We are not responsible for the sky being blue. — ToothyMaw

My point was they are equally as pointless not that they are exclusively comparable in certain ways. I could just as well as said "The world to be spaghetti dreamed forks, or the dark to lighten the sound of foam. Which is it?"

Granted some non-questions appear to more easily pretend to fit a certain context than others.

If I was to take your point more seriously I can just as easily throw the same kind of thinking right back at AN thoughts. We have the instinct for procreation (evidence being we're part of a species that exists) and we also have a moral sense of responsibility in how we live (not in how we don't live). So the 'responsibility' is no more valid a point than 'procreating'. We have a sense of responsibility tied to our procreative abilities. I cannot see how it can be argued that these are separate to the point that one is on a pedestal but not the other.

AN is a solution to a problem only it believes in: it both asks and answers the question, is it immoral to have children? No one else asks, but AN keeps insisting it has an answer. — Srap Tasmaner

The question doesn't make any sense to me either. May as well ask if it is morally right that the sky appears to be blue. At its core it boils down to a self-contradiction or just an attitude that says because one, or more, persons suffer that it isn't a fair trade off. Life isn't 'fair' and it is silly to view existence as being 'fair' or 'unfair' - not that I have seen any AN admit this is basically where they are coming from (but it can be seen on the surface of some).

All that said, asking the question (no matter how absurd) is a possible step towards understanding it to be absurd and that not all sentences with '?' at the end warrant a '?'.

I think it might be a necessary distraction from Libya. Power vacuums will be filled quickly not necessarily well (unless luck is involved).

I see no real 'dilemma'. Many wrong doings have happened and will continue to happen even with so-called 'moral arguments' behind them.

Practical action is needed rather than philosophical ponderings. I'm not inclined to risk my life to try to 'help' though if I'm brutally honest. A monetary donation to aid organisations? If you think it will help someone somewhere a little go ahead and donate.

Other than that I don't have much more to say.

To add ... there is no substitute for experience. Most understanding (in any depth) comes with age not merely intellect. I wouldn't recommend anyone under 20 (or perhaps 25) to take either philosophy or psychology to too much a depth. They are just not equipped with enough life experience to fathom the nuances. A basic mathematical and scientific background would do wonders to help them set up a foundation so later destroy via other means, or build upon, if they so desire once they get strangled by life a little harder ;)

don't steer them toward psychology, where they might get a degree, and a license, and start blindly leading the blind. Instead, have them study philosophy. — James Riley

I would say studying both and include many other fields too (specifically in the same area are anthropology, politics, history, neuroscience, ancient history and the biological behavioral sciences).

I think you'll find it is cbits for complexity (see Shannon Entropy).

He viewed the psyche as a community of selves and a multiplicity of conflicting drives. — Joshs

Evidence? Where did you get that from. Not refuting it just curious as I've not read all of his stuff.

What I will the term will to mean is what it means to me.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" - Crowley.

To me this means irrespective of what other deem as 'good' or 'bad,' or 'right' or 'wrong' I should act as my will dictates and follow my path for my reasons not those imposed upon me by ideologies that possess people en masse.

I'm very fond of Nietzsche's views in this regard as they generally articulate a lot about how I view the world at large.

In the most colloquial sense 'will' could perhaps be parsed as 'pure determination'. I would extend this into what both Nietzsche and Crowley seem to mean to me ... that is to adhere to my individual will rather than piggyback on the power of others believing that having a piece of them is empowering for my individual being.

We could talk about any term endlessly and come up with various contextual uses.

I would REALLY like to see an archaic term to be resurrected ... ken. As in 'to ken something'.

I feel a certain amount of pride in finding commonality with others who have done something admirable, but for the life of me, I cannot understand why. I think it is, objectively, delusional. So, rather than give in to it, I check myself. — James Riley

I think it is just basic tribalism. Someone in your 'tribe' does something well, or even no so well, and you react as if they are some kind of extended representative of you (which to some weird measure they as you share commonalities with them in terms of cultural upbringing).

Even people from European countries who view themselves as being 'European' rather than spanish, german or whatever, are adhering to a level of tribal allegiance. no doubt they care about 'Europe' in the sense that they identify as 'European' rather than to this or that singular country.

Anyway, I am interested to learn more about what people think of Critical Race Theory because, like many other areas, I believe there is somethin in there for me to learn in regards to my views on the religiosity of human beings and how this feature translates itself into/through human culture. It seems to me there is something similar going on here that ties Critical Theory (in general), Nationalistic pride (or patriotism), and the current culture trend of Identity Politics (including sexual orientation, sexism and racism) to basic cosmological upheaval (our sense of belonging in the face of an infinitely expanding universe. If the religious persons cannot truly keep ignoring the vast endless expanse of the universe and this brings with it a sense of insignificance that I believe some just cannot even face let alone deal with so they look for 'reasons' and 'meaning' within human clusters that seem to approximate what or who they see themselves as and/or as a place where what they say or do is taken seriously and listened to (the later being the greatest need of most humans I'd say!).

