My hope is with the younger generation and women. Sure, they have their 10%, but generally they are better than what's been the dominant paradigm. — James Riley

Curious, why do you say they are better? I think the old paradigm was more patriarchal and as women gain power we become more matriarchal. That is more focused on feelings and children and the welfare of women. I remember when women did not exist except as extensions of men. Then one day I read a New Woman magazine there was the word "she" where always before there had been only the word "he". I don't know if women have changed, but rather our environment has changed in a huge way!

I am not sure all the consequences of that change will be good? Wanting our children to be as college students and competing against each other for their place is society, may have a very bad effect. Children need an atmosphere of play to explore who they are and have good feelings with their peers which become good feelings about who they are. I am afraid too many children are denied this childhood safety and end up mass murderers or struggling with emotional demons of unworthiness and helplessness?

I'm fine with that.

As a matter of interest, the one thing I do every day that I consider play is participating in the forum. — T Clark

If we are too serious about our arguments, perhaps we need counseling? A few things though really push my buttons and I turn into a crazy person. That is one of the reasons I believe respect is so important! When we are disrespected we can become defensive and feel the urge to attack. Then this is no longer play and it is no longer fun and it ruins threads.

Thankfully, most of the time the forum brings out my inner child, having so much fun learning new things or having a better understanding of what I believe is so. I think we have to feel safe for really good thinking to happen. When we feel safe we can explore our ideas and dare to be different and creative, and under such conditions, we all expand our consciousness.

The US no longer feels safe. Our minds are closing down and people are picking up weapons. We no longer allow our children to be as children but expect them to perform like college students as we rush to teach them what to think. Oh dear, my heart is sad. We need the spirit of play and for that, we need to feel safe. Thankfully, most of the people here are safe to engage with. Philosophy is so important!

I didn't agree with Trump and the republicans on many things when he was in office, but I agreed on their stance that they can't be soft on China about the issues with regarding trade, military posturing, etc. I'm not exactly sure what Biden is doing wrong in regard to China (other than not taking as hard as stance as Trump did). — dclements

In my book, respect is supreme. Especially if you want power because virtues equate strength. The one thing I counted on Biden being is virtuous, but the things that come out of his mouth are horrifying. I wish someone would impress upon him the importance of keeping his mouth shut until he has calmly considered his words.

It is about having power and right now we need every bit of power we can get because China is spinning out of control. As I said war is insanity. I have no memory of China expanding its territory since all of China came under one ruler. Something has triggered China to disrespect the status quo and I think this is a very serious situation. Does anyone know why China has become so aggressive?

Tom Brady loves football, but when he goes out on the field, he's not playing. If you're trying to win, I don't see it as play.

There's no need for us to go into this a lot more if you don't want to. I can see your point. I have my own way of seeing it. The word "play" has room for both our views. — T Clark

:rofl: I was just listening to a professor explaining the American mind. The lecture today was a series of philosophers who brought us to doubt. Don't we love philosophy? :grin:

I love facilitating workshops on healthy living and I don't consider that play either. It is more serious than play. But I think a person has a problem if winning a game of Scrabble is that serious. :lol: I think we can agree maybe there is not a distinct difference that is constant and unchanging? The same activity can be all about fun and can get very serious. I don't mind loosing to someone, but if I am loosing too badly I can get very serious about closing the gap. :lol: On the other hand, while trying to get across the importance of good health habits, if I am not having fun and not being fun, people don't come back. Even when we are being serious, it can be important to be fun. And if you are loosing the game of Scrabble too badly, it is time to get serious. :lol:

These are goal oriented and I don't think of them as play. Maybe that seems nitpicky, but I don't think it is. The distinction is important. On the other hand, both things are wonderful. — T Clark

