• Did Socrates really “know nothing”?
    ↪TheMadFool
    Testing the limits of extrapolation for the sake of public interest. The boat has indeed run ashore.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    I say you could have replaced "false" (in false arguments) by "true" (so it become true arguments). — Prishon
    Don't think I used that word anywhere.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    Then why did you bring it up? You could have "false" replaced by "right". — Prishon
    I don't speak bafflement. Nothing I've said approaches complicated.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    Ah yes! I see what you mean. Must have mixed two sentences up. What I meant is why should the argument not to vaxx be false? What if its right? — Prishon
    Do I have to state this isn't a conversation between doctors? — Cheshire
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    Are you addressing me? — Prishon
    Yes, but in my native language. How would you phrase this in English.
    Why others should the argument be false? — Prishon
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    Why others should the argument be false? — Prishon
    Exactly
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    Why? Do they work? — James Riley
    :up:
  • Did Socrates really “know nothing”?
    True, we need to get it right but if that's a tall order, say something interesting. It's not always about finding the truth, it's also about making life exciting and colorful. If all goes well, the best-case-scenario is interesting truths but hey we can't have it all, can we?
    an hour ago     — TheMadFool
    It's interesting because it's contrary to a JTB approach to knowledge. The same person saying it's best to avoid being wrong by not defending or owning a position is also defining knowledge as something absolute or rather something defensible with justification and belief. While casually over looking neither have a bearing on the T requirement. Justify and believe all you like but T isn't implied. Yet, credence is given for never assuming T, compared to not assuming it. The man defines knowledge as something unattainable, promotes claims of ignorance and 2000+ years of intuitional learning is spent on attaining absolute truth. How is that type of Irony able to exist in a world without a God?

    It simply can't. Interesting?
  • Did Socrates really “know nothing”?
    Why then is it that, to my reckoning, to misunderstand is worse than to not understand? Socrates: To know that I don't know is better than to think you know when you actually don't know. :chin: — TheMadFool
    It's a little more than misunderstand I believe. I suppose knowing wrongly in the classical sense implies something to over come prior or during getting it right. There's no knee jerk reaction to guarding or defending ignorance of something. But, a well entrenched mistake can have a lifetime warranty.
  • Is Logic a matter of Intelligence??
    Just read the OP. Is the whole thing a creepy racist dog whistle? It's doing the weird 'I write like the bible' random capital letters thing.
  • Did Socrates really “know nothing”?
    It's seems like a comparison of two perspectives in order to make a point. Thinking you know something and being wrong about it is two mistakes. Socrates at worst just didn't know anything. It's meant to show the value of a classic skeptical position relative to over confidence or unawareness of ignorance. It is illustrative and obviously not a personal inventory of Socrates knowledge. Has this really been confusing people?
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    ↪Isaac
    All this weight on FDA approval seems to have vanished around the time I said it would. Glad to see your arguments aren't getting increasingly bizarre based on numbers you're snatching out of the sky. Good stuff, compelling.

    Making people feel like idiot scum for not being vaccinated when you're happily approaching your 70% target already doesn't help (using up 85%of your vaccine stock in doing so). — Isaac
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    Whats a harmful argument in this context? — Prishon
    It would take the form of "I'm not getting a vaccine and other's shouldn't as well because of X"

