Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged:It Is Not 'Self-Interest' to Take Illness Lightly

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Dream_weaver wrote in another place:

 

"Still, trying to change politics directly by discussion, here on OO, given the philosophical climate, is akin to trying to repair a standard that needs to be challenged down to its epistemological roots. That, and the fact that politics is admittedly not my strong suite, per a self-assessment".

Absolutely agree. Down to its epistemological -and - metaphysical, and ethical - roots. You don't have to have expertise and qualifications in political science, say, to be able to analyze and evaluate political matters.

Nor e.g. economics, my distinct lack.

I feel O'ists too much demand expertise in the field discussed. There is philosophical error in being overly 'category-conscious'. Which is, to apply only political theory to politics, (individual) rights to rights, economics to economics, ethics to ethics, and so on.

If asked my opinion of Rand's most significant lesson, I'd say how taken I was that she could see all of the catgories to be inextricably interconnected.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 344
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Defiant Michigan UP cafe owner told to shut down after serving indoor diners Since November, bars and restaurants in Michigan have been limited to carry-out service or outdoor dining in an effort

This graph may be out of date, it is certain those percentages have fallen further - but what it illustrates is just who are being sacrificed to whom. I.e.: The top half to the bottom half of people.

Interacting with people in public without any symptoms of disease or infection isn’t dangerous to the public. The masks worn by the majority of the public have little or no medical efficacy. The

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The Mask as used is more like a lapel ribbon displaying one's concern for others' illness, while obviating any more actions, than it is genuine respect.

Great. But there are rational reasons to do this.

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

But the word isn't really "respect", is it? C'mon you can say it.

Why are you trying to be so aggressive about this, as if there is some fundamental opposition going on here? Respect is a type of empathy, so I don't know what you're on about. I didn't say respect is universally deserved, just that in this case, I think it is fine to respect these kind of wishes from others, in the same way that you wash your hands, in the same way that George can expect somebody would tell him the time. I agree with you about things like lockdowns, but masks aren't necessarily signs of irrational fear. For some people they can be, for others perhaps not. As far as where I live, I don't think most people do it out of irrational fear and duty to others. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Great. But there are rational reasons to do this.

Why are you trying to be so aggressive about this, as if there is some fundamental opposition going on here? Respect is a type of empathy, so I don't know what you're on about.

It ought to be made clear the distinction, respect and empathy. One gives the first to consciously recognized value in another; the second is instantly perceived DIS-value, by one's prior value-judgments, in someone's plight. No, the one is not in the same group as the other, though a causal link appears likely. I guess my opposition comes from becoming pretty weary of symbolism, the "taking the knee" or general "virtue-signalling" (now, mask wearing) that is prevalent. It is often done to gain credit in others' eyes and for self-gratification. I am altruistic, a humanitarian! Very often practiced, ritually, and for the rush of brain chemicals experienced, the act drives out good compassion, the response to one's value-judgments.

If it were "to make a difference", then DO something concrete for a person in discomfort, don't simply exhibit your moral righteousness, one would like to inform them. Quietly performed action, one can respect more. Come to think of it, symbolic gestures being cheap, seem a form of evasion.

My fundamental opposition? Such a mass performance, of even minimal, self-sacrificial compromises dilutes the healthy benevolence given from individual to individual. I don't know about you, but I'd like to tell the mask wearers (for others' sake) to live for themselves and leave me alone to do the same. Comes down to it, over-weening empathy for your "type" is a form of patronizing disrespect for you.

Incidentally, personal hygiene as habituated in us when young was and is for one's own health.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

My fundamental opposition?

Fundamental opposition to me. I wasn't talking about opposition to the things we both oppose. You often write on this forum as if you are trying to persuade people that the basics of Oism are correct. But no one has disagreed about those. The disagreement is application of those principles. 

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I guess my opposition comes from becoming pretty weary of symbolism

if you really are tired, then refocus your mind at least on the people who don't do it for the sake of second handed social acceptance. I can understand being tired of it, and it makes sense, but you don't need to resign yourself to think that everyone is that way. You probably mistakenly exaggerate that the majority of people do it for this reason, but maybe where you live it really is a majority.

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Such a mass performance, of even minimal, self-sacrificial compromises dilutes the healthy benevolence given from individual to individual.

Of course. But try not to get tunnel vision. Focus on the rational reasons that a person may want to wear a mask even if they are not sick, not everyone has this bad motive. Otherwise, you start overgeneralizing to say that everyone is a moron and stupid and always does things for the wrong reasons. 

