Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

tadmjones

Regulars
  • Posts

    1490
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Posts posted by tadmjones

  1. Journo:

    "In his 2014 essay “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault,” Mearsheimer makes a revealing assertion. When “great powers get into brawls with weaker states,” talk of “abstract rights” such as “self-determination” — presumably including a sovereign nation’s goal of avoiding foreign despotism — is “largely meaningless.”4 This endorsement of injustice is a necessary consequence of Mearsheimer’s amoralist framework."

     

    Mearsheimer from his essay/article:

    "ne also hears the claim that Ukraine has the right to determine
    whom it wants to ally with and the Russians have no right to pre
    vent Kiev from joining the West. This is a dangerous way for Ukraine
    to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might
    often makes right when great-power politics are at play. Abstract
    rights such as self-determination are largely meaningless when power
    ful states get into brawls with weaker states. Did Cuba have the
    right to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold
    War? The United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians
    think the same way about Ukraine joining the West. It is in Ukraine's
    interest to understand these facts of life and tread carefully when
    dealing with its more powerful neighbor."

    Journo's editing of the paragraph imputes a level of injustice endorsement that Mearsheimer's ordering of the words/idea don't carry. While Mearsheimer's realpolitik doesn't allow for a moral condemnation of Putin based on his regime, his pragmatic/practical/'amoral' assessment doesn't necessarily negate a normative response to aggression  eg "sad truth that often might makes right when great-power politics are at play"

    Journo's analysis about the nature of NATO also doesn't explain or bolster a claim of moral action qua nature of NATO as a defensive league. Ukraine not being a member state to the organization means direct military by NATO is not required and as Mearsheimer points out in his 2014 essay the US and European allies didn't consider a defense of Ukraine as a core strategic interest by the fact that when the Crimea was annexed they did not pursue direct military action.

    Mearsheimer futher argues that Russia is a declining power and will weaken with time and that the western influence and push for the Europeanization of Ukraine was/is the main driver of Putin's aggression aimed toward keeping Ukraine out of NATO and more strongly aligned with the EU.

  2. 3 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

    Do you see any moral difference between NATO and Russia?

     

    Different in what sense ?

    Is NATO more moral than Russia ? Are we to gauge the aggregate moralness of the totality of the individuals in the two groups? Or weigh the morality of a multi-national bloc engaged in a mutual defense alliance? or the morality of specific activities that NATO has conducted since inception ? as against the morality of Russia as a concept/nation or against the person Putin?

    FDR allied and propped up the USSR/Stalin before and during WW2 and then the US acquiesced to USSR controlling a significant territory in eastern Europe after the war precipitating the need for western Europe to enter a defensive league , no ? Has NATO remained as 'nonexpansionist' as its expressed claims since the 'fall' of the Soviets ? Is that apparent stance change to be judged solely as moral actions carried out in the face of changing 'circumstances on the ground'? Can any of Russia's actions or attitudes be viewed as consequences of reactions to NATO actions or have all of NATO's actions been solely reactionary to 'Russian imperialism'?

    Is Putin responsible for the death and destruction the people of Ukraine are currently suffering ? I would say he is , he is the leader of a country that invaded militarily another country. Is the US and West's response the only conceivable moral choice? Should this conflict be gamed by the West as a mechanism to defeat Putin, either by removing him from power or decimating the Russian nation to the point that even were he not to be removed , Russia would/could no longer be considered a threat ? Don't either or those choices require a tremendous sacrifice of people and lives? and to what 'real' end?  

  3. 1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

    Perhaps we should start by asking what means were used for the mandates that were actually enacted.  Then we can discuss whether other means would be better.

     

    I am under the impression that you are trying to derive a principle to demonstrate the correctness of vaccine mandates, and that you statements are not related to Covid.

    Perhaps you can provide an example in history of a specific mandate and how it was enacted and enforced.

  4. Covid and the jabs can’t be included in this line of argument because the threat was never the risk the propaganda claimed and the ‘vaccines’ were known to be harmful, more hospitalizations were documented in the trials in the recipients of the mRNA shots than the control group. The long term effects of the jabs are unknown and transmission was never appreciably mitigated , it is obvious they were not safe nor effective. 

    Forced quarantine during an ‘actual deadly pandemic ‘ would be an appropriate rational government response especially if a proven safe and effective vaccine were available, this was not that.

    Vaccine mandates are by definition initiation of force.

  5. 1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

    Should we call this "information"?  If a barrier between a volume of vacuum and a volume of gas is removed, resulting in flow of the gas into the former vacuum until it reaches another barrier, should we say that involves "information"?

     

    Cosmologists do describe that scenario as containing information. If I understand their meaning , discrete entities emit information in their existential being their identity. Entities such as matter can change form but not be made nonexistent, the resultant parts still exist and so does the information .

    Matter can’t ‘escape’ a black hole but the information of that matter can, or is theorized to be able to.

    I’m not sure that necessarily corresponds to the living cells reacting to information and the action of the gas molecules pursuing an equilibrium, but maybe ?

  6. 1 hour ago, KyaryPamyu said:

    This depends on whether all non-conscious entities convey information in the same manner, or if there are differences between them in this regard.

    Note that the body tissue responsible for the subconscious mind might also interact with other non-conscious entities in the body.