    Do I have to state this isn't a conversation between doctors?
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    ↪Prishon
    ↪Prishon Distribution of a potentially harmful argument that others mistake for medical advice. — Cheshire
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    What's the difference between having a well founded and most rational argument for non-vaxxin and just not wanting it? — Prishon
    Do you mean the non-vaxxers who hold arguments? — Prishon
    ↪Prishon Distribution of a potentially harmful argument that others mistake for medical advice. — Cheshire
    Yes, in order to distribute an argument it would have to exist first. It's the difference between stating a preference and reason. Simply, stating one's preference doesn't imply others should believe they have a reason to be compelled to share it. The "reason" element would be derived from an argument. I feel like I'm over explaining; was that rhetorical?
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    ↪Prishon
    Distribution of a potentially harmful argument that others mistake for medical advice.
  • The Thing Outside of Itself
    Technically, only events which do occur were ever possible. It's easy to say something "could happen" -- just as easy as it is to lie, I suppose. — theRiddler
    Technically, only events which are possible ever occur.
  • The Thing Outside of Itself
    That by definition of something's being "possible" it must exist, or otherwise it's impossible. — theRiddler
    Actually, that's not really the definition of possible. It has to be an outcome that could occur. Before you flip a coin, it's possible heads or tails could happen. But, one of them won't. Hence, one is a possible outcome that will never occur in the context of the single event.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    It kind of boils down to a question of bad advice given honestly can be reckless if it results in harm. The anti-vaxxers in MI are getting sick off of livestock deworming meds. It's like the mind knows some precaution is probably worthwhile(read medical intervention) but can't reconcile that it might be a vaccine cause that requires an identity shift they can't handle. Doubting something and telling some one something are different activities. But, this rhetoric of posing the question; implies an answer is being misunderstood as if it's a positive statement.
  • The Thing Outside of Itself
    Just wondering if there's a thing beside itself or under or above or behind itself. I suppose they all may be things outside itself, now that I think of it. Is there a thing itself, one that's neither inside nor outside itself, but merely a thing? In that case, there would be a thing inside itself, a thing, and a thing outside itself. I think there must be, because it otherwise makes no sense to use the word "itself" and maintain that for a thing there is an inside and outside. Three different things? Or three things different, but nonetheless a single thing, like the Trinity? — Ciceronianus

    Well, everybody is pretty sure there's a thing. That much seems familiar, but where it is relative to not your perception of it seems to keep expanding without a noticeable constraint other than the number of words for directions. Next thread, The least most south westernly thing near itself...to be continued.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    240634385_10222093934036315_1001121353537900463_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=C7gFB8icgb8AX8qP7y4&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=f7c887515952a67b41306369215a1b79&oe=6128B39C
  • The Thing Outside of Itself
    But I really am not making the connection here of what you're telling me. I get that there's a breakdown of logic, but to me that's just the fundamental viewpoint of the observer, and we are not creatures dictated by pure rational thought on the subtlest level of simple being awareness. — theRiddler

    But I really am not making the connection here of what you're telling me. — theRiddler
    I'm demonstrating complicated nonsense is still nonsense. Philosophy seems to have cracks that let people imagine possible things that will never occur and even reason about them. It's my failure to articulate which is to blame for anyone's misunderstanding of this matter.
  • The Thing Outside of Itself
    ....an extension of a probable error, which would necessarily implicate itself as a probable error. — Mww

    I agree.
  • The Thing Outside of Itself
    ↪theRiddler
    Yep. You solved the puzzle. The thing outside of itself is you. Implied by the definition put forward in the OP as the view of yourself from the thing in itself. It simply terminates to how you think you look; implying the thing in itself doesn't add or subtract from ones perception because it doesn't exist by logical definition. A perception that isn't one falls into the set of things that do not contain themselves. It represents Russell's imaginary break down of logic.