Critical race theory starts from the idea that racism is inherent (to white people?) and includes far more things than the ordinary definition of racism; that there are people who hold racist ideas. Blurring the line just what is racism seems to be also the case. Furthermore, it seems to totally accept and endorse the division between people by race. — ssu

I see this kind of thing from some but certainly not all in what I've read. As in 'white people,' and talkign about racism in such a way that isn't exactly an 'accusation' aimed at anyone just a matter-of-factness about how historically such things have played a whole in dividing people ... so I don't think it 'endorses' any division between people but certainly does seem to say that such divisions are inevitable (which I agree with although I'm not completely sold that 'race' is anything more than a form of tribalism entwined around basic cultural norm of human behaviour.

As with a lot of topics in the mainstream it can be hard to dig past the noise and find the actual original ideas and thoughts behind them.

The differences from country to country on this topic are also quite different. Where I currently live people don't understand or care about this kind of thing generally speaking. It does exist to some degree just like it does everywhere and given that the population is quite isolated (historically) from other countries and has good reason to not exactly be overly fond of western interference in it's colonial aspects, but they don't much care about it.

Are we talking about being 'alone' or being 'lonesome'? They are different.

Personally I'm VERY happy when I'm alone. I don't get 'lonely'. I've extremely long periods with minimal human contact and been completely fine. If I had to be around people all day everyday I think I'd slowly lose my mind - or just start killing them off one by one :D

What traits do you think a successful loner typically possesses? — Benj96

If you mean someone like myself I would say there are many different traits that play into this. A good imagination will probably serve you well though above most other aspects.

For some leftists (internationalist socialists) patriotism is as grave a sin as nationalism. — Bitter Crank

I find patriotism kind of repugnant myself. I understand why people have a sense of patriotism (I likely do myself in some superficial respects) I just don't see any logical justification in it other than a needful clinging to what I assume is an innate human attribute of wanting to be part of something bigger that we can understand perhaps (akin to religions).

It seems to me that a lot of the racial debate follows this same path. I'm not fond of it but I cannot say it is 'right' or 'wrong' when so many are invested in it and probably because they have the innate drive to be invested in it. For those reasons I want clarification on what exactly Critical Race Theory is compared to my limited understanding of it as marked out above.

I have referred to racism as merely one type of prejudice before. Many berated me for this as they viewed 'prejudice' as being a less impactful term than racism and believed I was trying soften act of racism as 'mere prejudice'.

If it's in the public domain we're better to attend to it than ignore it. Humans are a particularly 'tribal' species full of errors and stupidities. Racism is a rather nasty stupidity, but my point if that we might do better to look into the similarities such attitudes have with things like patriotism.

People are quite happy to refer to patriotism as a good thing, yet nationalism isn't. I was wondering if there is a similar discrepancy between two differing views of 'race' as their is to 'nation'? Might be a useless idea but I thought I'd bring it up just in case someone sees something of value in it.

Can someone help please?

Am I vaguely in the correct ballpark in saying that 'Critical Race Theory' is not about eradicating 'racism' per se (as the view is that is cannot be annihilated), but more or less about how to counteract inequalities that exist due to 'racism'?

As a critique of this view - building on what I mentioned above - if we're happy to state that our common view of 'race' is about superficial appearances and more closely related to culture and upbringing, then to be categorised as race x or y is more about the cultural aspect than mere skin pigmentation. Examples of such racism exist between peoples who look very similar (if not identical in most respects). The problem from here is how anyone identifies as this or that 'race' becomes something of a 'choice' yet the main issue is that no matter how you perceived yourself you cannot realistically expect everyone else to agree with you on this. This seems to be the biggest problem.

That critique aside (and looking to the US) it seems pretty messy to ask people to pay for their ancestors views/actions, yet it does seem unfair that - according to how I understand Critical Race Theory - a large section of US society has been viewed in a bad light and basically held back and not allowed the same opportunities as others.

Clearly the racism has reduced in the US over the centuries but it is still not good enough that great advances have been made. It just might be that we have to sadly wait it out, so to speak, and that in a generation or three thigns will continue to 'progress'. How to progress in the meantime? I believe this is precisely what Critical Race Theory is about ... am I correct?

@Xtrix Also, in case you missed it the first time, what about testing people for the virus instead? If employees are willing to turn up to work 30mins in advance and take a Covid test then surely the employers should provide a test? IF the primary concern is for the workers safety this seems to make perfect sense.

Mostly, although I don't think anyone understands the consequences fully, because to do that would be to know the future. — Janus

I think that’s a good summation.

@Xtrix How do you feel about people refusing for religious reasons then? They are exempt yet their ‘wrong thinking’ is okay in the eyes of the law.