    If talking specifically about subconscious processes, then I do not consider the process of spitting out an Atlas scene the same as:

    I agree , my  point  or question was whether DM’s list of information types was exhaustive . I should have quoted the post .

  7.  How do we describe information conveyance between non-conscious entities, eg in the bodily processes of healing a wound, the skin cells are 'programmed' to grow until they encounter another like cell . The trigger mechanism is the information that the prior adjacent cell is no longer present and growth is stimulated until the information that adjacent cells are again present triggers the growth to stop.

  8. 6 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

    There you have a point. Also it looks like people who are vaccinated are far more prone to the new variants. But then the question becomes if it were an army that you had command of and you needed to make utilitarian decisions, would you prevent the deaths from the original more lethal variants. Keeping in mind, there is never a justification for a governmental mandate to take a medicine. Unless, Doug wants to make that case.

    The unknowns and the unknown unknowns make the case that absorbing the original deaths is probably the most rational course of action.

  9. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-022-00106-7

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext

    I'll admit I can't give a proper critique of the methodology or conclusions , but these two studies in a simple search don't , I believe, show evidence for the numbers you may have seen quoted. 

    I think they do show the age stratified risk of death from infection, but I also believe they show the IFR has gone 'down' since late 2019 , which coincides with either vaccine effectiveness and or ( and I vote for or) lessening of disease severity due to mutant strain development. One or the other or both could be true, but given the lack of trust I have in the institutions that report on such matters , I just don't know.

  10. But that assumes a IFR of 2% and that only applied to like people over 70 yrs. The IFR was demonstrated to be age stratified and higher in older age groups.

    I'm going to continue to hold my assumptions that covid was as lethal as it was at the onset of the pandemic and the lethality waned as the virus mutated along the 'normal' evolution of similar pathogens , which is to mutate toward producing less severe symptoms and death. I think the mitigation strategies employed caused more overall harm.

    I think the spike protein inducing jabs are a disaster and are the key factor in the excess death numbers we see today.

  11. Saved would mean that without the intervention the disease would have manifested and caused death , no ?

    Vaccine injury would be damage that without the intervention would not have occurred , yes?

    What is the IFR? With the numbers you stated was covid so dangerous to the general population as to justify killing one person for every 6371 'save' ? Is that death rate 'normal' for inoculation programs?

  12. 16 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

    yes they did

    Meaning the platform or vaccine does not work at all?

    Yes, they are not that effective against the new variants. And they do kill some people. But do they save some?

    I am thinking if we lived in a world where there were no mandates, and a pharmaceutical in a free market came up with this vaccine, would it in fact benefit some people according to your news sources?

    My ‘news sources’? Heh, well yes of course I know I’m subject to confirmation bias , and even knowing that and actively trying to combat the impulse I fail, but I try :)

    But my opinions and considerations come mostly from trying to understand studies and reports on the subject matter , I try not to base my conclusions on the ‘news’ about a study or report , though the news sources I pay attention do steer me to certain or specific studies.

    The number of saves vs the number that died as a result of the immunization with the spike protein will be the defining factor. Any idea on those numbers ?

  13. The longest term study of the safety of mRNA covid vaccines started two years ago.

    Moderna started in 2010 to develope products based on the mRNA platform , they derived the name by using a word that incorporates those letters.

    The platform is like the delivery system . In the case of covid jabs the mRNA delivers the ‘payload ‘ of the instructions for producing and expressing the spike protein of the corona virus.

    Their first product to market is their covid vaccine , and they hit it out of the park revenue wise. Objectively it doesn’t look like their science is living up to the largess. The vaccines are proving to be less effective and safe than the original claims. But in reality that doesn’t even matter given that the vaccines are being administered under the umbrella of liability protection.

    You keep confusing the platform for the vaccine.

     

  14. The bent of this conversation reminded me in some sense of the topics discussed on Lex Fridman's podcast #297 with Sara Walker and Lee Cronin. The episode is very long at 4+ hours and the title and main thrust of the 'debate' is centered on the search for life outside of Earth.

    But what brought it to mind in the context of this thread was the description of "assembly theory" and the 'nature' of information and data along with 'encoding' of data/information. In a sense these discussions are more 'scientific' than 'philosophic' , but the hypothesis about matter and time feel more philosophic than not. The discussions also touch on some of the other topics in this vein of late eg complexity/emergence.

  15. 39 minutes ago, KyaryPamyu said:

    Nope, this is way past general statements about consciousness or the world, such as the fact that they exist or that they are what they are (identity). I want to find out actual, specific information about the nature/identity of consciousness, which means axioms are as relevant here as they'd be for inquiring into the best way to cook chicken.

    For example, I'm asking whether nature and conscious intelligence are two things, like a banana and an orange; or, whether 'nature' and 'intelligence' are two perspectives on one thing, just as 'round' and 'sweet' are perspectives on one orange.

    I think in order to disambiguate all of the relevant 'data' and then incorporate the new concepts into a hierarchical epistemologic frame you would need to 'design' a new context. Or perhaps reinvigorate Platonic universality , as your quest doesn't , I think, go well with the fruit and characteristic analogy. It doesn't feel as if abstraction qua abstraction is being followed completely in your phrasings. But as is obvious to the casual observer here and mentioned quite frequently , I may not be the sweetest banana in the shed.

×
×
  • Create New...