    Like, the set of possible things that will never occur. I can imagine there is something there, but I could never justify ascribing it to anything.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    ↪baker
    I was baiting Tim. But since the topic changed. No anti-vaccination is an irresponsible position. Fine if you don't participate, but don't drag others down with you that are unaccounted for do to the nature of the issue.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    You do realize your entire reply is a non-sequitur, yes? — tim wood
    Yes, from your point of view I'm acknowledging the severity of the problem and suggesting people continue to make it worse through doubtful conversation. It must appear to be quite absurd.
    Fools do not possess free will. They are the subjects of their foolishness. Discussion of their "freedom" is immediate absurdity. — tim wood
    Yes, this is a bit of a red herring. People certainly have free will and invalidating it is problematic to making a convincing argument. In regards to the immediate context, to the counter position I'm suggesting you don't share. Which is ok. If we all agreed there would be nothing left to fix on Tuesday.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    I feel it's a vaccine for something that's going to mutate, and that we should be developing a natural immunity to. I think it's creating a virus that will be larger than the one we have now. — theRiddler
    It's a vaccine for something that did mutate. Developing a natural immunity is a lean in strategy toward a pandemic. I have read the articles that claim getting covid is better protection from covid. Well, it's not if you have to get it first. But, I've seen the way it's been framed to look compelling. Like, the best protection against death is being dead; but lets explore some alternative options at least. Your right though; noodling with nature has led to unintended outcomes. I can imagine any number of things. It's whether being able to suppose it is reason enough to assume it is a "best fit" strategy.
    Scary, though, I guess... People haven't been dropping left and right, though. There aren't wheelbarrows full of corpses on the street, exactly. — theRiddler
    Right, that's true. I mean a lot of people are dead; it's the nature of a virus that spreads quickly but doesn't burn itself out by killing all it's host. A more deadly virus would be devastating but arguably shorter lived. No doubt things could be much worse in a black plague collapse of society sort of way; but that's the point where "what should we do" starts showing up in the rear view. It is a valid observation regardless.
    And I just do feel like we're obeying the Karens on this one. You gotta deal with death in the world, you just do, it's a fact of life, sorry. They can't accept that, and the world's gonna end up suffering untold for it. For their false sense of security. — theRiddler
    Yeah, people unloading their frustrations doesn't make for an interesting discussion. I don't want to be defending myself for having my own ideas. But, again the lean in strategy has a bit of a point of no return that still appears a little reckless when there are options on the table. It is the simplest and requires least amount of participation, so in that respect; it's the easiest to execute.

    Hope I was fair. Been a long day.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    Any argument against? — tim wood
    Yes, several. But, primarily the theme of being off putting and condescending(though warrented) doesn't seem to be improving the situation. What part of, I'm just as frustrated but looking for solutions is not computing.
    Why? It's already happened in Alabama if I recall correctly. No doubt children in unmasked schools are getting sick. If some have not already died, they will soon. — tim wood
    Because that is an extreme level of suffering and pretending to it disrespects those who endure it. And the people I hope to sway are loaded up with emotional arguments that keep them too unstable to identify logic from emotional ranting.
    No? Why not? Are not people told, for example, to evacuate their homes on the chance of fire or flood or storm? — tim wood
    Because of Cogito, ergo sum. I prefer not to start from a position that denies the only known undoubtable truth.
    This is not about thought control. It is about advising sensible people about what on the one hand they ought to do, and on another, what they must do. — tim wood
    Right, well unfortunately sensible people demand you present yourself with creditability. Which often involves a degree of indifference as to whether they believe you.
    Vaccines and masks have a proven track record. There is no excuse whatsoever for not using them appropriately. for oneself, for one's family, for one's community. — tim wood
    Right, it's obvious, so why does it need to be said forcefully? Will it make it more true or compelling or will it just confuse the beast with emotional signals?
    Any argument against? — tim wood
    We are at the mercy of the free will of fools. Act accordingly.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    ↪Cheshire Pretend you're a parent of a small school-aged child in Florida or Texas. You have to send your child to school. The governors of those two states are doing their best to ban mask mandates in schools. Your child goes to school, gets sick and dies, because of the governor's ban. Your child dead. What do you do? — tim wood
    It seems rude to pretend to that level of suffering for the sake of argument. I could literally be talking to myself right now in regards to where I stand and how much consideration of an oppositional vaccine position is worth discussing. But, we don't have the authority to tell people what they can not doubt while knowing the truth of the matter. Otherwise the conversation begins with a power imbalance based on imposing a lie. I can doubt anything man can produce and that's common ground.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    ↪Bitter Crank ↪Cheshire Over ten percent of the US population have had Covid, About 630,000 deaths in the US and counting. Just under 4.5 million deaths and counting worldwide, and worldwide totals are likely underreported. This in about 18 months.

    People opposed to masks and vaccines are simply crazy people, their craziness dangerous, as is often the case with crazy people.     — tim wood

    Yes, I thought a break from emoting hysteria might be interesting. It's totally justified, but doesn't seem to be getting the job done.

