Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by whYNOT

  1. I think, with "Achieved success" you raise (the virtue of) pride rather than the (cardinal value of) self-esteem. (Along with reason and purpose). "Value is that which one acts to gain and keep, virtue is the action by which one gains and keeps it". Right? I.e. Practiced virtues are one's means to achieve one's highest values. (Identically, the virtue:value correspondence of: rationality to reason; productiveness to purpose). Self-esteem, I'd say, is a general and subconscious self-appraisal. (The "reputation you have with your self" N. Branden). Pride is the concrete and conscious assessment of one's specific acts and achievements. Best I refer to Branden: "We need to distinguish the concept of positive self-esteem from the concept of pride, since the two are often confused. Self esteem...pertains to an inner conviction of our fundamental efficacy and worth.... "Positive self-esteem is "I can". Pride is "I have"." [NB: Honoring the Self] You will see that one doesn't and can't consciously "withhold" or "grant" self esteem to oneself. The grounding precondition: Can one ¬accept¬ self-esteem? As one's rightful state? "The greatest barrier to achievement and success is not lack of talent or ability, but, rather, the fact that achievement and success, above a certain level, are outside our self-concept, our image of who we are and what is appropriate to us..." NB To go back to your query, "Can a person 'grant' self -esteem [pride] to himself just because he is living, acting, and thinking right now, with integrity and ethics, regardless ...of success in his work"? Certainly, he can take ¬pride¬ in these moral accomplishments. The active pride in explicit and concrete achievements ('I have done') should follow in due course, with a gradually growing self-esteem ('I can do'). A caution, to avoid the trap of taking others' opinions and achievements as the final judgements on one's actions and perhaps, modest-seeming, accomplishments. While of course there are many outstanding individuals we may look to as aspirational figures. The envy of, or contrasting of their works, success or fame to one's own successes, will be obstacles to one creating one's own achievements and self-esteem. "Genuine self-esteem is not competitive or comparative". N. Branden
  2. https://brownstone.org/articles/a-manual-for-post-pandemic-germophobia-therapy/ https://brownstone.org/articles/a-note-to-my-well-credentialed-friends/ https://brownstone.org/articles/what-happened-to-liberty-and-justice-for-all/
  3. Nope, that's the whole point. Vaccines and boosters visibly are not stopping the spread in the most highly vaccinated regions, in some smaller places the double doses given exceed the population numbers. Finally, one receives the shot by choice, entirely and rationally for one's own health safety evaluation, not to - perhaps - lessen transmissibility among the great mass of public. If anything, I could counter that high vaccination rates are as prone to causing fresh outbreaks (from mutations 'learning' to evade the vaccines and boosters), thereby changing the course of the pandemic for the worse. As yet I'm unsure of this argument - we shall see as the science comes out.
  4. Yes, but any virologist at the start could have told you and some did try to warn that "new variants" which will escape vaccine immunity - are the given, inevitable with any virus. Natural adaptation and mutation is how they survive. Further mutations, which eventually become less lethal, while often more transmissable, is a fact. How the common cold and influenza that were very dangerous viruses once, still hang around, undefeated. One doesn't aim to eliminate a new virus, one "manages" it to reduce its harm, protecting or self-protecting those whom scientists had early knowledge would be most susceptible. Instead the world got the placatory half-truths and spin from 'experts' and gvts. and alarmism by media which led much of the public to believe that a. every individual was in equal danger and infections or 'cases' a virtual death sentence, and b. corona could be wiped out - if we all "did our bit". (And all equally submitted to the harsh measures: blanket lockdowns and blanket vaccinations, regardless of one's own negligible or sometimes very high risk).
  5. I think you don't follow. This has to do with the relative peaks specific to each country, but draws a common conclusion. Interpret the data from about every country in the world on e.g the Reuters site, you will find that infections recently came close to their previous peak for a while (and do presently) ~ at the same time as ~ vaccinations were in the 75-90% range and rising, in all of them. While not to be taken as a correlation, I repeat. But it portrays overwhelmingiy that vaccinations don't stop infection and transmission. (They are evidently effective at reducing severity and hospitalization and fatality, for anyone who medically etc. needs them, yes). The uncontroversial fact is scientific common knowledge, admitted for months by even the vaxx promoters and mandators. Not that it's slowed them down. And that, the ongoing spread by the vaxxed mainly to the vaxxed, is why there is no logic in and much future harm with a universally mandated vaccination. Does anyone believe achieving, say 99.9% globally vaccinated and every child and healthy adult vaccinated will magically eradicate Covid? Note this doesn't touch upon the arguments raised questioning the long term safety of these vaccines.
