On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 18:23:14 -0800 (PST), Nick Cat
wrote:

snip


You completely misundertand the situation.

Do I?

The idea that using a patio heater outdoors is morally wrong is your personal view, not Reality.

No, it's (ethically really) wrong.

Now try again.

Ok, have you ever heard of 'over consumption' or 'conspicuous
consumption' or 'unnecessary / wanton squandering and waste'?

How do you think 'most people' feel about the idea of someone dumping
/ wasting any quantity of anything that could be consumed by those
less fortunate than them, simply because they can?

See, we don't actually live in this world isolated from everyone else
and our choices have consequences on others.

You buy up all the bananas in the country, put them in a pile and let
them rot (because you can, it's not illegal etc) then you will have
denied many other people the choice of having a banana at that time.

Buy up all the bananas and give them to a charity of food bank chain,
something else.

The same could be the case for electricity (exaggerated for the hard
of thinking). If someone decides to fit IR heaters at a football
stadium there would be a reasonable chance that at some point in the
year, when there is no solar, no wind and a generating station out
etc, that there isn't enough electricity to go round and there could
be power cuts in that area. So, just because some people, knowingly
*choosing* to be outdoors (where it's known to be cold) deny a few old
people any heating at all that *they need to survive*.

Of course I'm not saying David's couple of IR heaters will cause that
situation but what if we add did that, and *that's* the situation you
seem to have misunderstood.

Ask 'most people' if they think it's ok that old people are denied
heating indoors so that a few people, watching a 'game' can have some
warmth directed at them and I think they would say that it's not.

Cheers, T i m