Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point II?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

That number includes deaths of people ‘with’ COVID. Funny though the first time I saw description I figured ‘they’ realized the 660k number just doesn’t have as punch as it did, and the fact the death ticker slowed worked against the narrative . Funny you use it now. 1/500 lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2021 at 11:00 PM, Doug Morris said:

If bad thinking and bad actions are involved in passing a law, it does not necessarily follow that the law is bad.  Hitler and Stalin probably had laws against murder, rape, arson, and robbery.  They could easily have misused such laws.  It does not necessarily follow that those societies would have been better off without such laws.  It certainly does not follow that better societies would be better off without them.

I repeat, if everyone is not free to choose his/her outcomes, nobody is free. The regulations which trample on individual rights are incremental. The bad laws do not just arrive at once, they ¬gradually¬ corrupt freedoms. A state declares they are for 'the good' of everyone and the nation, and most people accept them as such - "the govt. cares for us". And relinquish their personal responsibility and dissent. How many times has the past showed this? You don't believe that a Hitler and Stalin did not believe they were doing noble good for the nations? Of course they did. They had no idea they were "evil dictators". And their populaces followed along meekly, most supporting, enabling, them. As I say you can't seem to see the direction this is heading. Whether it reaches this level of evil we are on the right path:

"Things happened very slowly".

 
 
Image preview
 
 
 
 
 
Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Recently the number of COVID-19 deaths in the USA topped 1/500 of the population, or .2 per cent.  This is a pretty large risk of death from a single cause in less than two years, certainly a lot larger than the hypothetical percentages in some of Easy Truth's posts.  It is possible that this is an undercount, since the total deaths from all causes have increased by more than this.  Also, this does not count people who survive, but with serious long-term harm.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-who-is-at-risk/art-20483301

The underlying risks of Covid fatality have long been established. Here is one primary pre-condition. Populations with more elderly are most at risk, among several other factors.

Older age

 

People of any age, even children, can catch COVID-19. But it most commonly affects middle-aged and older adults. The risk of developing dangerous symptoms increases with age, with those who are age 85 and older at the highest risk of serious symptoms. In the U.S., about 80% of deaths from the disease have been in people age 65 and older. Risks are even higher for older people when they have other health conditions.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2021 at 10:49 PM, Doug Morris said:

Eiuol has already addressed the specious comparison of vaccines to antibiotics.  To get a little more specific, there are two problems that apply to antibiotics that have no analog for vaccines.  Patients sometimes demand antibiotics for viral infections, against which they are useless; they may go so far as to shop around for a doctor that will wrongly prescribe the antibiotic.  Patients sometimes fail to take the full course of antibiotics, stopping as soon as they feel better; this lets some bacteria survive and selects for resistance, contributing to the rise of resistance.

If Malone's argument depends mainly on the specious comparison of vaccines to antibiotics, it would be a waste of my time to listen to the video.  Does he have anything else to offer?  Does he address my key point that unnecessarily increasing the risk of spread of disease is initiation of physical force?

 

No, Malone's "key"argument is for a ¬targeted¬ response by way of vaccination, according to risk-benefit evaluations. There are many scientists who think that way.

Not blanketed - mandated - for everybody. If you know/believe you are in one comorbidity category or other, YOU should be vaccinated. See the above Mayo report.

Of course anyone who feels they need it, for whatever their reasons e.g. "I want to do my bit to care for the community and stop the spread" -  has access to the jab also. That is their individual right as much as those who don't want it.

Don't blindly follow what someone else quibbles of Mallone, it is his over all, rational and individualist, STRATEGY that counts above all, as well as scientific concerns it integrates with.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2021 at 10:49 PM, Doug Morris said:

 Does he address my key point that unnecessarily increasing the risk of spread of disease is initiation of physical force?

 

DM: Can we get this straight? (Non-) initiation of force is the concrete effect of the Objectivist principle, individual rights.

Individual rights are the positive right to one's freedom of action. Knowing this, a rational person understands everybody else has the right to his/her chosen acts (and convictions or beliefs).

If there is an infectious disease around, and 'someone' might well be carrying it or left the virus on a surface, he/she may well choose to take rightful actions to avoid the infection through self-protection.

He does NOT presume others must stop acting and living for his sake.

You have forgotten the positive and over-ruling principle to focus on the negative act, "initiation of physical force", and come up with your repetitive mantra.

One always has the right to take (avoiding) action, one doesn't have the right to expect or demand an anonymous 'other' to protect one. (Away from one's property).

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple reply to the enraged anti-"anti vaxxers".

