Are people who wear seatbelts "terrified" of crashing their cars and people who don't just all relaxed and cool. You can take precautions because it's the rational thing to do without feeling much about it one way or the other and you can refuse to take precautions simply because you're ignorant. You realize that, right? — Baden

I didn't actually generalize the terrified comment to all who are concerned about the virus, but only stated it applied to the guy in my office.

But regardless, I'll accuse you now of what I just accused NOS of, which is a misreading of behavior based upon a preconceived notion. I said to him that those doing as their leaders say are not mindless sheep, but they truly believe in the extreme danger of the virus (emphasis on "extreme"). Because it's extreme, the precautions taken are reasonable.

Your analogy of these precautions to wearing a seatbelt is to minimize what many believe are extreme measures to thwart a not as serious threat. That is, when NOS says you're crazy to worry about this like you are, you're responding in kind to say I'm crazy not to just do a few reasonable things to reduce the threat.

You think this threat is greater than I do, and I think the restrictions are more significant than you do.

There was also a very authoritarian/anti-authoritarian dichotomy. The ease with which so many people in nearly every country accepted authoritarianism surprised me. It is now the prevailing orthodoxy. — NOS4A2

But to say this already assumes a more lackadaisical attitude towards the virus. If this were the black plague killing everyone in its path, then I think even the most staunchly anti-authoritarian people would balk and would adhere to whatever demands were placed upon them and they'd be just as vocal in their criticism against others who weren't doing their share to limit the disease.

The point being, you don't think this virus is all that dangerous, so you therefore don't think it deserving of a response as if it were the black plague. I truly don't think those who are taking this virus so seriously are just mindless sheep, willing to cede all authority to their leaders, but they think this virus is much more akin to the plague than you do. And, from what I'm discerning from listening, they are at a complete loss how you (and I) can callously just let people die (as if that's what we're advocating).

There's a guy in my office who wears a mask every day, he wipes down everything in his path with Lysol wipes, he closes his office door, and he walks the other way when you approach him in the hall. It's taken some real convincing some here that he's not being passive aggressive and just trying to look holier than thou, but that he's really terrified of the virus.

When I asked about the psychological differences between those like him and those like me, I really was curious. I don't think it comes down to authority versus non-authority types, but perhaps a "don't worry, be happy" attitude, which might just be how some deal with chaos and the unknown.

Because the elderly don't shop where you do and everybody is aware of any comorbidities they might have? I get it, statistically you personally pose a very insignifant risk. But how many people need to think like you that those insignificant risks taken together become significant? — Benkei

I maintain social distancing in public, and I abide by all the rules, but certainly not above and beyond and maybe I ignore the spirit of them. I fully expect to get through this thing having been infected exactly 0 times and having infected exactly 0 people. So, if we all did what I did (using your Kantian ethical standard), we'd all infect nobody. If I do find myself infected, I'm not sure it will be due to some great recklessness on my part, but probably just due to being sneezed on by some guy as we both make our way for that last lonely roll of toilet paper on the grocery store shelf.

From a utilitarian point of view, if everyone thought like me, the world would be a utopia for reasons too many to count.

Why? Have you bought a magic potion? Bojo nearly died and he was a could-care-less conservative too. Probably infected his wife too. What makes you special? Lack of friends? — Baden

No, statistical evidence is abundantly clear that the primary threats are to the elderly and those with compromised immune systems. I'm not around those folks. I understand anyone can have an extreme adverse reaction, but if the elderly and the immune system compromised were not at any higher risk than all others, this pandemic would not have resulted in a shut down.

I think we allow people to think wearing the mask will keep you from getting it, it's really more that the mask protects others from you.

If everybody knew that, fewer people would wear them. — frank

It works both ways I'd think. The only way you can get it publicly is through your mucus membranes (mouth, nose, and eyes). If you cover those, you can't get it.

You make an interesting point though, and I'm not sure it's true, but it goes to my post above. Do you think the worry people have is primarily for their own safety? If that is true, then you're saying we're all selfish and that those unconcerned just don't accept the virus will have a significant impact on them or feel they can endure it.

I'd like to see a psychological profile study of those who take this coronavirus threat very seriously versus those who don't. It's actually pretty fascinating to me. I can say that I personally don't take it nearly as seriously as many, yet I'm fully convinced I'm right about my response. If I lived with someone who was elderly or had a weakened immune system, I'd be hypervigilant, but, as it stands, I pose little risk to myself or those I'm around.