  6. Reuters Covid Tracker is a useful quick source of data, country by country. Here for Iceland: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjJhKCLsqv0AhULhlwKHfIWCfcQFnoECAQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fgraphics.reuters.com%2Fworld-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps%2Fcountries-and-territories%2Ficeland%2F&usg=AOvVaw2tQC8f0YpRida1MyK0rd3S This for South Africa: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjC-MfXuav0AhVYi_0HHSkpDxoQFnoECAIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fgraphics.reuters.com%2Fworld-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps%2Fcountries-and-territories%2Fsouth-africa%2F&usg=AOvVaw3ZsBOEMrT0gMn69AlaC0IY Does anyone detect any correlation between case numbers and vaccinations? Iceland - at 84% double-vaxxed and at 92% infections of peak at present SA - at a low 21% d-vaxxed and now at 3% of peak. If anything, it would 'appear' that the higher the vaccinations, the more the present infections! A tempting conclusion which will be simplistic and false. BUT, the graphs raise a lot of doubt about the efficacy of vaccinations to reduce transmission. It indicates there are many other factors which drive infections up - other than the unvaxxed. AND, the above comparison mounts a huge opposition to the tactics of intimidation by Gvt's, some scientists, some media and the pharma people to get everybody vaxxed, by any means. The vilified unvaxxed are not the problem nor pose any threat to anyone. "We have a pandemic of the unvaccinated": a downright lie. The graphs also indicate much reduced mortality figures, and that is the significant purpose of vaccines.
  7. "...not accomplished as much as hoped is that a lot of people havent gotten vaccinated". Nonsensical. From the type of biased CNN (etc.) reporting of those ignoramuses who proclaim: "This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated!". Despite evidence. Look what is happening when EU nations (e.g. Iceland, Ireland, Portugal) have double vaccinated from 70% to the early 80's% of people -- but are experiencing fresh winter surges approaching previous infection peaks. Near those before vaccines were available. But it is the unvaccinated remnants we must hold responsible! Be logical, and be sceptical about the popular sources you read. As you can see in the previous nature.com article, the Delta virus transmission averages 67% ... by the UN-vaxxed. It drops to the 40's and 50's percentile with the (newly) vaccinated, according to product used. An improvement, sure. (Except that this level is short-lived). Anyway, with +/- one out of five people (in e.g. Ireland) unvaccinated - who do you think is alone in driving the upsurge in 'cases'? That minority? Despite the probabilities of close contact *far* favoring someone vaccinated to someone vaccinated, and far lesser contact with the non-vaxxed. Plus - given a relatively small and waning transmission differential (~50% to 67%)? Therefore, "the pandemic of the unvaccinated" is pure rubbish - there is probably as much and more transmission from vaxxed-to-vaxxed, by only the weight of numbers. But it is this irrationality by 'experts' which stigmatizes and is punishing the unvaccinated for disallowing us our 'return to normal'. When 95% have been pressured into vaccinations and the virus keeps returning, who will be the convenient culprits then? (The other five per cent, I guess; then, by that collectivist logic, sub-five yo infants will have to also get the jab).
  8. "Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus. A reduction was also observed in people vaccinated with the jab made by US company Pfizer and German firm BioNTech. The risk of spreading the Delta infection soon after vaccination with that jab was 42%, but increased to 58% with time". https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiNzpbyvJv0AhWKhP0HHfk3Cn4QFnoECAMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fd41586-021-02689-y&usg=AOvVaw12ZnDpzq1fqp0SP7Z0MYOR "On par with the likelihood..." --within 3 months of vaccination, transmission of Covid, comparing the vaccinated to the unvaccinated, becomes equalized, according to nature.com. recently Evidence that vaxxes are extremely limited at obtaining population immunity, merely slowing the spread a little (like the results of lockdowns and masking proved). To protect yourself, fine and good, which is the purpose of a vaccine - the sake of an individual recipient; to do it needlessly (by the fit and/or young) and unwillingly, for the supposed protection of the mass of society is senseless and sacrificial.