My goodness, when we play games we often play to win. I would not put the criteria of having no goals on the word "play", but do recognize those goals can ruin the fun if our head is to set on the goal there is no sense of fun. On the other hand, if we join a work party, there is a goal to accomplish something, but it doesn't feel like work if we are having fun. Wow, I am thinking hard on this and checking with how the different ideas make me feel. Does the idea feel right or wrong? I realize how many things I have stopped doing something because it is not fun. So for me, it is not if we want to win, or if have a goal, but how much fun we are having. If it isn't fun, I walk away, unless I am paid. Work is what I do for pay. :lol:

I just wish to add that play may be an essential aspect of the creative process, because it involves both imagination and experimentation. It may be too harsh when people lose the ability to play in preference for work and grim aspects of reality. A certain amount of playfulness may be important for human meaning and, even fun, rather than misery and play may be important in the ability to see humour and, prevent seeing life in it most tragic form. Play may be important in philosophy in order to put ideas together creatively and to bring forth ideas in new ways. — Jack Cummins

Speaking of creativity is perfect! Much of our childhoods are spent creatively and imagining being adults. We play house and may play grocery store, or back in the day, it was cowboys and Indians modeling the TV shows we saw at the time.

I cheated and looked for an online definition of play.

Encyclopedia of Children's Health.
Image result for what is play?
Play is the work of children. It consists of those activities performed for self-amusement that have behavioral, social, and psychomotor rewards. It is child-directed, and the rewards come from within the individual child; it is enjoyable and spontaneous.

My inner child is alive and well. :razz:

Everything you say is true, except the things you identify are not play. They're something else, something good, but not play. — T Clark

What? How about trips to fun places such as the annual Steam Engine event where there is an old sawmill run on steam and many other old steam engines. I love going there! It is so exciting to me. Or going to an archeological dig, or exploring caves? I guess I am luckier than many folks as these things, including our local university library and the art museum enliven my inner child with delight. It is hard to imagine how anyone could have that feeling and distinguish it as different from play. Now I am really confused! If the joy I feel is not play, then what is play?

I think both work and play can be executed in the moment, and both can be considered, before and after the fact, as goal-directed or otherwise. The question is, can the consideration itself be work and/or play in the moment? I suppose thinking about the past or the future, considering the past of the future, could itself be work or play in moment. Hmmm. I'd need to rethink some of my thoughts. :lol: — James Riley

Yeah! Absolutely! The democratic model for industry takes the social and accomplishment needs of the employees into consideration. We modeled our industry after England's autocracy back in the day when people were treated worse than animals. So many bad things are happening now, but maybe so many good things are happening? The need to treat people better is certainly in the news.

Perhaps, if work is goal-directed activity, play is non-goal directed activity. Any good? — bert1

Excuse me, but I love work parties. You know, where everyone shows up to accomplish a goal, building a barn, or stuffing envelopes, or feeding over 100 people a Thanksgiving dinner. I also don't understand why being happy and working together is not the goal even when we are paid to do something. There isn't enough money in the world to pay for many of the jobs people do, so an employer needs to think of other ways to make the job enjoyable. Because they do not, I have volunteered most of my life instead of working for money.

I remember being isolated at home with my children and I could hardly wait for them to get in school so I could have a job with other adults and accomplish something in the adult world. I was horrified by how horrible many employers are. I am rather enjoying this moment in time when employers are struggling to get employees. Might they discover considering the happiness of the employees is a good policy?

This is a topic I'd like to hear a broad response to in whatever way tickles anyone's fancy.

I think play is something that we are generally taught to vie was 'childish' yet in maturity and adult development I believe recapturing our ability to play is of deadly importance - for cognitive development in general.

What theories of play interest you and what exactly is it that you are talking about when you think about 'play'? Also, what is a 'best' way to play? — I like sushi

What a wonderful topic. I love playing Scrabble. It was my school teacher grandmother who taught me to play the game. Winning is not my priority, because for me, playing Scrabble is about enjoying time with a child or a friend. There are many challenges besides winning, and one of them can be helping the other person to win as long as that is not too obvious. Or people can work together to cover all the red triple the word score squares. That is very hard to do.