There does seem to be a correlation between political ideology and concern, with the right caring far less than the left. I don't believe that comes from leadership, but I think it comes from worldview.

I have these weird conversations with people about the coronavirus where we both feel each other out as to where we each fall on this issue before we start speaking freely.

I saw this lady driving her car wearing a mask and texting. I think the danger of texting and driving exceeded the danger of my sneeze making it from the confines of my car to hers.

If that were C, the virus would be dead. So would you. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'd be fine, but I'll concede most would find it intolerable.

Thats a really attractive slogan. What of the protection of minorities? What you have there is the tyranny of the majority, the dictatorship of the proletariat, or rampant populism.

I'll give you another slogan. The form and makeup of a government is less important than its moral stature. A good king would be better than a corrupt and venal populism, which loves to persecute minorities as scapegoats. — unenlightened

I think you start with the belief that all government is corrupt and dishonest and you institute rules that check its power. You water down everyone's power, make every attempt to use power checked by someone else's power, institute fundamental rules that cannot be changed and so on. And then when the government attempts to bring about major social change, you accept that it's extremely difficult due to all those checks on power and the distrust you've acknowledged from the outset.

seems to me that a Utilitarian approach to the pandemic would be to literally do nothing. If approximately 5% of the population (a high estimate) eventually succumb to COVID-19, 95% of us would be better off just going about business as usual. The greater good for the greater number of people would clearly be served by simply letting the most susceptible die. — Donovan

Why is it obvious to you that there'd be less happiness with 5% dead and 95% employment as opposed to 1% dead and 50% employment. Sounds like a value question.

Was the restaurant like normal or were they spacing out tables, wearing masks, or whatever? — praxis

Only every other table was used. The staff wore masks. It was pretty much empty other than my table and maybe a couple more people.

The gym class spaced everyone out and the instructors wore masks. It was pretty empty too.

So, there are precautions and most aren't getting out yet. I'm guessing it'll slowly get back to normal.

If warm weather matters, it's definitely getting hotter every day here. It's been in the 70s and maybe hit the 80s. That's F, not C.

Today I ate at a restaraunt and went to the gym. There are still social distancing rules in effect.

Georgia's numbers are showing a steady decline in new infections and deaths. https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report.

Gov. Kemp might've been right in opening the state back up.

I am not sure having a cause and coming from nothing are the same things. — Coben

If we take as a given that event X arose without a cause, then it would necessarily follow that event X arose from nothing, right?

SO there are uncaused events. Cool. I agree. — Banno

The second is an issue of logic. "Every event has a cause" is an all-and-some proposition and hence can neither be proved, nor disproved. — Banno

Has your view changed over the course of this thread? You seemed to go from a true disbeliever in causation to an agnostic.

Nah. It connotes a guy sitting on a cloud in charge of stuff. "God help us!", "God knows!", "Pray to God that doesn't happen", "God loves his children", "God said to Abraham..."... This ineffable mystery crap is just tacked on post hoc when we look at the top of the cloud and find it glaringly unoccupied. — Isaac

This is a straw man. @frank specially presented a definition of God that he was working under, but you changed it so that you could offer this criticism.

You lost me. Not following how what you said relates to the bit you quoted. — Banno

Sure. You claimed that those who demanded every event have a cause were holding such antiquated views because their religion required it, despite current scientific views holding otherwise.

My point was that most mainstream Western religions hold that every event does NOT have a cause as a central tenant of their theological system. The concept of ex nihlio holds that creation came from nothing.

I used to have a hat like that... — Banno

Speaking of cool hats, this is my family photo from last Thanksgiving. I'm the one on the right:

It's okay to not be an asshole. Try it sometime — neonspectraltoast

Fair.

She was old, and you're a goddamned fool. — neonspectraltoast

You told me your cat stared off oddly and then its legs began running in place. You laughed, and it died at your feet.

My stroke/sociopath theory is a good one. Could be wrong, but it's a solid working theory, notwithstanding the fact that you cat may have been old or that I might be a goddamned fool. Those diagnoses are not mutually exclusive. We might all be right here.

How can I feel tranquil about losing all value in existing, in losing consciousness itself and forever? — I-wonder

You don't need to wait until you die for things to suck. It sounds like you're young enough to have in store the death of some close relatives and friends, some job losses, and some heart breaks, You'll have a flat tire in the rain, you'll drop your phone in a puddle, and you'll fall a really big test. You'll fight hard and lose. You'll lose your faith. You'll sit and wait for something and it won't happen.

