Two Wrongs

“If I’m wrong, and you are wrong, who’s right?”

“Doesn’t there have to be a right when there is a wrong?”

“Yes, of course. Otherwise there would be no winner, no one to lose, no one to gloat.”

And that is how the game is played. There has to be a winner for there to be a loser, and vice versa. But it was not always that way. I used to believe that two people could disagree and remain winners. Each having their own set of facts, their own brand of skepticism, and their own sense of irony. It is the irony after all that allows one to gather the facts and evaluate their meaning before the rightful owner arrives on the scene. 

It was that way with us. I believe in social integrity, justice, sacrifice. All the things that make arguments worth the effort. It is not how one argues that counts, but what is argued about. One has to appreciate the relativity of the subject and how well it will play to an audience. Take masks as an example. 

To be socially altruistic one must wear a mask to not only show you care, but that you care enough not to kill people. It is a degree of sophistication not understood by many in our society, but for those that understand it has been a blessing. We are able to conduct our routine business with little concern for how we look, as everyone has agreed there is no hope for improvement, so why bother. 

She on the other hand has decided that the mask is a symbol of oppression. We are being forced to endure the indignity of masks to prove that we are little more than puppets who have our strings pulled while having social lullabies about patriotism, and doing the right thing. Our arguments as you may have guessed are of a casual nature as there is no way that either of us is going to accept the idealism of the other. We are entrenched in our views as is necessary if one is to be victorious in a battle of not only words, but idealism.

I believe we have a social responsibility to endure a certain amount of sacrifice if it aids the cause of defeating this damnable disease that has come out of nowhere and appears to be leaving no time soon. I have argued that this is just the prelude to what we as a species are in for, in the future. 

She believes if we stop believing in bogymen, as she refers to the scientists and doctors, who dreamed up this entire affair to keep us from realizing that our freedoms are eroding while we worry about being infected by some alien disease. She claims the entire charade is based on statistics, that no normal person couldn't prove with an army of computers, and so we are left with the word of those who have a stake in the game. They after all are being paid with a blank check to come up with a cure for a disease, we do not actually know where it came from, or how it came to be.

Yes, we’ve all heard about the bats and wet markets, all very suggestive, but hardly evidence of the cause of our distress. She claims that the entire scheme has been hatched by the government to align once again, those who believe in what they are told, no matter the evidence, and those who look at the practicality of the world disappearing because of an invisible assassin. 

I find arguing with someone who is not willing to listen to reason, or sound factual scientific evidence, impossible. She will not concede the fact that thousands have died because of people like her who refuse to take the precautionary measures necessary to stop the virus from spreading. I argue that it is a small price to pay for the security of an entire species. She says it is not the entire species that is at risk but rather those who fail to see the possibilities of being turned into robots that follow orders without having the ability to question the reason for following orders. We are being lulled into a state where we will believe whatever we are told if it has to do with maintaining a system predicated on consumption. 

What better way she says than to pump imaginary dollars into the economy to gain favor without looking at the who, what, and when of payback. Nothing is free, we agree on that single principle. I argue that because something appears to be free it is not necessarily a bad thing. Stimulus is meant to revive a system, any system that has faltered from a condition that was not foreseen, and was not within the realm of diseases we have previously fought. 

She believes, or says she does, that it is a natural part of any organic system, to weed out the week, much as Darwin had predicted. The problem with the logic is who determines who the weak are? I remember the debates about allowing those who can no longer contribute to the good of society to be allowed to disappear, or at least not be given the opportunity to take everyone with them. 

We have argued over this topic of good versus evil on many occasions and for many different reasons. I believe there is a social responsibility that we must all accept if we are to survive as a species. The global concerns about climate change, global co-operation concerning pandemics, food shortages, war, there is no end to the number of things that threaten our very existence.

She argues that no matter what we do it does not matter as the world is too complex and there is no person or group of people who will be able to definitively prove the right and wrong of human actions. She believes God will protect us from extinction because he created us for a purpose, and it was not to see how we would adapt to rising sea levels.

As you can see we are at a standoff when it comes to remediation of this problem. We have however for the sake of family and friends, pretend to indulge the others wishes. I will continue to wear a mask as it is not a mindful inconvenience, and she has promised to remain committed to social distancing, as she does not like people anyway, and will wear a mask, but only as a means of protest. She plans to use her mask wearing to promote the cause of individual freedom, which to her entails being knowledgeable about the questions posed by the governmental aristocracy, and the answers provided by those who have been brain washed into believing everything they are told, unless it is by a reputable person or group. Her mask is so covered with symbols I don't know how she can breathe at all.

We now argue over who that person or group may be. We can both agree that science has been a huge boost to the longevity of the human species. We however can’t agree about the efficacy of the scientists who promote science as a cure for everything. 

We have reached a place in our history as humans that to continue to ignore or argue over the predictions advanced by scientific investigation, places us on a road to extinction in one form or another. But then that is my opinion. 

She believes life as we know it cannot end, because we are adaptable. Being adaptable I would argue, has its limits. My question to her is always the same, “What if I’m right, and you are wrong? We will have stopped the beginning of the end.”

Her response is always the same. “Who cares, we’ll all be dead by then anyway.”