(What's - really - their beef? They are safely jabbed, supposedly. It is becoming clearer it's not harm and deaths they largely worry about, that excuse is the cover for not having moral control over everyone )

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-who-is-at-risk/art-20483301

The underlying risks of Covid fatality have long been established. Here is one primary pre-condition. Populations with more elderly are most at risk, among several other factors.

Older age

 

People of any age, even children, can catch COVID-19. But it most commonly affects middle-aged and older adults. The risk of developing dangerous symptoms increases with age, with those who are age 85 and older at the highest risk of serious symptoms. In the U.S., about 80% of deaths from the disease have been in people age 65 and older. Risks are even higher for older people when they have other health conditions.

Unnecessarily increasing the risk of spread of disease is an initiation of physical force.  This remains true even if some people are more endangered than others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

DM: Can we get this straight? (Non-) initiation of force is the concrete effect of the Objectivist principle, individual rights.

Individual rights are the positive right to one's freedom of action. Knowing this, a rational person understands everybody else has the right to his/her chosen acts (and convictions or beliefs).

If there is an infectious disease around, and 'someone' might well be carrying it or left the virus on a surface, he/she may well choose to take rightful actions to avoid the infection through self-protection.

He does NOT presume others must stop acting and living for his sake.

You have forgotten the positive and over-ruling principle to focus on the negative act, "initiation of physical force", and come up with your repetitive mantra.

One always has the right to take (avoiding) action, one doesn't have the right to expect or demand an anonymous 'other' to protect one. (Away from one's property).

There are preventive actions people should be required to take.  It is easy to come up with examples involving guns, cars, swimming pools, and animals.  This includes requiring rabies vaccination.  It also includes limiting one's animals' freedom of movement, even if one is not sure to what extent the animals are capable of aggression against people, animals, or property. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Don't blindly follow what someone else quibbles of Mallone, it is his over all, rational and individualist, STRATEGY that counts above all, as well as scientific concerns it integrates with.

They aren't just quibbles, they are very basic factors of understanding. You can't say he is integrated when he immediately and early on makes a bad comparison as if it is common sense. If you really want to get into it, although he has a Masters, he didn't complete his PhD, he feels intellectually victimized by the pharmaceutical company he worked for being partly at fault that he didn't get his PhD. There are a number of reasons that you might not trust him. I'm not saying this for you, but for anyone curious about Malone.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

What's - really - their beef? They are safely jabbed, supposedly. It is becoming clearer it's not harm and deaths they largely worry about, that excuse is the cover for not having moral control over everyone

Stop conflating decimating the stupidity of anti-vaxxers and forcing people to get the vaccine. Seriously, it's an embarrassment to the pro-liberty argument. I do think Doug is wrong on his ultimate argument, but stupidity never helped anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Simple reply to the enraged anti-"anti vaxxers".

Ayn Rand assumes that the unvaccinated pose no threat to anyone else.  This is not true.

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

It is becoming clearer it's not harm and deaths they largely worry about

That's probably true of some people, but this does not mean we should swing to the opposite extreme.

There's still enough harm and death that it is natural and reasonable for people to react strongly to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Atlantic article basically admits he did 'invent' the/a technique to introduce rna into cells ( the basics of the mRNA vaccine platform) and then criticizes him for allegedly not acknowledging others' contributions to the field. So he shouldn't bitch that few give him credit and only when pressed ? It's pure ad hominem and brought to you be the people who are actively discreditting him Facebook and a major commercial medical enterprise. Not an objective source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Requiring people to mask and/or vaccinate does NOT require them to stop acting and living.

 

 

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Do you think if you say why, whYNOT might feel less need to make his posts?

If you succeed in convincing me, I will say so, and whYNOT will almost certainly feel less need to make his posts.

When you went from "initiation of physical force" (misunderstood) by not masking and not vaccinating - to "murder" by Covid, you were obviously through with "requiring" them to do so. You are ordering them, by force of gvt. 

I have a strong need to ensure individual freedoms, to which an Objectivist would agree; what's your need by belaboring over and over that single point, IOF? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Stop conflating decimating the stupidity of anti-vaxxers and forcing people to get the vaccine. Seriously, it's an embarrassment to the pro-liberty argument. I do think Doug is wrong on his ultimate argument, but stupidity never helped anything.

I am not conflating anything, my stance has always been pro-individual choice.

Repeat, you are not pro-liberty if you believe that liberty is only for the smart and rational by your 'revealed knowledge' (mind reading). Or, only for one's own specially informed group, and not that of the others - and the many scientists - who contest the "settled science".

There are good reasons not to vaccinate, one being that natural immunity, by prior infection, has been apparently proven to be more durable. Seven times by the Israel study, 20 times more, if one goes by Malone. You don't have the expertise to argue either way, and nor do I. 

