Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How many masks do you wear?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

There is a very big difference between spreading ideas and spreading germs.  But most people don't understand the difference well enough.

 

Aha. Then what about spreading the idea OF spreading germs?

That's the deep level of thinking the world has sunk to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This discussion has been rather far removed from the fundamental principles regarding man’s rights, and has focused instead on notions of aggression, spreading (versus other means), sensory inputs, af

https://youtu.be/ssvSsMqTtjo Kibbe on Liberty: Pandemic imprisoning and the culture war. Perspectives from Britain and the USA. Great conversation.

I wear one when required, out of respect for the fact that a private business is required to enforce the mandate. I never decided on a consistent policy to use in situations where I have a choice. I g

Posted Images

27 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Aha. Then what about spreading the idea OF spreading germs?

That's the deep level of thinking the world has sunk to.

Are you saying that talking about spreading germs represents shallow thinking and/or sinking to a low level?  If not, what are you saying?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tenderlysharp said:

Native Americans had 10,000 years of much greater volition to spread out.  Early slave traders were perplexed at how impossible it is to violate a Native American's volition.

Yamasee War

The tribes joined together to fight a common oppressor. To suggest that 10,000 years created a dominant trait of indomitable volition brings to mind an inverse of the use of breeding to domesticate livestock. 

European tribalism and north American tribalism developed different moralities, stemming from different driving mythologies, or "primitive philosophies". 

The Yamasee War is not something I recall from school. It popped up in a search for slave trade, native american, to flesh out a better understanding of your propositions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, merjet said:

Oh, my. So profound! Do you believe I would wear a catcher's mask to avoid infection by a virus? 

That isn't the only interpretation of this meme.

Judging by your derision, you were expecting more than memes from those arguing against masks. But why? Maskers are viewed as part of an international, irrational medical theater movement, abetting the tidal wave of 2020-style stripping of basic human rights. And then you offer derision in response - so why should you receive more than memes?

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

There is a very big difference between spreading ideas and spreading germs.  But most people don't understand the difference well enough.

What's the difference?

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

Judging by your derision, you were expecting more than memes from those arguing against masks. 

I wasn't expecting anything special. It was an 'fyi' post. My follow-up was a tit-for-tat. My 'fyi' was about masks to protect against a virus, and surely not about a mask for asbestos, sanding, or painting a car.

Edited by merjet
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JASKN said:

What's the difference?

For the purpose of the issue we're discussing here, the key difference is that spreading germs is physical aggression and spreading ideas is definitely not.  It is also true that spreading ideas is badly needed and spreading germs is better avoided.

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

For the purpose of the issue we're discussing here, the key difference is that spreading germs is physical aggression and spreading ideas is definitely not.  It is also true that spreading ideas is badly needed and spreading germs is better avoided.

Does a communicated idea not physically alter the brain of the recipient? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JASKN said:

Does a communicated idea not physically alter the brain of the recipient?

Not in a physically aggressive way.

It would be physical aggression to attack a person's brain with electrodes, drugs, scalpels, or germs without their informed, competent consent.  

In cases where consent cannot be obtained, such as medical treatment for a person rendered unconscious by a brain injury, it becomes necessary to take into account such things as the intent of the person acting and the interests of the subject.

Presenting input to a person's senses to be processed normally by their senses and their consciousness is not made physical aggression because it has a physical effect on their sense organs and their brain. 

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

Not in a physically aggressive way.

I don't understand the meaning or relevance of "physical aggression" in your distinction between germs and ideas. What is aggression (what is physical aggression and what other types are there)? I don't see how to apply that concept to germs versus ideas.

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

I don't understand the meaning or relevance of "physical aggression" in your distinction between germs and ideas. What is aggression (what is physical aggression and what other types are there)? I don't see how to apply that concept to germs versus ideas.

Spreading germs is physical aggression, whereas spreading ideas is not.

I am using the phrase "physical aggression" as a shorthand for the initiation of physical force.

Having a physical effect on someone is not enough for an action to count as physical force against them.  To count as physical force, it must to some extent do physical harm, such as physically damaging their body or property, or physically usurping control over their body or property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question still is when does an idea become a threat? An intentional fraudulent "idea" from a trusted source forces a man to act against his own judgement. It's force but not physical.

Quote

To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man’s capacity to live.

 

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

Spreading germs is physical aggression, whereas spreading ideas is not.

I am using the phrase "physical aggression" as a shorthand for the initiation of physical force.

Having a physical effect on someone is not enough for an action to count as physical force against them.  To count as physical force, it must to some extent do physical harm, such as physically damaging their body or property, or physically usurping control over their body or property.

 

15 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

I should make clear that creating s danger of physical harm, or threatening or inciting it, can rise to the level of physical force.

