Doug Morris Posted February 9, 2022 Report Share Posted February 9, 2022 2 hours ago, Easy Truth said: But I suspect the mindset is that the other country HAS invaded, i.e. this is an emergency. The analogy would be something like, if an enemy has invaded, you should not leave useful supplies lying around where the invaders can easily seize them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Morris Posted February 9, 2022 Report Share Posted February 9, 2022 1 hour ago, Easy Truth said: From and Objectivist point of view, is having police, an army, and the judiciary a mandate? Simply having them is not a mandate, but cooperating with them can be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted February 9, 2022 Report Share Posted February 9, 2022 19 minutes ago, Doug Morris said: The analogy would be something like, if an enemy has invaded, you should not leave useful supplies lying around where the invaders can easily seize them. Well, as long as the citizenry isn't considered as supplies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easy Truth Posted February 9, 2022 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2022 3 hours ago, Doug Morris said: 5 hours ago, Easy Truth said: From and Objectivist point of view, is having police, an army, and the judiciary a mandate? Simply having them is not a mandate, but cooperating with them can be. Not sure what you mean, a mandate means you are forced vs. cooperating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted February 10, 2022 Report Share Posted February 10, 2022 (edited) 15 hours ago, Doug Morris said: I'm not asking that anyone "pay", just that people take reasonable precautions. No, it proves that vaccination does not give absolute, exceptionless, 100.0% protection. Vaccines are effective and necessary. *** Governments have bungled and had too low an opinion of mankind. This does not mean that anyone who advocates limited mandates is guilty of such things. Vaccines are effective and necessary, certainly - for whom? For those who choose them: For they who have need of them, i.e. reduction of hospitalization, severity for any in the risk and high risk categories. Fine, so far. But as entire populations were deviously led to believe they do not stop infection and transmission. (Do the homework). One doesn't hear "breakthrough infections" any more, because they are the norm, everybody vaccinated is having or is able to have "breakthroughs". Why do you think the pundits have turned tail most recently on counting infection numbers (after everyone saw nothing but scary daily 'cases' - pre-vaccines)? Because, simply, they know vaccinations are not doing that job: with 85-95% vaxxed, case numbers have soared in heavily vaccinated countries, and the most credulous people are starting to question the "get vaxxed and stop the spread" lying narrative. Your position is getting left far behind by the scientific findings. What would you say to infection/transmission of Covid being acceptable, not stigmatized, not immoral nor actionable? Within parameters, of course, among the largest, fittest and healthy group. That would make your whole argument moot. Well, that's exactly what is coming to light recently. As every virologist knew 2 years ago, but many kept silent on or were silenced, and any layman with any sense knew, the blindly-accepted global lockdown policy was going to be a terrible disaster. Controlled spread and mitigation of the virus damage was the only rational and humane policy. (The proper scientists urged). While not the entire aim, natural immunity among the healthy would play an important role. See how the esteemed Johns Hospers came round last week - years too late. https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf You are gong to see or have read plenty of back-tracking and 'pivoting', on other things like masking, natural immunity, prophylactic treatments with cheap drugs etc., by the 'experts' who ineptly or corruptly misled the public. They are ethically responsible and should be held culpable for more deaths than was necessary. As well as anti-rights, immoral, dictatorial vaxx mandates. That also can't survive the scientific fact: you don't eradicate a virus. And not with vaccines, self-evidently. It plays itself out eventually to nothing more serious than influenza. Edited February 10, 2022 by whYNOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easy Truth Posted February 10, 2022 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2022 2 hours ago, whYNOT said: Vaccines are effective and necessary, certainly - for whom? For those who choose them: For they who have need of them, i.e. reduction of hospitalization, severity for any in the risk and high risk categories. Fine, so far. No, not fine so far. It's more nuanced than that. The assertion is "Vaccines forced on others, are effective and necessary" to keep "me" safer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Morris Posted February 10, 2022 Report Share Posted February 10, 2022 7 hours ago, whYNOT said: they do not stop infection and transmission You are conflating stopping with reducing. 7 hours ago, whYNOT said: case numbers have soared in heavily vaccinated countries We are having a surge now because of omicron. But this does not mean the vaccines are useless. 7 hours ago, whYNOT said: What would you say to infection/transmission of Covid being acceptable, not stigmatized, not immoral nor actionable? The point has never been that infection/transmission is unacceptable, stigmatizable, immoral, or actionable. The point is about unnecessarily increasing risk. 7 hours ago, whYNOT said: the blindly-accepted global lockdown policy I have never advocated lockdowns, which are much more disruptive and destructive than mandating masks or vaccines. 