your trips to DC/NY/London/Geneva/The Hauge etc.
That is the point, big fish in small pond vs small fish in an ocean metaphor.
Sure, i can do little to impact back, however the post i was replying to was claiming it would be impossible for me to be impacted by both. Yet i undeniably am. Also, being informed means i can at least provide my friends with appropiate emotional support.
I read the article, and I'm sorry, I do not think you know the meaning of the word "cause". He did not cause any outbreak.
Not providing help is not going to cause anyone to suffer. What causes people to suffer are other factors (for HIV, it's usually unprotected sex, careless intermingling of blood, etc). Refusing assistance doesn't cause people to die. The disease kills them.
Now if you make a case that Pence was directly involved in infecting them, then yes, he caused it.
Assistance is exactly what it is: It is help. My refusing to help someone does not mean I caused his misery. Nor is it punishment, another word often used in these situations.
While I disagree with Pence's actions, I can also point out false allegations made against him.
I said he caused an outbreak. Yes, he did not personally infect anybody, however he removed the testing, and he acted directly in delaying aid that would've kept it under control, thus allowing it to become an outbreak.
Being responsible for one's inaction is a thing, especially so when one is in a position whose job description it is to be responsible for such things.
If you're a chicken farmer and you fail to feed your chickens, then you did cause your chickens to starve.
E: Thanks for the reply though. It was fascinatingly insightful for me.
Yes, he is responsible for his inactions. Nevertheless, he did not cause an outbreak.
>If you're a chicken farmer and you fail to feed your chickens, then you did cause your chickens to starve.
I'm afraid not. I can be held responsible for not feeding them, but I did not starve them (unless I prevented them from getting food by confining them).
Sorry, but my goal is not to be obtuse or difficult. When this usage of the world causes problems with people sympathetic to your view, you can understand its ineffectiveness in convincing anyone of your perspective.
If I were organizing a campaign to convince Indiana voters not to reelect him (assuming he were not the VP), I would exclude people with your rhetoric. It will cause people to side with him more.
In this situation, I'm not sure what the functional difference is between causing an outbreak and refusing to prevent one.
Let me walk through this (for my own benefit). People get HIV/Hep C from IV drug abuse. Needle exchanges are a way to get infected needles off the street. There was a statewide ban on needle exchange programs. Pence agreed with this sentiment and voted for public health funding cuts (2011). 2013, Pence is governor, and planned parenthood in Scott County shuts down. January 2015, outbreak happened, and cause was identified. April 2015, Pence allowed a temporary needle exchange in Scott County.
So this makes me think that, yes, Pence supported things that led to the outbreak. Inaction is still an action, is it not? But at the same time, he changed his mind (after 3 months, but better late than never) once he realized it was no longer gubernatorially (is that a word?) feasible to stick to his position.
If you think I disagree that had he not made those cuts this outbreak would not have happened, you are mistaken. If you think I do not hold him accountable for it, you are mistaken.
But people got sick because of drug abuse. He did not create the abuse. Even if I were to accept Pence's responsibility, it in no way negates their responsibility as well.
I can prevent accidental drownings in swimming pools by banning all of them. However, if I decide to lift the ban, inevitably people will drown. Would it be accurate to say I caused drownings to occur?
I can prevent a lot of drug overdoses by making everyone do a blood test before they are allowed to consume drugs (assume we could get instant results), and mandate that drugs can be consumed in only these facilities. If I suddenly decide this is not worth the money and defund the program, there will be more overdoses. Did I cause their deaths?
Saying he caused an outbreak is easy to point out as factually wrong, and anyone who is not of your stance is immediately turned off by it. Any argument based off of it is preaching to the choir.
The reality of the matter is that as governor he has a moral obligation to keep all of his citizens as safe as possible. He, at one point, chose to reduce the safety of his citizens, and at another chose not to protect his citizens. These choices of his directly led to the outbreak.
Whether you are unhappy about this reality being stated is no concern of mine, since, as stated elsewhere, nothing i can say will actually have an effect on the situation.
I'm just a dude who's watching a country prepare to send multiple of his friends to the chopping block just because they had the misfortune of being born in a place where "socialist" is an insult.
>The reality of the matter is that as governor he has a moral obligation to keep all of his citizens as safe as possible.
And by that criterion, every governor has failed.
>Whether you are unhappy about this reality being stated is no concern of mine, since, as stated elsewhere, nothing i can say will actually have an effect on the situation.
So you are saying all this because...?
>I'm just a dude who's watching a country prepare to send multiple of his friends to the chopping block just because they had the misfortune of being born in a place where "socialist" is an insult.
I'm failing to understand your perspective. I'll ask the same question: You felt the need to write that because...?