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Incidentally, personal hygiene as habituated in us when young was and is for one's own health.

But washing your hands isn't just personal hygiene, it's about sanitation and not getting other people sick (and in exchange you can expect that you won't get sick either). I don't think you understood the comparison. It wasn't a metaphor, it was an exact parallel.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 You probably mistakenly exaggerate that the majority of people do it for this reason, but maybe where you live it really is a majority.

Solidarity symbolism, as I call it, actually began with the sjw's in the USA. The apt term "virtue signaling" originated there.

And I do believe that many people's motives in masking are quite innocently benevolent, but for all the reasons, psychological, incomes lost, and the effects on children, the conformity, subjugation, uniformity and a loss of individualism, and more, it is about time they realized that they are doing more harm than good. By not standing up for themselves and insisting upon taking back semi-normal lives. As matter of irrefutable fact, masking/social distancing (for those who don't need them) continues to perpetuate the immoral damage that lock downs had and have. They are just more subtle measures, a compromise of freedom, but you can't tell me that e.g. many areas of commerce are rapidly recovering in America. The knock-on into other sectors, which like the service industry depend on stability, volumes of customers and small margins, will cause many to fold. There will go somebody's life and livelihood, and the families which were reliant on this. Don't lose sight of that. All of it no different from this country (I'm amused by how backwards you think we are) and any country.

One knows some sad stories of Covid deaths, sometimes close to home, and they each claim one's compassion, but tragic for me is, all too commonly, seeing a sign on a building: To Let. The upcoming spate of depressions and suicides follows causally from those two words. A theater actor we know for many years (probably) took his life last week. Theaters for one, can't survive social distancing.

Life is self-generating, self-directed action (the "self" being crucial) and that's been denied the world for almost a year. To add, life also is ~continuity~ of action, which has been in hiatus for all the individuals everywhere, and without certain and automatic recovery, later. One doesn't just pick up the pieces and move on, as assumed by those - mostly leftists - who take commerce, industry and capitalism for granted, and the individuals who create and do all that, "replaceable".

No, ultimately there's nothing innocent in forcing (by regulation or social pressure) masking and social distancing, further. You could take a look outside your "tunnel"?

The disagreement may well be in the application of Objectivist principles, like you remark. Primarily, it is the application to reality and life by one's reasoning and evaluations.  I am open to anyone challenging or endorsing the applications I made.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Standing during the national anthem and taking a knee during the national anthem are both symbolic actions.  They both have to do with a country.  Any country is very complicated.

Another purpose of a symbolic action is to draw people's attention to something.

True. There's the one kind of symbolic action conducted by people which is proudly self-affirming, contrasting the other that's 'humbly' (sorta) self-negating. (The second performed often by someone who owes his stature/wealth/advantages/etc. to the first, in self-contradiction and hypocrisy).

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

As matter of irrefutable fact, masking/social distancing (for those who don't need them) continues to perpetuate the immoral damage that lock downs had and have.

You do realize that I mostly agree with you about social distancing, but the main thing I've been talking about is masks? It's easy enough to say that "I agree with you about masks, and I'm glad you agree about social distancing." If you want to keep explaining these basic premises, go ahead, but I'm afraid your audience knows all of these things. You are wasting your time for a lot of what you write. Think of it like me saying "I get what you're saying, but easy about the masks, I think you are overgeneralizing to say that anyone who advocates wearing a mask is a secondhander or altruist." 

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

No, ultimately there's nothing innocent in forcing (by regulation or social pressure) masking and social distancing, further. You could take a look outside your "tunnel"?

That's right, social pressure is more altruistic than anything. Social norms are not exactly equivalent to secondhanded standards. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. Depends on the person. From my observation, the social norm of wearing a mask is the same kind of norm as washing your hands, because many (most?) people recognize the mutual benefit of preventing disease. 

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The upcoming spate of depressions and suicides follows causally from those two words.

Probably the worst thing about *forced* social distancing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

.. but I'm afraid your audience knows all of these things. You are wasting your time for a lot of what you write. Think of it like me saying "I get what you're saying, but

 Wasting my time, as in preaching to the choir? What I read are your nuanced equivocations as though it pains you to agree. Then where is this "audience" which knows all these things and is staying silent? Quite clear to me in multiple topics has been that posters have been discouraged from replying to me.

Eiuol, you should understand as well as I that this period has been as devastatingly terrible as a World War and worse in some ways. Worst of all for the USA which anyone sees has had to pay the cost on four distinct fronts, the Coronavirus, the unconscionable lockdowns leading to a bad economic downturn -- and the at least, partial-consequence from those three: a major political lurch left, taking advantage of those previous factors. And not over yet for you. 