7 hours ago, whYNOT said: you don't eradicate a virus. Who claimed that you do? I certainly never did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Morris Posted February 10, 2022 Report Share Posted February 10, 2022 15 hours ago, Easy Truth said: Not sure what you mean, a mandate means you are forced vs. cooperating. Withholding possibly relevant information from police investigating a crime, or refusing to testify in court, can reasonably be considered obstruction of justice. Certainly lying to the police or in court can be. Acting recklessly in a way that makes an ongoing situation more difficult to deal with is also an interference with the defense of rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easy Truth Posted February 10, 2022 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2022 3 hours ago, Doug Morris said: 18 hours ago, Easy Truth said: Not sure what you mean, a mandate means you are forced vs. cooperating. Withholding possibly relevant information from police investigating a crime, or refusing to testify in court, can reasonably be considered obstruction of justice. Certainly lying to the police or in court can be. Acting recklessly in a way that makes an ongoing situation more difficult to deal with is also an interference with the defense of rights. Okay, my apologies, I just never took the analogies seriously enough. So refusing to inject something in your body based on what you know, based on your best assessment, that maybe something can go wrong with this (when there is some evidence of that), that I have a right live my life as I see fit (as I may take my chances of dying of the disease), is similar to being drunk (reckless driving)? The recklessness is a smear, not an accurate description of many of the unvaxed. There are highly educated people that I know that are afraid of the vaccine. Some simply want to wait an see. But I know doctors who are vaccinated and encourage vaccination that acknowledge, we don't' know what long term effects of mRNA have on children. How do we handle the risk of the herd mentality where they all panic and jump of the cliff? You may retort, "by careful analysis". Once it's panic time, there is no time for careful analysis, utilitarian methods have some merit but ultimately respect of self interest is the long term arbiter of what will in fact benefit the most of us. If we were going to live by statistics, then the government should force EVERYONE to invest in a certain way. After all, it can be proven that some of us are being reckless with out money. Some will lose based on the mandate. But most will win. Or maybe all of our tax dollars will be invested in a solar company that can't deliver and it all goes to waste. It will be a Ponzi scheme that will eternally have suckers (so it is not a Ponzi scheme as in socialists proclaim). That is the direction I see you arguing. As I said Doug, you are joining the Dark side. There is still time come back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Morris Posted February 10, 2022 Report Share Posted February 10, 2022 2 hours ago, Easy Truth said: The recklessness is a smear I never said the analogy was exact. My point was that simply endangering people can rise to the level of physical force, 2 hours ago, Easy Truth said: How do we handle the risk of the herd mentality where they all panic and jump of the cliff? Sounds like people refusing to mask or to vaccinate because that's the way of the "conservative" tribe, and some of them dying as a result. (This is not the reason for mandates.) 2 hours ago, Easy Truth said: If we were going to live by statistics, then the government should force EVERYONE to invest in a certain way. No. Investing recklessly does not physically endanger anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted February 10, 2022 Report Share Posted February 10, 2022 32 minutes ago, Doug Morris said: Sounds like people refusing to mask or to vaccinate because that's the way of the "conservative" tribe, and some of them dying as a result. (This is not the reason for mandates.) Masking and vaccination prevent death from Covid infections? or political beliefs ? only in combination ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easy Truth Posted February 10, 2022 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2022 2 hours ago, Doug Morris said: 5 hours ago, Easy Truth said: If we were going to live by statistics, then the government should force EVERYONE to invest in a certain way. No. Investing recklessly does not physically endanger anyone. The argument about the issue of physical endangerment is used for Medicare too. That "because the stakes are so high that forcing some to pay for other's healthcare is justified". I'm applying "risk level" thinking regarding investing … At some point it can rise to the level of physically endangering people. All the way from raising the level of envy, or starvation that may cause a person to want to steal etc. Owning a knife, or a car, a roof, or a tree, or a horse increases the risk level too. Simply driving more than thirty miles and hour will do it. An un-vaxed person is not endangering anyone like a person that is infected. They are not an imminent danger. And that is the repeating message I'm sending, that some are innocent. Some will never get the disease and never transmit it. Even taking the