I played Scrabble with a man who had dementia and my challenge was to give him plenty of places to make 4 letter words and then it was plenty of places to make 2 letter words as his dementia advanced. I hope you can see the joy we had in accomplishing using up all the tiles. We did not keep score for obvious reasons. It was about being friends and meeting our own challenges, not winning. :smile:

I love the arguments that China and the US will not start a war that could possibly destroy the world but I am afraid wars are a form of insanity and we are headed into that insanity. I am so angry with Biden for being disrespectful and pushing the wrong buttons. Evidently, he thinks this is appealing to US citizens? But saving face is of supreme importance to China and Japan, being disrespectful is pushing the wrong buttons. The nation will not tolerate it.

On the other hand, it is the historical commitment of the US to defend small countries and international law. That is just as important to the identity of the US, as saving face is important to China, and China's determination to swallow up smaller countries pushes the US war buttons.

From the book of the 1917 National Education Association Conference in Portland, Oregon

The speaker is Charles R. Van Hise, President of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin

"This world war cannot cease; it must not cease until Germany shall recognize that the laws of nations must be obeyed, that the conquest of small and weak nations is wrong. It is to establish these great principles that we entered the war. In order to establish these great principles that we entered the war. In order to establish that they may be maintained, all the sacrifices which are necessary must be made by this nation. If the fundamental principles of freedom and democracy call for the death of hundreds of thousands of our young men, the sacrifice must be made." — Charles R. Van Hise

I personally do not know the answer to your question but I googled for information and maybe you will find the information you want here....
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+required+for+a+degree+in+philosophy&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=what+is+required+for+a+degree+in+philosophy&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30j0i390l2.12282j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

No they don't. You won't find an expert that will tell you an unvaccinated person is more contagious than a vaccinated one, nor will you find one that tells you a vaccine is more effective than natural immunity. — Tzeentch

"An unvaccinated person is at greater risk of becoming a host to the virus and being contagious than a vaccinated person." Is a true statement.

" an unvaccinated person is more contagious than a vaccinated one" is not a true statement because the unvaccinated person may not be infected.

Your untrue statement does not make the true statement untrue.

Okay, you are saying our intellectual climate will change? I don't know if it would be a good thing to give up national identity? It seems national identity is a strong part of individual identity. Also, a lack of national identity plays into the problem of painting with the big brush?

If the US had gone to war with a nation instead of with terrorism. The enemy would have a better definition with limits. Now that you have made me aware of painting with the big brush, I can see the capitalist war with communism as painting with a very big brush. The concept of people on the right and people on the left, conservatives and liberals, are all painting with a very large brush that is divisive.

I never liked labeling. The imagined religious differences are divisive and lead to insane behavior such as war and in the US this is very much a part of the culture war.

Thomas Jefferson thought education was central to a strong republic. Education for citizenship is education for nationalism, as it defines a culture and prepares the young to be part of that culture. However, it was a culture of principles and virtues. The world can be united with principles and virtues when that is the focus and intent of education. Whoops, I feel like I just stepped off a cliff and what I said is unsupported. except for Cicero and the concept of right reasoning. Oh my, philosophy is so important! Without high-order thinking skills we have no way of judging if we have right reasoning or not.

How can a war on terrorism and hate speech be good reasoning? What are the desired virtues and principles? Can we better prepare our intellectual climate for better reasoning?

This thread is completely out of control and useless as a discussion about how civilizations are created and destroyed. If I could I would delete the whole thread and try again to start a discussion of how civilizations are created and destroyed.

Completely untrue, which is why this argument has long since been abandoned and replaced for the "unvaccinated put more pressure on health services"-argument, which seems to be just as baseless, since in my country about 80% of the people on the IC are vaccinated, in a country where about 80% of the people are vaccinated (Implying there is little to no correlation). — Tzeentch

Let us look at why that is untrue.