I'm not so bright, others have the material and methodology too, to weigh up this pandemic (and its moral-social-political-global implications) to arrive at some clarity, and probably privately have. ARI has also been largely absent with a few generally wishy-washy articles, unsatisfying intellectually and for ethical guidance.

Now we are going to discuss hand washing? ;0

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a social norm that I wear more or less normal clothing when out, as opposed to going around stark naked or wearing just a jock strap.  I believe stark naked is actually illegal in most jurisdictions.  I believe some people claim nudity is healthier; I haven't studied this.  Wearing clothes costs money and takes a little time.  But how burdensome is wearing clothing for most people?  Does wearing clothes without having carefully studied the pros and cons make me a second hander?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

What I read are your nuanced equivocations as though it pains you to agree.

Nah. I mean, being on this forum, you really can assume that we all have the basics unless somebody explicitly says they disagree with one of the basics. I think it's more productive to talk about the ways following a social norm can be a good idea, even when you disagree that a safety precaution is necessary. 

18 hours ago, tadmjones said:

People wear masks because they are in fear of the China Death Plague . It was never a social norm in the west to mask to prevent disease. 

More like "concerned about". I gladly wear a mask because I am concerned, but not because I live in fear. There is nothing wrong with it becoming a social norm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have research that shows long term cloth mask use is not unhealthy? I am under the impression that doing so increases chances of contracting bacterial infections and compromises proper gas exchange.

The human population is constantly under threat of communicable disease , are you suggesting cloth face coverings should be worn at all times in public?

Burkas for everyone ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

increases chances of contracting bacterial infections

How would that even be possible? They keep the germs out. If germs can get in, then they can get out. So either the germs are prevented from getting there in the first place, or the germs go in and out. There is no way to trap the germs and thereby increase the chances of an illness or infection. 

25 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

compromises proper gas exchange.

It shouldn't, and if it does, you are wearing it wrong, or there is a chance you have an underlying breathing condition. It doesn't compromise oxygen enough to cause a real problem to the vastttttttt majority of people. There is no reason to expect it should either. 

31 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

The human population is constantly under threat of communicable disease , are you suggesting cloth face coverings should be worn at all times in public?

During periods of higher threat of illness in highly dense areas. During flu season on the subway, in a busy museum during flu season, etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Germs accumulate on the outer surfaces and are more easily incorporated by virtue of concentration during handling. The inner surface will concentrate any germs that are normally carried away by normal expirations .

Co2 is less easily expelled when exhalation is slowed. 

Is this the level of protection , or spread slowing effects proven to outweigh any negative effects? Are you guaranteed to be providing a meaningful benefit to your fellows and them to you by wearing a mask as a default action? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

The inner surface will concentrate any germs that are normally carried away by normal expirations .

The germs you exhale are already in your body, so that makes no difference for you. Whatever "concentration" there is from your breathing has already infected you long before you breathed it out. So I don't know what you're talking about. As for germs that might be on your hands, If you touch the inside of the mask with your hands before you put it on, you aren't using it correctly. 

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

Co2 is less easily expelled when exhalation is slowed. 

Barely at all. It only might make a difference for people with actual disorders like asthma or COPD or people who are overweight. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

It is a social norm that I wear more or less normal clothing when out, as opposed to going around stark naked or wearing just a jock strap.  I believe stark naked is actually illegal in most jurisdictions.  I believe some people claim nudity is healthier; I haven't studied this.  Wearing clothes costs money and takes a little time.  But how burdensome is wearing clothing for most people?  Does wearing clothes without having carefully studied the pros and cons make me a second hander?

Referring to masks I presume? And to my comments? (It is polite for you quote me, so I know). There is firstly a lot of doubt cast on their effectiveness, doing more harm that good when you consider how often people, especially kids, have to touch and arrange a mask, then touching something else, then their mask ... What is non-negotiable: children imposed upon by parents' example and orders to wear them. Do their parents not understand what damage they are doing? Kids have now not only lost a piece of their childhood due to lockdowns, but are now learning 1. fear and anxiety about death 2. a duty to act for the random "other" person. Whose life matters more than theirs. A recipe either for a subservient adult, or a self-destructive rebel, later on. If masks work, slightly, or not, nothing is worth that outcome.  (Or do you disagree?). But nearly all the adults have implicitly the altruist doctrine, so probably believe that's good to pass it on to their children, young. I just thought about Rand's The Comprachios. Recommended reading, with masking in mind.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Nah. I mean, being on this forum, you really can assume that we all have the basics unless somebody explicitly says they disagree with one of the basics. I think it's more productive to talk about the ways following a social norm can be a good idea, even when you disagree that a safety precaution is necessary. 