  9. I wrote "eradication of transmission". Not of the virus. "Protecting individuals"? Quite. A more recent overt message from the mainstream experts and officials presses the effectiveness of vaccines for the individual's sake (reducing severity, etc., of infection) and that is broadly true enough. And vital for those who need it. That's a spot of disingenuousness on the part of officials now, belatedly appealing to one's own health selfishness as the motivation: towards the greater message - forced, blanket immunization, 95% they now estimate below, to maybe halt the pandemic spread and gain 'herd immunity' (also, over a year too late), and of course all the kids will need vaccines to begin to attain that target. To hell with one's personal preferences, self-evaluations and individual rights. Simple test, if spread-eradication is not their master plan, then they have no other motive for pressuring and forcing vaccination on those unneeding/unwanting of it, is there? Supposedly, if the vaccine is so good, the unvaccinated are the only ones who should worry for their safety - right? But 'breakthrough' infections will go on as they are now, from one vaxxed to the other vaxxed in the highly vaxxed places - and the vaccinations "wane" within a few months, requiring god knows how many more regular future booster shots. As this article's 'experts' like many admit finally, vaccines can't do it all. Perhaps more lockdowns? What was the point of it all? This coercion, breeding and necessitating more force? The proof is mounting, total costs to general welfare and our liberties and results in societal upheavals have far outweighed the gains. The pandemic strategy has been mindless and immoral from the start. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjwlL36zqb0AhV9g_0HHWQ6D8AQ0PADKAB6BAg3EAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2021%2F11%2F19%2Feurope%2Feurope-covid-vaccination-rates-fourth-wave-cmd-intl%2Findex.html&usg=AOvVaw180YYZT1MyabFmPWE4ocbg
  10. For your second statement, inarguable. The rights to one's own body and the choice of what physically enters it. Without physical autonomy there's no independence of any kind and the loss of rights, present and future. To recap, the injection apparently provides some, imperfect, level of safety for the (willing and needing) recipient; incapable, as we have seen, to eradicate transmissions and viral mutations . Which makes unconscionable the "forced" vaccination of children and teens - they, a huge majority of them, don't need it, and gain nothing but a higher risk of potential, future health problems, a risk higher than contracting the virus itself.. Under the bureaucrats' hypocritical pretext of 'protecting' them, they are primarily being jabbed to limit infection spread 'for the good of the society'. Their first taste of public sacrifice. Family autonomy too has been overridden with the individual's. Not to add, that bulk of adults who aren't immuno-compromised and have had to go along to stay employed and have a proper life. In her remarks it looks like Rand used quarantining in the tightly limited sense, like isolating a shipload of infected passengers or a small village for a few weeks, therefore under the Govts'. purview. One can infer her response to the forced mass 'quarantines' - and vaccinations - of entire populations where the infection has already spread.
  11. DM all anyone has to take from basic Objectivism, is that any deviation from individual rights, that is the free will of an individual to act in his favor (or not) has one outcome, the anti-concept, 'collective rights', where 'groups' compete to get government favor/power on their sides. The rest follows, either way. The two approaches of groupist competition anyone is familiar with: a) those 'others' are inferior or stupid people and must be shunned, condemned or worse b). those 'others' oppressed 'us' in the past and must be suppressed and shunned now for punishment and 'compensation'. There we get sacrifices forced by group on group; or "altruism-collectivism". The vaxx fascists as I think of some like these CNN presenters, manipulate every angle. Lemon plainly indicates his feeling of superiority over 'those' people and he further believes he has the moral righteousness on his side from ancestral racial victimhood. He is an "egregious" collectivist and tribalist very pleased to foster one more group division - vaxxers from unvaxxers - so to politicize the issue. This is a preview of socialist control, brought about by pitting tribe on tribe, and why one has to insist on individual rights of choice (in this case and every case) for vaccination, not merely 'permitted' as a dispensation but actively fought for. It's only in the absence of 'group rights' (and the subsequent controls) that that one can contemplate open immigration. That's the context you drop. In the mean time, with individual rights not what they should be in the States (assuredly worse elsewhere), the rights of the present citizens take precedence.
