I have used that word once in regard to the China Flu, and in the context of suggesting the people to whom I applied the modifier be permitted to be risked, while concentrating on protecting those who were not. I was calling for focusing exclusively on those at risk, I was not valuing people for their utility or any other context in which the use of that word might be said to suggest an immoral attitude. It was a derisive criticism of the overreach of public policy by pointing out that there was no practical societal interest in compelling a certain class of people to protect themselves. Humanitarian concerns do not trump the personal rights of the subjects of that concern. Period. My right to do what I want far outweighs ANYONE's concern for my well-being. The ONLY interest anyone else may assert in my protection is the degree to which they depend upon me, the degree to which I am useful. My contention was that the portion of the populace on whom the rest of society might be said to depend was at negligible risk to the disease. I was not, for instance, using utility as a triage category.

You have absolutely no reasoning skills. You have a set of blind preconceptions to which you slot everyone and everything and then just adhere to those conceptions without bothering to consider facts or comprehend the actual meaning or context of words.