2. The delta variant broke through the vaccine's waning protection.

It was a perfect storm: The vaccine's waning protection came around the same time the more infectious delta variant arrived in Israel this summer. Delta accounts for nearly all infections in Israel today. — DANIEL ESTRIN

We are back to step one. Wear masks and keep distance and social isolation. It is hoped a third shot will get the desired result of making people immune to the virus and its variants. Understanding this should result in people doubling the effort to stop the virus and the risk of new variants and making the virus endemic. That is by now we should realize how important it is to do what we can to stop the spread the virus. This is not a good time to ignore science and give up.

:100: — James Riley

Thank you James, I am reminded of the Native Americans who were decimated by disease.

Tribes with a leadership that kept them separated from those who spread the disease, survived and those that were friendly with the European's spreading the disease were completely wiped out. A civilization depends very much on leaders making good decisions.

Hitler was able to take control of Germany because Germany had reactionary politics as the US has today. I think the same things that gave Hitler power are what gives Trump power, and that we have already lost the democracy we defended in two world wars. This is about education and culture.

Does anyone here know Weber's explanation of leadership?

Completely untrue, which is why this argument has long since been abandoned and replaced for the "unvaccinated put more pressure on health services"-argument, which seems to be just as baseless, since in my country about 80% of the people on the IC are vaccinated, in a country where about 80% of the people are vaccinated (Implying there is little to no correlation). — Tzeentch

Please take your arguments about covid to the thread for those arguments and stop derailing this one. This one is about how civilizations are created and destroyed.

I think you'll have to try that again and don't mention vaccination. — frank

Geeze, I think you are right. But maybe we can salvage this thread? Before our democracy, kings had absolute power and people believed a God gave them that power. How did these monarchies begin?

What makes a democracy different? Hint, the answer is science and a different way of deciding who has authority that is based on reason.

An unvaccinated person isn't really more infectious than a vaccinated person. In fact, natural immunity is more effective and effective longer than a vaccine. — Tzeentch

An unvaccinated person is more likely to spread the disease than a vaccinated one. There is absolutely no other reason for the government supporting the effort to stop the spread of the virus.

Thinking the government has any other goal than stopping the spread of the virus is a mental disease.

The right of autonomy over one's own body is not a priviledge, it is a human right.
— Tzeentch — James Riley

Yes, and if you are not vaccinated please stay home so I have the liberty of living without fear of a disease. Our goal is to stop the spread of a deadly disease and if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

Human rights are the bottomline to which we hold states, and indeed all that seperates us from chimpanzees - the sole achievement of mankind over its animal nature over the course of thousands of years. — Tzeentch

It is not a human right to spread disease. When the disease was tuberculosis we separated infected people from the larger society. Typhoid Mary was not allowed to work in kitchens when it was realized she carried the disease. Such decisions are based on science and the protection of the whole of society. Without social efforts to protect everyone. we are unprotected and that is not right. Not when we know the science and can stop pandemics!

Let us be very clear about this. Liberty is not the freedom to do anything we want and to hell with everyone else. Liberty is understanding the law, and in this case, it is law made known through science. Those who refuse to live by the law of science to stop the spread of disease, need to be separated from the rest of the population. They don't have to be vaccinated, they just have to avoid contact with the rest of us. The people who are willing to follow the science can then have liberty. That reasoning is what separates us from the apes.

I don't believe the government is using vax's to 'control' people but it is fairly clear that we're talking about freedoms and we've seen creeping laws against 'terrorism,' 'hate speech' and such that have not exactly instilled people with confidence. — I like sushi

Now that is something to talk about. I think Bush really overstepped when he began a war on terrorism. That is to board and I really do not like the way it has been applied to domestic problems. I am pondering what you have said, and the notion of hate speech, and I don't want to sound weird but could it be said we are manifesting the anti-christ with the concepts of terrorism and hate speech? Sorry, but I am coming from the thread about nothing and it looks to me we are creating a problem that did not exist by creating concepts of evil and acting as though these evils are tangible and we need laws to protect us from them, as in the past people worried about protected from Satan. Could a less abstract vocabulary set limits that support our sense of liberty, instead of threaten our sense of liberty?