  12. DM, This man can see way past the simple incident. He can reason from -this- to *that*. From: a small business (illegally) imposed upon by the state to turn an ordinary employee into a policeman checking 'papers' at the door, making a most commonplace outing a harassment for customers. To: the theft of rights by our govt's for everybody. And businesses losing too. He's rightfully and rationally angry. As would anyone who prizes the principle of liberty. If you abstract from that one sample to the millions of times this same officiousness is happening every minute in the world ...what do you think the outcome is to human lives? We need to "be rational" of course; without reasoning the statement is meaningless. The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action.
  13. You are right. Okay? Again, such a minor occurrence in the over all scheme of a mass-transmitted disease, your point is remarkably trivial. What next? The govt. must retaliate against the person, right? That is self-evidently how they increase their powers during the pandemic, is my point. "The only people who can say give up your rights if you want your rights back is the government". Touching base with reality and real lives, a [vaccinated] Canadian lawyer insightfully vents frustration at the cult of govt. force/obedience which messed up his simple night out. An everyday occurrence soon coming to all of us, vaxxed or non. No one is free when any man or group is unfree. This man knows it.
  14. Thanks for that, I wouldn't have known about apartheid otherwise. btw, you sound like a certain other poster here... You mean, that being repressed for what you have no control over, race, color, ancestry, ethnicity... is utterly worse a form of collectivism than being repressed for the volitional choices of you and others, considered your "group"? Does it make any better, the victimization, because you and your 'group' could surrender your convictions, your mind, anytime (coercively) to avoid that treatment? I think any collectivism (i.e., identifying/treating someone as a member of a 'group') - by their birth - or by their convictions - is irrational and immoral. When you think in individualist principles you'll find little distinction: the consequences of what's being forcibly created at this moment is going to be a sub-class of citizens globally, those selfish "anti-vaxxers" who will be harshly restricted and discriminated against as another collectivist 'group', because they don't need or want what the majority and their Govt's order them to comply with. A vaccination touted for the collective 'good of all', that they think or believe runs against their individual well-being, self-interest, rights - and convictions, e.g. of self sovereignty, freedom of choice.
  15. We've been around this, never let it be said you're not consistent... At first glance your argument is trivial and infinitesimal. The disease HAS spread, immensely. If by the actions 1. maybe of a few - purposefully 2. by many - inadvertently and accidentally- you won't find those actions causing, explaining and adding up to the large figures of the spread. And people after all are human, committing forgetful and other errors every second. Obvious - the transmission barriers officially prescribed and used by most everyone have been pretty useless. How else do you judge what "unnecessarily increasing the risk..." etc. amounts to? Who did what to whom, and what results? I haven't ignored your key point, while you ignore mine. The consequences. The 'cure' that's worse than the disease. Your insistence on placing the blame with - a tiny few - 'somebodies' for physical force on others - gives intellectual weight to further tyrannical Gvt. interventions and more social divisions. First with mandated lockdowns and now with mandated vaxxes. See, you provide the justification for such policies.