And there will be the opposite. You'll hold someone's hand and they'll squeeze it harder, you'll look into your child's perfect eyes, you'll cross the finish line first, you'll see the sunrise, and you'll feel like you're at home.

And, yes, you'll surely die even if you don't do anything else I've predicted.

I can only tell you that every moment matters. Life isn't a meandering meaningless journey culminating in death, but an infinite series of final destinations, each impregnated with divine infinite meaning for you to decipher. Don't waste this sacred moment with fret, but if you must, take comfort in the fact that fretting is what must now be called for.

But as to how you stay young as you get old, I quote the Nobel laureate, another Dylan:

The night my cat died, she came to me. There were no indications that she was going to die. But she just sat at the foot of my bed and stared at me. I had no idea I truly meant anything to her, and I just laughed and thought it was absurd, the way she was staring at me.

In her sleep she began running, and I laughed again. Silly cat. In the morning she was lifeless, still in the pose as if she was running. — neonspectraltoast

Sounds like she had a seizure and you're a sociopath.

kickboxing with a mask on? This virus can be transmitted "airborne", so by little water droplets that float on air currents.

Can't you kickbox at home until they have a vaccine? — frank

You don't have to wear a mask as far as I know. They are separating the bags by a greater distance is what I'm told. I'd also guess attendance will be down. I'm not suggesting this is totally safe, just that they've created some rules to somewhat reduce the risk of spread.

You can kickbox at home whenever you want at home. Sometimes I kick my son as he rounds the corner, so I know it can be done.

I'd also like to add that the final decision was fully withheld until he was given a chance to explain, apologize, or say whatever he needed to say, and his response was pretty inadequate. A real apology (to us, to whom the comment was directed, and to anyone who might have read his post) would have gone a long way, or would have at least made the decision more difficult.

When you decide to attack someone's race or sexual preference, you make it really difficult on the moderators to be lenient, regardless of who you are. We all want to be understanding and forgiving, but it's really not our place to forgive someone for insulting someone else, and no one should feel like they're not proactively being protected against truly offensive comments. I guess the takeaway here is obviously not to make those comments in the first place, but if you do, sincerely apologize to all you may have offended, and, even then, don't be terribly surprised if your behavior still results in a ban.

My gym just reopened, so kickboxing begins again today. They are going to spread out the bags to provide more distance between people. The jujitsu classes are going to resume as well, although they will be without physical contact for a while.

Getting back to work. We'll see what happens.

I'm also hearing that testing for the antibodies is starting to pick up. We'll get a better feel for how widespread this whole thing has been. Many have convinced themselves that they were infected a long time ago after remembering back to the various illnesses they have had since early last year. Doubtful, but maybe.

My prediction has been that everything will be back up and running by June 1, and we're well on our way for that, damn the torpedoes.

Who doesn't?

To me your MAGA hat is the height of the profane.

To you your MAGA hat has the sacred luminance of the king — ZzzoneiroCosm

There's nothing sacred about the MAGA hat I don't own.

Couldn't understand a lick of what the Aussie was trying to say. Needed subtitles.

It reminded me of this song. Don't know why, but it's not the sort of song that would make you want to work hard, so maybe it ought be posted here.

The notion of a bullshit product is highly subjective. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I vividly distinguish the sacred from the profane.

It's not about products. Looks to me as if you have missed the point of the OP article entirely. — Banno

Not really. You're referenced inefficiencies that could result in fewer jobs if eliminated. The corporate America I worked for measured every move until we all became efficient mindless robots devoid of personal authority because that would de-systemetize the machine. The bullshit was that people were treated as cogs. It was dehumanizing and tragic if one ponders these are people who are dedicating their lives to this.

Finding and eliminating inefficiencies is corporate speak for creating a dystopia. It won't result in shorter days, just more tasks during the day monitoring efficiencies and chasing away inefficiencies. The reason for squeezing the most from the worker is because people want more bullshit products and there's no way to predictably get people to do what you need them to than by endless forms, datasets, and numeric monitoring.

Want shorter workdays? Give workers more autonomy, get more variation in product quality, and have less bullshit products. When you make 10 widgets a day in your garage, there's no bullshit. When you have to make 10,000, the efficiency experts come in and destroy the place, but 10,000 do get cranked out.

Virtual particles do not appear from nothing. They are a result of energy converted into mass. So, we can't find 'nothing' there either. — emancipate

I've never thought of quamtum indeterminacy as evidence of spontaneous creation. It's an epistemological claim of what we can determine or know, as opposed to a metaphysical claim that particles just spontaneously come from nothing.