I agree that the most that can be done is to challenge what is written about God. As the thread discussion suggests, proving or disproving God is 'difficult' and I would go further and say it is impossible. As you suggest, no holy book can give us an explanation of the underlying laws of nature. I also wonder what is meant by 'nothing' because it does not appear to us but, perhaps, there is more to 'nothing' than what it appears because as it cannot be observed it may be hard to know how or in what way to describe it, and, perhaps, it is something rather than nothing. — Jack Cummins

Nothing is what is outside of the universe?

But unless we revert to pre-capitalist or pre-industrial conditions, and seeing that socialism or communism is not an option, I think we are stuck with capitalism - until someone comes up with a better idea. :smile: — Apollodorus

You thoughts might go well in the new thread about Creating and Destroying a Civilization.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12077/creating-and-destroying-a-civilization.

I don't think there can not be capitalism before industrialization.

Tribes work together to feed everyone. Often the effort to feed everyone is tied to mythology implying some form of supernatural power must be appeased with taboos against putting self-interest first. I have heard Russia's communism is an imitation of Native American organization of people caring for each other.

In my younger years, I never imagined it would be so hard to have strong families and therefore a strong nation. Confucius was adamant about strong families being essential to a strong nation.

We could. I think it's basically the same thing that gives a wolfpack stability (got an awesome book recommendation about that). — frank

I started a thread to discuss Creating and Destroying a Civilization.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12077/creating-and-destroying-a-civilization

Remember Rome was begun by two brothers raised by a she wolve.

According to tradition, on April 21, 753 B.C., Romulus and his twin brother, Remus, found Rome on the site where they were suckled by a she-wolf as orphaned infants. According to the legend, Romulus and Remus were the sons of Rhea Silvia, the daughter of King Numitor of Alba Longa. ...

Rome founded - HISTORY — History Channel

↪Athena The dilemma is about safety versus liberty, the boundaries we put on those in power; it is about the free press, the independence of academia and the growing power of multinationals.

It hardly gets more political than this, and science provides no answers to any of these dilemmas.

Maybe you believe the narrative that there is no moral dilemma, that safety provides a limitless mandate for the use of power and the breaching of human rights, and that the power of science in the hand of our omnibenevolent and incorruptable governments ran by philantropists will lead us to the promised land. A road to hell, to be sure. — Tzeentch

I am starting a new thread because the subject is so exciting and I want to make it easy for everyone to find. "Creating and Destroying a Civilization"

Stability comes and goes in human social groups. Humans make large scale groups that can last for centuries. It's usually most stable near urban centers which act like population hubs.

Lots of things can result in social breakdown, like invasions, war, famine, natural disasters, and uprisings. Those things will tear the US down eventually, but not probably not in our lifetimes. — frank

What gives a social group stability? Should we start a thread for this subject?

I don't need to take responsibility, because I am not responsible. — Tzeentch

:lol: And that is the problem, you a few million others do not think they are responsible. "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem". :lol: That goes with "Paranoia will destroya" and "Don't anyone over 30". 1960-70

People who are vaccinated still contract and transmit the virus, and to think things would go back to normal if everyone were vaccinated is an illusion. This is all about control.
— Tzeentch

Vaccinated people develop infections, but they don't usually get critically ill. — frank

The mutant virus, that is not well controlled by the vaccination for the original virus, is causing havoc. I get the impression people are thinking we are dealing with one virus, not mutations of that virus. A big concern is if we do not stop the spread of the virus it will continue to mutate and then the vaccine may become completely ineffective.

Rampant industrialization and oppression plagued anticapitalist economies as well as capitalist economies during the 20th century. Exploitation, injustice, and mass destruction have plagued human civilization from the beginning. The roots of the problem go deeper than easy generalizations about capitalist ideology and capitalist modes of organization, though of course the negative effects of inadequate regulation and unjust policy are increasingly obvious worldwide in our times, just as capitalism in various forms has finally covered the globe.