You emphasized "spreading," why? What is it about spreading germs that is aggressive, vs. spreading ideas that is not? Why substitute "aggression" for "force"? How is spreading germs aggression/force but spreading ideas is not? What is the standard of the "effect" of not-physical harm vs. the "force" of physical harm? Couldn't the spread of bad ideas be argued to be "physically damaging" to a person's body, even manipulating enough to be argued as control over their body? Couldn't the spread of bad ideas easily be argued to be a threat or incitement, especially those ideas shared with the intent to convince others to act in a way that they had never intended to act themselves?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The question still is when does an idea become a threat? An intentional fraudulent "idea" from a trusted source forces a man to act against his own judgement. It's force but not physical.

 

So, the willful spread of fraudulent ideas is an initiation of force? Does that mean that the accidental spread of germs is not an initiation of force?

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

Spreading germs is physical aggression

 

You should elaborate on what makes "spreading" germs aggression (and why spreading ideas is not: spreading of bad ideas has resulted in massive physical harm, and will continue to do so for years to come). Initiation of force is a volitional, intentional act, and only rarely is "spreading germs" an intentional choice. I recommend not using shorthand expressions for concepts that would be well-understood in an Objectivist context. The Objectivist ethics is centered around the fact that man's actions are chosen, so how is it not more obvious that the intentional, deliberate and willful spreading of ideas is initiation of force but the unknowing accidental "transmission" of microbes, peanut-molecules, or perfume is not? (Neither is, in fact).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2021 at 4:24 PM, Tenderlysharp said:

Innovators actively seek critical feedback, how does copy/pasting add to the discussion of metaphysics, epistemology, identity or volition?

Why did you post that picture? What were you trying to convey, that a cloth mask doesn't do anything? That a surgical mask doesn't do anything? That only heavy duty masks do anything for germs? Doesn't make sense. You could have responded thoughtfully to a simple quote rather than reacting. How does quoting an article add to the discussion? All sorts of ways, in the same way that you pointed out facts. 

 

On 1/24/2021 at 9:06 PM, JASKN said:

Judging by your derision, you were expecting more than memes from those arguing against masks. But why? Maskers are viewed as part of an international, irrational medical theater movement, abetting the tidal wave of 2020-style stripping of basic human rights. And then you offer derision in response - so why should you receive more than memes?

Are you trying to say that if somebody says something in favor of (voluntary use of)  masks, they should be viewed as irrational and not deserving of any thoughtful response? 

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

You emphasized "spreading," why?

The mere existence of germs, poison, fire, etc. does not constitute physical force on anyone's part.  Imposing them on another is physical force.

7 hours ago, JASKN said:

What is it about spreading germs that is aggressive, vs. spreading ideas that is not?

Spreading germs can easily do physical damage to a person's body.  Spreading ideas does not do physical damage.  If the ideas play a role in a person's choice to do physical damage, that is the responsibility of the person taking the physical action.

7 hours ago, JASKN said:

Why substitute "aggression" for "force"?

I considered "physical aggression" to be a reasonable shorthand for the initiation of physical force.  I was substituting "aggression" for "the initiation of force".  I am sorry if this caused any confusion.  One thing that got me into this habit is the idea that in attempting to communicate with non-Objectivists, saying "physical aggression" might make communication easier than saying "the initiation of physical force".

7 hours ago, JASKN said:

What is the standard of the "effect" of not-physical harm vs. the "force" of physical harm?

A necessary condition for something to be physical force is that it do physical harm of some kind.

7 hours ago, JASKN said:

Couldn't the spread of bad ideas be argued to be "physically damaging" to a person's body

No.

7 hours ago, JASKN said:

even manipulating enough to be argued as control over their body? Couldn't the spread of bad ideas easily be argued to be a threat or incitement, especially those ideas shared with the intent to convince others to act in a way that they had never intended to act themselves?

People are responsible for their own actions.

Edited by Doug Morris
Correct typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

only rarely is "spreading germs" an intentional choice

 

4 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

the unknowing accidental "transmission" of microbes, peanut-molecules, or perfume is not? (Neither is, in fact)

It is possible to initiate physical force by accident.  There are obvious examples involving cars and guns, but it also applies to germs.  

If I put on too much cologne without realizing it, and I have legitimate reason to come into your residence or office, but in doing so I unwittingly subject you and/or others to an unreasonable stench of cologne, I have committed an unwitting act of physical force.  If it does not cause an allergic reaction, it is less serious than subjecting you and/or others to germs.

If I unwittingly spread peanut molecules, this only becomes physical force if it does some kind of physical harm. 

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

The mere existence of germs, poison, fire, etc. does not constitute physical force on anyone's part.  Imposing them on another is physical force.