    If only we had panicked more....said no one.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    They eat Earth, along with the rest of us. — James Riley
    I agree, but I don't assume I'll ever achieve any actual level of opposition. I might maintain the price floor but producers will always sell to the highest bidder. If goods were suddenly priced on a proportional system relative wealth and they found themselves bidding directly against us then maybe they would have a reason.

    I am acknowledging every ecosystem has a limited carrying capacity, but I don't see that threat as reaching an extreme that would suggest a coordinated response in progress. I do follow the casual chain of logic though.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    No sir! Wouldn't want anyone at all to feel threatened by an idea, especially when the idea might save them, their families and loved ones, and communities from the virus that is actually threatening them and that in some cases will kill them, and in ways they will not enjoy. — tim wood

    ...which don't pertain to altering public policy or threaten advocacy for the general participation of the public? — Cheshire
    Any actionable idea would be outside the scope of the OP.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    But having voted for Trump seems to guide the amount of risk aversion they feel about this vaccine. They may wear masks compulsively, avoid crowded rooms, commercial venues, etc., keep their distance, and so forth -- but the vaccine is NO GO. — Bitter Crank
    It comes off as contrarian if you've never experienced any hesitation. But, yes it's also strange for a group to select 'not immunized' as a part of their identity. It's funny because it unites the right more with what you find on the far left.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    I actually do not understand this question. Can you whittle it down some? — tim wood

    It's more of a context for discussion. I'm trying to create a more of a space than a target. I think some people had/have doubts. Telling a person what they can not doubt is wrong in a way. So long as everything is prefaced with...this is about doubting certainty not informing public policy; then maybe people can raise their concerns without anyone being threatened by ideas.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    I could let the fear mongers spin me up, or get schooled. I pick the third: which is neither. — James Riley

    I've met more than a few people that take it for granted that population reduction is something that the super wealthy desire. It has a pleasant intuitive fit like too many people in the boat. Less people, better boat viability. But, to me the amount of disruption caused would be more of a threat than the population itself. They already have access to resources as if people weren't around through their wealth. Their wealth is only significant if it's in demand, so getting rid of people would devalue their assets. Essentially, changing the rules to a game you are already winning.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    Again, if I were to take a deep dive on my questions, I could do so. I have several thoughts about what could go wrong, or what the motivation was behind pushing the vax, but I'm not going to give a loaded gun to a toddler. — James Riley

    The thread merely assumes any question is about the belief of certainty and no actionable concern. If testing the matter lets you think about something else afterwards. Then, by all means. Which is a more compelling case the threat of harm or the questionable motivations?
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    ↪James Riley
    Your other post was pretty powerful. I was considering sharing it on facebook. And I rarely drop anything too loud on there. I made this thread to divert the mess into a controlled burn. But, I agree. We have over corrected on purpose.
  • Suppression of Free Speech
    I made a thread 7 hours ago for the purpose of discussing the topic which is supposedly being repressed. Informing others of your freelance medical knowledge during a pandemic and other great ideas.
  • The Thing Outside of Itself
    Wait a minute so you being a thing inside of itself thinks that it can comprehend a thing outside of itself by using the thing inside itself to create something inside itself which is an idea and a concept of something that could be outside of itself. Do you see the contradiction here? — MAYAEL
    So far I've only claimed that I could give a name to thing outside of itself and others could then reason about it as a result. Confirming that we know ourselves as seen by the thing outside of itself point of view is problematic; now that some one has decided it is problematic. Up until this point it's been confirmed twice as viable; one poster even referencing quite a bit of work done on the topic. 1 dismissed the idea and another has offered some insightful speculations and a cartoon.
  • The Thing Outside of Itself
    ↪Wayfarer
    I understand it is supposed to be a metaphor. Seeing the forest for the trees or the end of the wall when all I see is wall. But, it ignores so much back ground information. If I truly don't know what something is you can press it to my face or parade it around the room and I still won't know what it is I'm looking at. It's a valid metaphor for a questionable idea.
Home » Cheshire