In the last couple decades it's become harder even for relatively privileged people in relatively privileged regions to deny, to rationalize, or to ignore the acceleration of ecological instability and socioeconomic injustice. But it seems clear that the people of Earth have been paying the price of irrational and inhumane policy for a long time. — Cabbage Farmer

I started this morning with the thread about Afghanistan and the Taliban and marveling over the success of the United States and the very high level of security I have despite having disabilities and living below the poverty level. When I was raising children my life was not this easy, but never was it as bad as what mothers are experiencing in Africa and Afghanistan. Why do you all think life is better in the US than in many places where people fear for their lives and do you think we will become as those other countries?
Seriously the people who believe our government is out to get us, seriously scare me. They are like the Taliban and I fear at any time they will become violent.

And now you are taking your liberties and human rights for granted, and in fact squandering them for the promise of safety. That is most certainly a mistake; a Trojan horse. — Tzeentch

Sorry. when it comes to covid I will rely on science. When the government decides we all have to wear blue uniforms I will worry about the political play. Right now I think people who believe Covid vaccinations are about politics, are as wrong as people who feared witches in the Dark Ages before science. That fear is socially spread hysteria and if you want to argue otherwise, that could be interesting. :lol: Too much Fox news and not enough reasoning.

As for why the imperialism of other countries than the US isn't centre stage in a thread on American imperialism hmm this is a big mystery no one will ever solve it how strange :chin: — StreetlightX

Huh? Germany was the world Military-Industrial Complex power, and it lost that twice in world wars, but the US adopted everything necessary to manifest that Military-Industrial Complex. You know what Hitler called the New World Order and the Bush family thrilled to control as they engaged militarily with the mid-east.

The US might have been more successful if only it accepted Islam when in Islam's territory. Unfortunately, it could not break away from Christianity and the delusion of secular government without religion.

Given all these data points (additional are welcome), can we say unequivocally that the United States is an imperialist country? — Wheatley

Yes. All industrial economies depend on oil, and it has been the purpose of the US Military-Industrial Complex to keep control of oil. When OPEC embargoed oil to the US the US experienced an economic collapse. Carter's reaction to this reality was to tell us we must conserve and bring our use of oil in line with our supply of oil. Reagan had a different solution. Reagan slashed our domestic budget and poured all our resources into military spending including granting arms to mid-east countries such as Iran, enabling Sadam's rise to power. The US stationed its navy off the coast of oil-rich mid-east countries and soon the embargo was ended.

This need to control oil involves Israel and that is what brought on the embargo in the first place. Arabs were loosely united against Israel's land grab and the US defended Israel because of its strategic importance. Later, Sadam dared to continue the opposition to Israel's land grab, and the US removed him from power. Leading to 911 and the US occupying Afghanistan. A long-standing neocon desire to have military control of the mid-east. I know this is overly simplified but the bottom line is the US economy depends on oil and on the world trading oil in dollars, which is tied to our banking and the value of the dollar, which means a need to control oil.

Why bother to challenge god? We do not directly experience god, so science can not define god. It is what is written about God that demands our scrutiny. I believe there are physical laws that are true for the whole universe and beyond. But no holy book gives us a good explanation of them. Holy books give us mythology and these mythologies are questionable.

For example an observer is not external to reality. We are intrinsic to it. We are one facet of reality that happens to register itself. So when the question is rehashed as “does reality require reality” the question becomes a bit pointless. — Benj96

Chardin, a Catholic priest said, God, is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man.

Because it's better to suffer that anxiety for more of your life than less of your life? :chin: — praxis

Yes. Youth is a time for exploring and risk-taking. It would be a shame to only ponder life instead of blindly leap out there and gain experiences that we can fondly remember or contemplate.

Iraq WMD →→Iraq War

Is there a pattern here or is it just me? — TheMadFool

I am the person who argues that US is the military-industrial complex we defended our democracy against. If anyone wants to discuss war, start a thread for that and pm me.