Spreading germs can easily do physical damage to a person's body.  Spreading ideas does not do physical damage.  If the ideas play a role in a person's choice to do physical damage, that is the responsibility of the person taking the physical action.

[...]

A necessary condition for something to be physical force is that it do physical harm of some kind.

What is "imposing"? Existing on the same planet, all happenings could be argued to be "imposing" on all beings. What is "physical damage"/"physical force"? Ideas physically alter a brain - why is that not "damage" or "force"? I may not have asked for an idea, yet my brain processed it and changed nonetheless.
 

17 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

If I put on too much cologne without realizing it, and I have legitimate reason to come into your residence or office, but in doing so I unwittingly subject you and/or others to an unreasonable stench of cologne, I have committed an unwitting act of physical force.  If it does not cause an allergic reaction, it is less serious than subjecting you and/or others to germs.

If I unwittingly spread peanut molecules, this only becomes physical force if it does some kind of physical harm. 

 

On 1/27/2021 at 3:33 PM, Doug Morris said:

To count as physical force, it must to some extent do physical harm, such as physically damaging their body or property, or physically usurping control over their body or property.

How "serious" does the physical force need to be before it becomes "harm"/"damage"? A bad smell may give me a headache, or it may ruin my day by drudging up some childhood trauma. Who should be held liable for the time I waste realigning my attitude so that I can function properly again?

 

17 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Or physically violating their privacy.

Why? What is "privacy", what violates privacy, and why is that an initiation of physical force?

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

 

It is possible to initiate physical force by accident.  There are obvious examples involving cars and guns, but it also applies to germs.  

If I put on too much cologne without realizing it, and I have legitimate reason to come into your residence or office, but in doing so I unwittingly subject you and/or others to an unreasonable stench of cologne, I have committed an unwitting act of physical force.  If it does not cause an allergic reaction, it is less serious than subjecting you and/or others to germs.

If I unwittingly spread peanut molecules, this only becomes physical force if it does some kind of physical harm. 

Heh, all this is taking the libertarian non-Aggression Principle to a ludicrous, de-contextualized conclusion. "Force" is force. Equivocating on the definition, a physical - positive - action - not a passively received airborne odor nor a received airborne disease - makes a joke of the authentic evils of force perpetrated by people and will become self-defeating of the principle. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JASKN said:

What is "imposing"? Existing on the same planet, all happenings could be argued to be "imposing" on all beings.

To impose germs, poison, or fire on a person, one must apply them directly to the person's body or property.  Simply having them in the same vicinity is not imposing them.

7 hours ago, JASKN said:

What is "physical damage"/"physical force"?

Physical damage to a person's body or property is a physical change that interferes with its functioning or adversely affects its appearance, with the person, whose body or property it is, being entitled to define "adversely".  If it is caused by a different person's acting without the person's informed, competent consent, it is physical force.  Physical force can also involve other kinds of physical harm, such as usurping control or violating privacy.

7 hours ago, JASKN said:

Ideas physically alter a brain - why is that not "damage" or "force"? I may not have asked for an idea, yet my brain processed it and changed nonetheless.

Processing sensory input, and carrying out further processing of the contents of one's consciousness, is part of the normal functioning of the sense organs and brain, and the resulting changes do not constitute damage or force.

7 hours ago, JASKN said:

How "serious" does the physical force need to be before it becomes "harm"/"damage"? A bad smell may give me a headache, or it may ruin my day by drudging up some childhood trauma. Who should be held liable for the time I waste realigning my attitude so that I can function properly again?

The headache constitutes damage, even if it is only temporary, and may constitute force.

Once you have a content of consciousness, any further processing on your part is your responsibility and does not constitute force or physical damage.  In particular, once a good, bad, or neutral smell, sight, sound, taste, or touch becomes a content of your consciousness, any further processing is your responsibility.  However, if the stimulus or input is of such a nature that it also constitutes a threat by the other person against you, than being a threat makes it an act of force, not because of the specific physical changes your brain enacts by processing it, but because it puts you in the position of having to contend with the threat.

7 hours ago, JASKN said:

Why? What is "privacy", what violates privacy, and why is that an initiation of physical force?

Since I am not basing my arguments about germs on the concept or issue of privacy, let's save the discussion of privacy for another time.

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

"Force" is force. Equivocating on the definition, a physical - positive - action - not a passively received airborne odor nor a received airborne disease - makes a joke of the authentic evils of force perpetrated by people and will become self-defeating of the principle. 

If an action spreads odor or disease, that can make that action an act of force.

There are different kinds and degrees of force.  If a particular kind of force is less serious, less direct, or less evil, that does not mean we should deny that it is force.

Where are you getting your definition?

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...