QUESTION: Are bullshit jobs inevitable? If so, why? If they are not inevitable, why do they exist? — Bitter Crank

Because people want bullshit products, so bullshit workers make sure that bullshit gets on the bullshit shelves.

If it were up to me, all that bullshit would disappear because I don't buy bullshit.

Worse than a bullshit job is no job. Worse than no job is no shoes. Worse than no shoes is no feet. Having no feet is just about the worst.

In summary:

But...an orgy is different from a beating. One is clearly reward-like and the other is clearly a punishment. In the joke, the same thing, companionship, is both a punishment AND a reward. — TheMadFool

The heaven and hell in both examples and in all examples will be the subjective interpretation of the person experiencing the event. Theoretically, the orgy could be someone's punishment and the beating someone's pleasure.

My question is: can hell and heaven be the same place? — TheMadFool

What difference does location make when determining if you're receiving eternal pleasure or pain? If you're having an orgy in your bed on Monday and being beaten mercilessly in that same bed on Tuesday, your heaven and hell, so to speak, occurred in the same place.

But the notion that everything has a cause was used to defend religious dogma, and hence has a strong adherence amongst the faithful; and adherence that will not be shaken by mere truth. — Banno

This statement is completely wrong. The ex nihlio theories are central to Judaism and most forms of Christianity (Mormonism excepted). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo . I don't know enough about Islam, but I'd expect the same. That is, quantum indeterminacy didn't rock the religious world. It rocked the scientific one, to the extent it challenged the long standing belief that, given sufficient data, we could predict all future events. Quantum indeterminacy has also been used to try to explain free will (a necessary religiuos concept) by some.

Pointing to the complexity and unpredictability of the universe is not a way to disprove religion. The way you disprove religion is to point out It was never proven in the first place. Such is the difference between faith and the scientific method.

Edit: I'm impressed you almost know what a prepositional phrase is except it's not but an object complement made up of a non-finite clause in which is embedded a prepositional phrase. — Baden

This kind of talk makes me so wet. Said nobody ever.

That's a funnier comment so I added it.

Edit: I'm impressed you almost know what a prepositional phrase is except it's not but an object complement made up of a non-finite clause in which is embedded a prepositional phrase. — Baden

Thank me for giving you an opportunity to use your otherwise useless knowledge.

Indeed so. Annoying, but i completely agree with this. — unenlightened

Hah! Nudnik wins again.

I trust people to be good
— Hanover

Habitual – General – Agent – Positive — Baden

This might be specific and not general. All other examples of specific cases had prepositional phrases except this one. Unless you assert "to be good" is a redundancy subsumed by the word "trust," it's a specific case. That is if "I trust people" is the same as saying "I trust people to be good, " only then is this the general case.

I say not because "I trust people to be bad" proves goodness is not inherent in trust, meaning the prepositional phrase is not superfluous.

In fact, I'd go as far to say that there is an equivocation error throughout because the word "trust" changes meaning when the prepositional phrase is added. I trust you to be here at 9 am means I expect you'll be here at 9 am. It has nothing to do with an assessment of your veracity, but just my expectation. But, if I say "I trust you," that's an assertion of my belief in your honesty..

Consider substituting "expect" for "trust" in those examples with the prepositional phrase. That cannot be done in those without because it has a different meaning. E.g. "I expect you to be nice" versus the meaningless "I expect you."

1) My analysis involved a mini-taxonomy of trusts. I recognize the differences in type you both pointed out. There's no equivocation seeing as I was pointing to differences not trying to obscure them. — Baden

This all feels like pragmatics. Sure, it's better to be able to trust, just so I can know what to expect. I trust the Klansman to be a racist, and in a perverse way prefer him over the person pretending not to be racist, but who is. I trust my parking brake to fail because the cable is broken, so I park my car against the curb.

What I want though really are people who aren't racist and a car that won't roll down a hill. I want to be able to say I trust people to be good, for cars to be good, for everything to be good. The breakdown in society comes not from the symptom that dishonesty has led to unreliability and unpredictability, but from the fact that people are immoral.

Maybe we're saying the same thing here because I do note that in every one of your examples you reference something that had a positive result flowing from the trust, so you seem to see trust as a good thing when honorable, which is just another way of saying we need more morality in the world. I can drink to that, and I'd add that in addition to there being a need for more of thou shalt not lie, we need more of thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not murder as well. And I'd say we need all of those things even if the world were a worse and less reliable place because of it.

I'm also not convinced that the dishonesty we experience today is a sign of our times. I think it's a sign of our species.