  16. "The claim is that without governmental restraints, “people” would fall for hucksters selling them worthless and unsafe treatments. But protecting the irrational from themselves requires putting in place prohibitions for everyone. So the reasonable people have to lose their medical freedom in order that the unreasonable people can’t harm themselves. This is the sacrifice of the rational to the irrational—an evil so vicious that the mind recoils from it. But this is the ultimate, lethal consequence of putting the government in charge of public health". (From Binswanger's essay). --- What is missing I think is ¬the rights¬ of the "irrational" - on whatever basis they can be judged - must be as energetically defended by the "rational" as those of the rational. Anyone has to be left alone to pursue one's ends by whatever means - with the consequences in reality, as the rational understand, one's only arbiter. When you commit errors and evasions it's you who pays and conversely you who collects from rational deeds. Most times do people eventually learn from their mistakes - certainly, at concrete levels. "Learning the hard way". An irrational person might become more rational tomorrow, and the reverse. A supposedly anti-science, irrational treatment for disease, can sometimes be found to have substance (drugs are quite often re-purposed), given later studies. A formal, designed, "scientific" vaccine might not quite be as efficacious as first hailed. The fundamental thing is that freedom is freedom of action from govt. - and any others. The single state which enables one to make mistakes (exclusively) at one's cost or to collect earned material-spiritual dividends. There's no dichotomy, one may deplore others' acts, beliefs, ethics and philosophies while equally upholding their individual rights to follow those. This fundamental implication of Rand's rights is treated ambiguously I seem to notice. HB's dead right, as far as it goes - the paternalist gvt. sacrifices rational actions by actors to the irrational behavior of others, by imposing blanket prohibitions on everyone. The greater sacrifice, imo, is of universal freedoms: to remove their - and one's own - right to be wrong and so all lose rights. Therefore, must forced 'good behavior' onto the unvaccinated be resisted strongly, irrespective of how "irrational" one deems them to be. And they are not always or majorly.
  17. The inessential difference with apartheid being that presenting a compulsory pass, the obscene "dompas", to move around and enter places was exclusively for blacks.
  18. I'm disturbed you could seriously consider my suggestion. Next step, confinement, next, the camps. One only has to accept the 'common good' and that there is a class/group/race of people who are "not like us" standing in the way, for what follows in action to be consistent. Naturally, it's for their best interests too. Why and how a systematic doctrine like apartheid could gain legal and populist traction - it was apparently both good for 'them' as for 'us' that 'we' be separated.
  19. There is no one to scapegoat and punish any more. Those equipped with bullet-proof suits needn't be scared. They have been vaccinated against "live rounds", right? The pro-personal choice, unvaxxed, pose harm only to each other. They, for the great majority, will easily recover from infection and achieve natural immunity and herd immunity, of a higher durability than vaxxes, or some high risk ones who should definitely have got the vaccine will themselves pay the price. But still, even now with these -mostly- effective and pretty safe, if not perfectly safe vaccines, let's have the authorities detain and arrest those potential shooters who haven't been bullet-proofed - under suspicion of intent and reckless endangerment to cause "physical force". DM, You have to realize what it's really about - for some of the noisiest anti-choice vaxxers. Vaccination isn't the issue. They hate and fear the signs of independence in other people.
  20. The very least, for our safety those unvaxxed should be marked with a compulsory symbol so they can be shunned on sight. Something indicating the corona... a star, that's it. A yellow star to separate the present day untermensch from the vaxx-obsessed fascists. (DM How's that ridiculously excessive? I think it's quite logical)
  21. Maybe the misguided could see further ahead than most, that the loss of freedom to choose for themselves - then - would inevitably lead to more loss - now? Turned out correct. Losing freedom is more a slide than an instance. What's basic, everyone who thinks they individually know best for their lives, despite what the government decrees is "good for us all", has to be positively and unequivocally defended on that right by, even, their detractors. That's why blanket "control measures" are unworkable. Even those who may accede to some controls, by practical necessity and security, could reason well enough to support the rights of those who don't. Else they know it's goodbye to individual rights.
  22. You load overmuch onto the individual. It's not the moral vice (that you always make it out) for one to "increase the risk of spreading the disease". Individual choices are - individual - and can't be made, with the best of intentions, on behalf of other (in the abstract) people's benefit. They look after their own best interests, or ought to. The natural spread of a virulent virus is not containable, you must have realized by now, DM. After every societal protocol and harsh measure has been imposed and rigidly carried out, they dismally failed to halt mass transmission. So while one might not actively wish to transmit it to others, one also cannot and shouldn't actively attempt to prevent transmission (perhaps by locking oneself away indefinitely and individually reducing 'the risk of spread' by all of (say) .000001%. Others' property rights assumed, the usual considerate and self-interested behavior applies and little more: when one feels sick stay at home a while, similarly if one tests positive. For those who are vulnerable, they proceed on the assumption that the virus is around in every place and avoid those places.
  • Create New...