And if someone's health threat from catching Covid is extremely low to zero, on a personal risk-benefit scale - for whom and for what is one getting vaccinated, in the first place? No particular reason? That's borderline irrational.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

If Malone makes a specious comparison of vaccines to antibiotics, this will throw his risk-benefit calculations off.

Lowest hanging fruit? Rather dig into the research for yourself. I can go on forever putting up more of the dissenting views from different countries. Take an example, treatment by Ivermectin which was mocked up to a month ago, is now getting serious reappraisal (and officially used in Japan and India).

Another source, not Malone, who take the unified view, in the UK:

https://www.totalhealth.co.uk/blog/blunders-pandemic-proportions

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Repeat, you are not pro-liberty if you believe that liberty is only for the smart and rational by your 'revealed knowledge' (mind reading).

This is an example of conflation. No one has said this, or implied this. Rather, you seem to think that calling people irrational for not getting the vaccine means that they don't deserve liberty. So you think someone implied this. 

39 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

There are good reasons not to vaccinate, one being that natural immunity, by prior infection, has been proven to be more durable.

That's not a reason not to vaccinate. This is an argument with sophistry, because you are relying on the incorrect assumption that when comparing 2 things, if one thing has more of a quality, then adding the thing with less of a quality decreases the amount of the quality of the thing with more. 

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

It's pure ad hominem and brought to you be the people who are actively discreditting him Facebook and a major commercial medical enterprise. Not an objective source.

They are reasons not to immediately trust him. To say he is a reliable source means we should criticize his credentials where necessary so we know what degree to trust them. This goes for every source you look at. He invented a technique, that's fine, but it doesn't say much of what matters here.

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Do you think if you say why, whYNOT might feel less need to make his posts?

Well, I do think that having an illness sometimes can qualify as potentially causing aggression. Depending on the illness, we could say that not wearing a mask or not being vaccinated is of such risk that someone necessarily will be harmed. This would be like how you can't randomly shoot bullets in your neighborhood. But I don't think covid is of a comparable level of danger to things like polio. 

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

This is an example of conflation. No one has said this, or implied this. Rather, you seem to think that calling people irrational for not getting the vaccine means that they don't deserve liberty. So you think someone implied this. 

That's not a reason not to vaccinate. This is an argument with sophistry, because you are relying on the incorrect assumption that when comparing 2 things, if one thing has more of a quality, and adding the thing with less of a quality decreases the amount of the quality of the thing with more. 

They are reasons not to immediately trust him. To say he is a reliable source means we should criticize his credentials where necessary so we know what degree to trust them. This goes for every source you look at. He invented a technique, that's fine, but it doesn't say much of what matters here.

Well, I do think that having an illness sometimes can qualify as potentially causing aggression. Depending on the illness, we could say that not wearing a mask or not being vaccinated is of such risk that someone necessarily will be harmed. This would be like how you can't randomly shoot bullets in your neighborhood. But I don't think covid is of a comparable level of danger to things like polio. 

 

No one has said or implied this? Really? What has Doug Morris implied and stated many times? Initiation of physical force.

I have said that the ¬rights¬ must be respected (which they are not, in the larger community and some countries) even if the ¬choice¬ made by many is not respected or respectable. That's all. A critical distinction.

Polio inoculation, btw, was an essential preventive measure made by parents - only - on behalf of their child. For whom polio was dangerous. It was never meant 'to stop the spread', the rationalization for having kids who don't need it get vaccinated for Covid.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

There are preventive actions people should be required to take.  It is easy to come up with examples involving guns, cars, swimming pools, and animals.  This includes requiring rabies vaccination.  It also includes limiting one's animals' freedom of movement, even if one is not sure to what extent the animals are capable of aggression against people, animals, or property. 

The requirements you mention are based on responsibility of ownership. Someone who does not own a car or have swimming pool etc. doesn't have those responsibilities/requirements.

In a social context, we have a requirement not to harm another (I suppose physically but for now it has to remain vague).

The idea of increasing risk, unnecessarily, is harming people.

In principle, that does have merit.

But in the case of vaccination, do I or you have the right to invade someone's body and vaccinate them for the good of the group?

The fundamental right is to be unmolested, to keep people away and to be supported in that by "the system".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Polio, btw, was an essential preventive measure made by parents - only - on behalf of their child. It was never meant to stop the spread, the rationalization for having kids vaccinated now.

One of Malone's major points is that the mass application of a novel vaccine should be treated more judiciously and that it is worrisome that the medical/scientific community seems to be blanking out(in the o'ist sense) on the fact that this roll out is unprecedented as far as historic norms and not allowing any criticisms to that fact get much 'airtime'.

The first roll outs of the polio vax were disastrous, technicalities with the preparations lead to infections caused by the vaccines. 

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...