life of one person by force is too many. I suspect you don't agree with that last statement but you won't spell it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted February 11, 2022 Report Share Posted February 11, 2022 (edited) 16 hours ago, Easy Truth said: No, not fine so far. It's more nuanced than that. The assertion is "Vaccines forced on others, are effective and necessary" to keep "me" safer. But of course. My angle here concerns the rational use of vaccines. By those who estimate their own health risks, potential and actual against possible vaccine after effects. The proper health self-interest by individuals. "To keep me safer" has been so commonplace that it is not near "nuanced". That fearful narrative is the main driver of the vitriol poured on "anti-" vaxxers. e.g. "you are selfish (!) and would let others die". Beats me how many still believe this, while knowing that the infection rates were climbing at high levels - among the majority vaxxed countries (while with low and descending levels in minority vaxxed places, like here). The public perception was visibly encouraged by cynical and unethical, self-serving scientists, pharma and officials, power-lusting bureaucrats and media who knew better and earlier: Mass vaccinations would not kill the virus and fresh mutations of it. But the unvaxxed, they stated, are holding everybody back. My turn for cynicism. It would appear, now that (almost) everybody in the West has been vaxxed, and some vast wealth and power has accrued to the pharma cascading down to many public officials, scientists and medics - and since the cat's let out of the bag with long suppressed valid facts and scientific studies emerging - 'they' can afford to pivot 180 degrees on all their former pronouncements and relax their humanly destructive edicts. Edited February 11, 2022 by whYNOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted February 11, 2022 Report Share Posted February 11, 2022 (edited) 12 hours ago, Doug Morris said: Who claimed that you do? I certainly never did. But this has nothing to do with you (or your own personal education about viruses); I was not aiming at you, specifically. You could be confusing the individual with the abstract collective, i.e., "society". The subjective perception by the greater numbers of public clearly was and still remains (for now) - Blanket vaccinations will eradicate the spread. We need 100% compliance. That (contrived) narrative readily accepted by most people, I think is what has empowered all of the socio-political coercion and pressure. Enlightened, dissenting individual scientists and commentators were ridiculed and censored, as you know. Edited February 11, 2022 by whYNOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted February 11, 2022 Report Share Posted February 11, 2022 21 hours ago, whYNOT said: See how the esteemed Johns Hospers came round last week - years too late. https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf Uh, Johns Hopkins I meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Morris Posted February 11, 2022 Report Share Posted February 11, 2022 16 hours ago, tadmjones said: Masking and vaccination prevent death from Covid infections? Yes, although not 100.0% of the time. 16 hours ago, tadmjones said: or political beliefs ? Only to the extent that they affect whether people mask and/or vaccinate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Morris Posted February 11, 2022 Report Share Posted February 11, 2022 13 hours ago, Easy Truth said: The argument about the issue of physical endangerment is used for Medicare too. That "because the stakes are so high that forcing some to pay for other's healthcare is justified". Spreading germs can rise to the level of physical force. Refusing to subsidize someone else's health care can not. 13 hours ago, Easy Truth said: At some point it can rise to the level of physically endangering people. All the way from raising the level of envy, or starvation that may cause a person to want to steal etc. Stealing and engaging in force out of envy should be illegal. Doing something that might tempt oneself to engage in physical force should not in itself be illegal. 13 hours ago, Easy Truth said: Owning a knife, or a car, a roof, or a tree, or a horse increases the risk level too. Simply driving more than thirty miles and hour will do it. These can also decrease risk levels. There are other considerations that must be taken into account, as I have indicated before. 13 hours ago, Easy Truth said: some are innocent As I have previously stated, guilt or innocence lies not in being infected or not, but in unnecessarily increasing the risk of spreading infection. 14 hours ago, Easy Truth said: Even taking the life of one person by force is too many. Even taking the life of one person by initiated force is too many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Morris Posted February 11, 2022 Report Share Posted February 11, 2022 12 hours ago, whYNOT said: the infection rates were climbing at high levels - among the majority vaxxed countries (while with low and descending levels in minority vaxxed places, like here Can you back this up? 12 hours ago, whYNOT said: Mass vaccinations would not kill the virus and fresh mutations of it. You are conflating eradication and substantial reduction. 11 hours ago, whYNOT said: Enlightened, dissenting individual scientists and commentators were ridiculed and censored, as you know. Do you have examples? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted February 12, 2022 Report Share Posted February 12, 2022 (edited) 21 hours ago, Doug Morris said: Can you back this up? You are conflating eradication and substantial reduction. Do you have examples? "Substantial reduction". How do you know this? One can't prove a negative cause/effect - 'what didn't happen'. For the non-existent effectiveness for mass vaccinations limiting the spread, I advised you to do some independent research. Australia for one example, experienced its biggest case load when it had been at over 100% vaccinated. (Now you know why all of a sudden, recently, 'cases' are officially discounted as being critical any longer. People might get wise to the false narrative they were allowed to believe: any observant person might see that there is no correlation - vaccinations : infections). More evidence, to help you make up your own mind, South Africa, presently with 26% vax uptake has enjoyed falling infection rates: Now 11% of peak https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj6rZj4gPr1AhVeQUEAHWWhA5gQFnoECAcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fgraphics.reuters.com%2Fworld-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps%2Fcountries-and-territories%2Fsouth-africa%2F&usg=AOvVaw3ZsBOEMrT0gMn69AlaC0IY Edited February 12, 2022 by whYNOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted February 12, 2022 Report Share Posted February 12, 2022 (edited) Some of the myths, manipulations and "misinformation" which were deliberately propagated throughout the pandemic until present. "Stratification" of risk. The first important concept that citizens of countries should have been informed of by their public health officials, explicitly and urgently, was: Covid-19 is hugely more harmful to the aged and otherwise immuno-compromised - etc. (England's average age of Covid death, 82.5). While descending to much less-to-(effectively) zero risks for the bulk of the younger/healthy population. This critical fact was not forthcoming from the officials and media, when it ought to have been splashed in the headlines - and so ¬everybody¬ was locked down. Stoically and sacrificially accepting this as the necessary (deterministically) method to combat corona. Personal health care. How much were people informed that e.g. Vitamin D3 (an essential and for many, deprived hormone to the immune system) together with Zinc - and repurposed safe drugs like Ivermectin (banned and ridiculed)- should be taken as prophylactics or part-treatment after infection? Nothing, and actively disparaged. (Wait for the vaccines...) Herd immunity. The unmentionable word, until belatedly 'rediscovered' this year: basic virology 101. "Sterilization" by vaccines. The only rationale behind removing individual freedoms with mass vaccine mandates. No, the virus does not 'get killed', then to prevent further infection-transmission when it enters a vaccinated body. If this were true, there would have been an INSTANT drop-off, without lag, of infections as vaxx rates increased. This barely concealed and evaded fact, apparently still denied by the True Believers in populations, is the cause of political/social turmoil and political tyranny at present. There is no way to count the cumulative human cost, extending into the future from a litany of bad science, misleading 'information' and brutal policies. The count of lives which would/could have been saved isn't calculable either. I hope and trust those responsible, from lesser to major players, for all that greatly avoidable human misery, while they and many others benefited, will be taken to account. Edited February 12, 2022 by whYNOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Morris Posted February 12, 2022 Report Share Posted February 12, 2022 whYNOT, I think it would take a lot of research to get a good handle on the points you raise, and all this is irrelevant to my main point. Whether or not it is true in the case of COVID-19, it is possible that, for some disease, mask mandates and/or vaccination mandates could be legitimate to prevent people from physically endangering others. I will nevertheless address a few of your points. 3 hours ago, whYNOT said: "Substantial reduction". How do you know this? One can't prove a negative cause/effect This can be handled by controlled clinical studies, careful comparison of different situations, and general knowledge of the workings of vaccines. 3 hours ago, whYNOT said: Australia for one example, experienced its biggest case load when it had been at over 100% vaccinated. (Now you know why all of a sudden, recently, 'cases' are officially discounted as being critical any longer. People might get wise to the false narrative they were allowed to believe: any observant person might see that there is no correlation - vaccinations : infections). More evidence, to help you make up your own mind, South Africa, presently with 26% vax uptake has enjoyed falling infection rates: Now 11% of peak There are various complications that must be considered when interpreting such data, including the effects of new variants, and that surges tend to die down after a while for reasons that are not yet fully understood. 2 hours ago, whYNOT said: locked down I have never advocated lockdowns, which are much more disruptive and destructive than mandating masks or vaccines. 