 

Why should one "assume"? When replies are unforthcoming? The "basics" are fine, there is plenty here of fine and agreeable material on thinking about thinking, "how we know", to ponder upon. Thinking about real things, derived from and dedicated to reality, thought implemented into reality, I am not so sure finds agreement. 

Whatever, some courtesy and the objective virtue of justice, giving credit to someone, would go a long way to open up frank discussions. I've learned that as much as one (honestly) criticizes one should quickly also give credit.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

It is a social norm that I wear more or less normal clothing when out, as opposed to going around stark naked or wearing just a jock strap.  I believe stark naked is actually illegal in most jurisdictions.  I believe some people claim nudity is healthier; I haven't studied this.  Wearing clothes costs money and takes a little time.  But how burdensome is wearing clothing for most people?  Does wearing clothes without having carefully studied the pros and cons make me a second hander?

If going around naked were the cause of one's loss of livelihood and normal social interactions, then it would be irrational and sacrificial to do so. I have argued with extensive observations that masking and social distancing have not allayed this climate of fear, and that many businesses are still failing - even without strict lock downs. Simply, people now don't want to go out and be near other people, not anything like before. Everyone has learned new, reclusive habits. The economy suffers, many people are hurt unnecessarily. That can't be hard to understand.

If one is against lock downs like you say you are, then to be consistent, the placebo (or panacea) effect of masking, to feel better about one not infecting others (doubtful), should be as much opposed, to regain some sanity in the world. 

None of those measures have suppressed the coronavirus, that's clear. You evidently can't "suppress" a virus, except perhaps by imprisoning every person in his separate cell for a year without contact (and then who's going to feed them, where does the ventilation come from? Absolute insanity). Our 'experts' should have listened to the other experts.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

The O'ist definition of sacrifice: To surrender a greater value for a lesser or non-value.

 Which requires an individual's value-hierarchy to ascertain.

And "value" assessed by him by what standard? Man's life.

A proper existence, for the proper man.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

Properly fitted n95 and higher rated filtration devices could help prevent casual spread. Cloth mask efficacy doesn’t even come close. Any medical protection they provide against aerosolized virus particles is negligible.

Just as the article in the OP states, their efficacy is the political statement they convey.

There is very little that can be done in a practical way to stop viral spread, aside from physical isolation which is by definition impractical. Modalities that ensure air circulation to decrease viral load in the ambient environment would have more efficacy against spread. Regardless , concentrating energies on therapeutics and care for the medical consequences of infection should be the only political concern.

Virtue signally won’t get you any closer to the futile goal of stopping the spread .

It would be instructive to see how many cases of hospitalizations to treat pneumonia are currently from bacterial infections.Though given the level of trust I currently have in ‘official’ reports coming from our ‘institutions’, my confirmation bias will probably win out, lol.

I wear a cloth mask where it is required for entry or participation, but not because I think that action has much medical significance, just because it is required.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

the placebo (or panacea) effect of masking

But it does make a difference, that's the point.

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

None of those measures have suppressed the coronavirus

As Doug said before, it's from people not following necessary precautions. Think of the joke where attending a BLM protest makes you immune to Covid. Of course nothing would be suppressed very well in large-scale if nobody listens. 

 

6 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Cloth mask efficacy doesn’t even come close.

Depends what you mean by "close", it certainly helps. The rest sounds like you're just saying "if I had to pick one thing to do". You obviously can do all of it. Fortunately, some things are very low effort, like a mask. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No what I am saying is that in the regard of this one thing to do , mask wearing, keeping my phlegm and snot on my face is not helping to ‘fight the spread’. I can and do interact with others without exchanging copious amounts of bodily fluid, without a face diaper.

Cloth masks offer  little to no filtration of aerosolized virus particles, and whatever spread stopping efficacy isn’t worth the effort. In fact given the oblivious amounts of misuse in the general public , they most likely increase germ spread.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Referring to masks I presume?

I was trying to clarify the point you seemed to be making about social norms in general.

11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Do their parents not understand what damage they are doing?

You are exaggerating the effects.

This is not about fear.  It is about prudence.

11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

But nearly all the adults have implicitly the altruist doctrine

This contaminates and distorts everything in our society.  But instead of blindly rejecting things because of it, we need to apply reason, both to the question of what we do now, and to the question of how things would be in a more rational society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...