Doug Morris

It's a matter of identifying the fundamental point of disagreement.

For what it's worth, a fictional example of Kessler syndrome got the plot going in the movie Gravity with Sandra Bullock and George Clooney.

Did we just imagine the attack on the Capitol and on the electoral process?

"Liberal" and "conservative" are grab-bag, big-tent terms with rubbery, slippery meanings. Rather than focus on them, we need to identify more specific, clearly defined things to "be warned (and warn) at".

In dealing with individual religionists, conservatives, liberals, or what-have-you, we should think of them and treat them as individuals, not units of a collective. How much common ground can we find with this individual? How open is he, she, or they to persuasion on what levels? In deciding whom to vote for, what can we expect from this candidate, what can we expect from that one, and how do they compare? In deciding whether and how to argue about a particular currently fought political issue, we should focus on the individual issue and its relationship to fundamental principles, not on how "liberal" or "conservative" it is.

What are the current rules, in the U.S and in the U.K.?

For a long time, yes. But always?

Maybe we can start a separate thread in which we debate the long-term prospects for Objectivism. We can expect that, at least, there will be multiple election cycles during which Objectivists are in the minority. In deciding what to do with our votes, we will have to choose between undesirable alternatives, but to do this well we still need to understand the fundamentals. In discussions, we should be presenting Objectivism as best we can under the circumstances of each discussion. One possible approach is to start with "In order to understand my views on that, you need to understand my views on what government is." We should try to identify and address the most fundamental level on which a person disagrees with us, but this may require working our way down from level to level.

Actually Ayn Rand did do some categorizing of senses of life.

We have the power to choose rationally. To the extent that instead we let our emotions do our thinking for us, we leave ourselves very vulnerable to the subconscious and/or genetics/biological processes.

As I understand it, heuristic reasoning is similar to brainstorming. It is not necessarily logically sound, but can suggest ideas that can then be checked out logically.

I also tried 115's and got a materials science workshop, Interstate 115, "17 U.S. Code § 115 - Scope of exclusive rights in nondramatic musical works: Compulsory license for making and distributing phonorecords. U.S. Code; Notes.", and "18 U.S. Code § 115 - Influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member · (i) if the assault consists of a simple ...". Wikipedia wasn't much help either. I still have no idea what 2046 meant by 115s.

I tried googling 115 and 115s and got stuff about tires, I/O modules, led's, and a zombie song. I need more help.

I recall once in some debate somebody mentioning "the Protestant ethic" and a man of German (Lutheran?) origin saying that should be Calvinist, not Protestant.

How much difference does it make which is more evil?

Can you clarify?

I am reminded of the traveling salesman problem, where it is much more practical to find a solution that has a high probability of being within a few percent of the best than it is to find the best.

This is a technical question. I'm not sure what the correct answer is in this case. It is important to distinguish between such a mandate and other government actions. You fail to make this distinction. One reason we've had trouble is that President Trump actively discouraged people from wearing masks, a very destructive act on his part. You and I disagree on where to draw the line between respect for the rights of others and self-sacrifice. You keep misrepresenting this disagreement.

whYNOT, You ignore that young people without comorbidities are still at some risk of death or other serious harm. You conflate reasonable respect for the rights of others with self-sacrifice. And therefore it's not so bad that some individuals die? You sound suspiciously collectivist.

You ignore my point, and you ignore the fact that many people refused to wear masks, thereby endangering others. You sloppily fail to distinguish between mask wearing and other measures. I am not advocating any particular measure or set of measures; I am saying that wearing masks is an expression of respect for the rights of others, and that it would be more effective if more people practiced it. Lots of people holed up in nursing homes, isolated from normal visits, and still died.

Probably because other people didn't wear masks as they should have. An important benefit of wearing a mask is that it greatly reduces the extent to which the mask wearer spreads virus, thus avoiding unnecessarily infecting other people. With a disease like COVID-19, it is easy to be contagious without showing any symptoms so far.

Why?

This kind of discussion makes much better sense than saying that increasing the risk of spread of disease can't be physical aggression.

You aren't the only one playing argumentative whack-a-mole in this thread. My head isn't spinning, but I am spending a lot of time. Other priorities may affect how soon I can spend some of that time, i.e. how soon I can respond to some posts or parts of posts.

Some time ago I read of a case where someone involved in a live-action role-playing game was using a toy gun in a public place. A police officer ordered them to drop it. They turned and pointed the toy gun at the police officer. The officer then fired his real gun, injuring the role player.