2 hours ago, whYNOT said: No, the virus does not 'get killed', then to prevent further infection-transmission when it enters a vaccinated body. If this were true, there would have been an INSTANT drop-off, without lag, of infections as vaxx rates increased. Vaccines are very effective, but they need time to take effect, and even once they take effect they are not 100.0% effective. Infections also need time to take effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted February 12, 2022 Report Share Posted February 12, 2022 I’ve been sympathetic to the idea that to mitigate risk there could be policies and legal strictures in objective law that apply to communicable disease. And that those policies would be founded on a principle of avoiding unnecessary risk, increasing risk through action ,or inaction in the case of not submitting to inoculation that could raise to the level of being equated with initiating force. But I do not believe this disease , these jabs and the actions of these officials come close to being an example of following such principles. I have a political problem with accepting the current slate of strictures , but it comes from a “small ‘p’ “ politics-frame and not any partisan stance. I do not agree that government reactions to this disease are consistent with following principles that promote moral and rational interactions between members of society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted February 12, 2022 Report Share Posted February 12, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Doug Morris said: whYNOT, I think it would take a lot of research to get a good handle on the points you raise, and all this is irrelevant to my main point. Whether or not it is true in the case of COVID-19, it is possible that, for some disease, mask mandates and/or vaccination mandates could be legitimate to prevent people from physically endangering others. You'd have needed to follow the events, information, in real time - also not blindly accept the presented narratives and read up on alternative expert sources - to get "a good handle". I've pointed out to you that your premise behind "physical endangerment/force/unnecessary risk" is wrong. Check the premise. First, you or I can't assess someone else's necessary/unnecessary risk; they must. Only they can. If a person is out and about in public, risking exposure, I must assume they've taken the risk into account. (I'd politely not go too close, and especially respect their property rights - but pay little more especial care of them. Normal decent behavior suffices). Second, transmission of coronavirus is not 'bad' (as you assume, together with many millions). It was inevitable, by the nature of a virus and human biology. More, when the weak and elderly and so on, are self-isolated or protected away from the public, to spread the virus is actually 'good' (for the safe majority and children too, whose powerful immune systems will benefit from the mild infection should they catch it). That's been propagandized, out of sight, by the manipulative, fear-mongering media. If you get a handle on this you'll see your faulty premise. Edited February 12, 2022 by whYNOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Morris Posted February 12, 2022 Report Share Posted February 12, 2022 3 minutes ago, whYNOT said: First, you or I can't assess someone else's necessary/unnecessary risk; they must. If a person is out and about in public, risking exposure, I must assume they've taken the risk into account. (I'd politely not go too close, and especially respect their property rights - but very little more special care taken of them). We can still unnecessarily increase their risk. We can also unnecessarily increase the risk of people who are relatively isolated, but in most cases have some contact with people who in turn have wider contacts. 5 minutes ago, whYNOT said: Second, transmission of coronavirus is not 'bad' (as you obviously assume, together with many millions). It was inevitable, by the nature of a virus. Some transmission is inevitable, but we still have some control over how much transmission there is. Any transmission, however avoidable or unavoidable it may be, is "bad" in the sense that it puts people in physical danger. 8 minutes ago, whYNOT said: More, when the weak and elderly and so on, are self-isolated or protected away from the public, to spread the virus is actually 'good' (for the safe majority and children too, whose immune systems will benefit from the mild infection). No. Anyone, regardless of age, health, or strength, is at some risk of serous effects such as death, hospitalization, long COVID, and the inflammatory syndrome that has affected some children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted February 12, 2022 Report Share Posted February 12, 2022 Just now, Doug Morris said: We can still unnecessarily increase their risk. We can also unnecessarily increase the risk of people who are relatively isolated, but in most cases have some contact with people who in turn have wider contacts. Some transmission is inevitable, but we still have some control over how much transmission there is. Any transmission, however avoidable or unavoidable it may be, is "bad" in the sense that it puts people in physical danger. No. Anyone, regardless of age, health, or strength, is at some risk of serous effects such as death, hospitalization, long COVID, and the inflammatory syndrome that has affected some children. You're not getting this. You can't measure another person's risk. It is not always easy to assess one's own, leave alone, others at large. I think you enjoy the notion of people dutifully looking after one another. There's your basic moral premise. Nice though, this exposes the altruism underneath the pandemic, and everything which followed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.