— Tzeentch

Point me to the person I hurt by refusing this vaccine, and I will take responsibility. But you cannot, because likely there are none, and I won't accept your claim to my body on the basis of empty accusations. — Tzeentch

I assume you mean you can isolate yourself and that may be a fine choice for people who can do that, but it is not a choice medical personnel, firemen, teachers, and store clerks can make. And the cost of isolation is high. Until the infection rate is low enough for life to return to normal, unvaccinated people are the cause of much human suffering, and here is how.

Before the vaccination, many businesses had to close and people were isolated. The nutrition sites are giving meals to take home, but we can not go inside and visit as we do in normal times. Those living in congregate housing such as independent living apartments, assisted living, and nursing homes were isolated in their rooms, no activities, no socializing during meals, no visitors, and this was harder on the elderly than children. They lost strength and their minds faded away. Then when they were all vaccinated they regained freedom, but life has not gone back to normal because when we let our guard down the infection rate went sky high.

When everyone could be vaccinated and the infection rate was very low, we got to return to almost normal. But thanks to all the people who refuse to get vaccinated and follow the rules, the infection rate went sky high. I can not see my clients, we can not go places and we can not socialize at the nutrition sites. Our hospital was so overwhelmed and we called in the National Gaurd and people could not get medical care. Our beloved supervisor who was vaccinated still got infected and the virus attacked her heart. She fears she will die within a year.

Hopefully, all this is only temporary but the virus can become so embedded in our population, then we will have to live like this from now on. People who refuse to get vaccinated are holding us all hostage. We could have returned to normal months ago, but no, people think their liberty comes first and all of us are paying a price for that.

How do you take responsibility for the skyrocketing infection rate that has returned us to the worst of times? If you got covid and had to be hospitalized, the medical bill could keep you in debt for the rest of your life, and are you willing to be responsible for other people's medical bills if you did pass the virus on to them? If your hospital is overwhelmed with covid, how can you be responsible for all those who can not get medical care?

What I assume you consider valuable members of society put everyone else at risk every day. They step in cars, they don't get their flu shots, they procreate, they smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, etc.
To cherry-pick one particular risk and assign it so much weight is completely inconsistent and unconvincing. — Tzeentch

Driving is a serious responsibility, especially when I have passengers. I make every effort to do so responsibly and that is equal to getting vaccinated. Even with the vaccination I can become infected and infect others. I think that is why we went from letting people decide if they want a vaccination or not, to mandatory vaccinations because it is not a 100% sure thing. The virus mutates and we are fighting to stay on top of that. My car has good steering and good brakes, and I am vaccinated. Life is not without risk, but we can reduce the risk and this is not cherry-picking. Not being vaccinated is like driving a car with bad brakes. When I was young I tried that and decided it was not a good idea. :lol:

War is a pointless, tragic thing. Honor is the carrot "society" has used for centuries to lure its young men into an untimely death for the benefit of the few. The individual shouldn't accept to be sacrificed on the altar of the collective; not in war, not in a pandemic. — Tzeentch

I think that depends on the war. China now has hypersonic nuclear weapons and we do not have a good defense against them. Perhaps the subject of war deserves its own thread? Unless our democracy is defended in the classroom, it is not defended and the next big election will be interesting. We may be our own worst enemy? We took our democracy for granted and this was a mistake. We took our military superiority for granted and this may have been a mistake?

We can of course hope the pandemic so weakens the world, no one goes to war. Resolving the global overpopulation with a pandemic could be a good thing? :grin:

As I always say, there's only one world. All the different ways of talking about it are describing the same thing. Although your description of the difference between eastern and western philosophies is somewhat condescending, there is truth in it. My vast oversimplification is that the eastern approach deals with awareness and the western approach deals with reason. If you leave out either one, you leave out half the world. — T Clark

Wow, I love your comment! Absolutely love it! :heart: It is awesome how one word "awareness" can explain so much. People with no self-awareness drive me nuts, and that seems common in the US.

Now my thoughts are becoming a different thread so I better stop here. I will ponder what you have said.