I’m not saying, and have not said, that the vaccine isn’t effective. My point remains with allowing adults to make a choice or not. If private companies choose to stop people working then my position here becomes more hazy. I’ll grant you that. That they are right to do so, as you say, I just don’t agree. The situation is relatively under control and the threat is pretty low now. The big danger and fear was the fact that humans had little to no protection due to lack of exposure. Now we have. New strains are not completely different (it’s essentially the same beast) and new strains of the flu virus occur every year and new flu jabs are made every year too. What we now have is a world with an annual flu viruses (that kills 200,000-600,000 a year) and Covid viruses (that look set to kill maybe 2 million once people resume life as normal).

There have been certain comparisons to war too. Some people will step up and fight for their country and lay down their lives. They do so because they feel impelled to do so. Not everyone feels this and yet they may very well reap the rewards. If you want to make comparisons with clothing and medication then I think this point is strong enough unless you’re not opposed to conscription (but if you are not everyone would agree with you and it doesn’t necessarily make them right and you wrong, or vice versa).

People are NOT turned away from work when they have the flu … perhaps they should be tbh because I think that is wrong. I don’t see a measured approach now that we are more knowledgable about Covid.

No drug is 'harmless' per se. I think it's actually safer than taking paracetamol last time I looked?

Like I mentioned previously there was, and is, a lot of politicking surrounding anything that has the attention of the public eye. The mess gets even more complex and messy when sensationalism is the bread and butter of many media outlets (private and publicly owned).

This is an interesting point from Military.com:

Soldiers who have pending decisions on medical or religious exemptions will not face any adverse action.

So medical conditions are ok to refuse vaccine and also religious reasons. Not sure exactly how someone 'proves' a religious inclination though. In terms of jobs outside the military the ability to sue for such reasons would be implemented too I imagine.

The atheist with no underlying medical conditions who refuses though has no way to 'opt out' and retain their job.

The whole world has become one big scam, and the crazies (really thugs) have taken over. I works advise you only trust your mother, assuming that she is not invested in Pharmaceuticals. — MondoR

I can understand from a US perspective. Having literal inside info into companies like Astra Zeneca I'm not convinced in any particular danger there when it comes to vaccine production.

That this virus was created by mad scientists that are running loose is almost incontrovertible. — MondoR

Almost isn't certainty. I wouldn't judge it as 'almost incontrovertible' though. I looked into it a while back and didn't see much other than speculation for or against. Suspicious? Yeah, but again, there is the political manipulation of governments and the sensationalism of mass media to create revenue. I'm more concerned about the later tbh

Riiiiight, the evil Dr. Fauci. Is it because his name is not Anglo Saxon? — tim wood

Actually, forget it. Comments like this repulse me.\

bye bye until next month. you're in the sin bin :)

I stated that the line isn't clear. What 'reprehensible claim' did I make? I did state that I don't believe people should be forced/coerced/bullied into taking medication. I'm not quite sure how I am to 'support' that remark? Of course there are situations where I'd argue for or against someone taking medication - ie. for taking Covid vaccine. I cannot think of a realistic situation off of the top of my head where I would make someone take something (other than as a parent).

I'm not convinced by such reports yet as there is - as always - a lot of political nonsense going on between different states trying to gain an upper hand in some way. The whole issue with vaccine supply and Brexit in Europe showed some quite extraordinary political wrangling and silliness between France, The UK and the EU in general.

Playing to absolutist arguments doesn't help. I was pointing out - see above - that the line is not distinct. If you think it is distinct go ahead and point out where the line is.

My case is that I don't see the current threat of Covid as justifying companies/governments to prevent people from working. I understand that you may disagree. I don't have a big problem with you disagreeing, but I would still ask where the line is and to what extent such ideas are best implemented?

I can sharpen the other sedge of the blade too if I wished. I don't really see the 'point' then though

Note: Calling people whackadoodle helps how? I see you follow this up with 'crazy'. What is the point of doing this (genuinely curious to know if you've actually put any thought into this or you have to invent a reason on the fly when I ask?)

That's fine. I don't see it like that in this case myself. I'd be more or less likely to agree with you if the dangers were greater ... again this is down to personal judgement because there is no definitive line here. Just like with the more common debate on abortion we do need to draw a line somewhere, but the discussion around where that line is or should be is a difficult but necessary discussion to have (even more so the messier and more uncomfortable it is).

In any social group some people will carry the weight more than others, and in other situations the roles may very well be reversed. I can judge people on how they act but I don't particularly agree to coerce, manipulate or force them to act differently (especially if it is clearly against their own 'better judgement').

The situation is not as extreme largely on account of vaccination. — Janus

Agreed. That isn't my point though.

Again, this isn't about merely 'opting out'. We're talking about people who 'opt out' being marginalised based on their own personal position. We're taking about people being coerced (if 'effectively forced' is to strong for you) to take medication they don't wish to take.

Maybe so, but I think you've been equally brainwashed - or you're just not thinking clearly - because the situation is not as extreme as when the virus first arose (I know this due to what I stated before and showing that I have done research into how vaccines are created and why it took so long for this one compared to flu vaccines which are pumped out every year with relative ease).

There are places people with a vaccine can go that others without cannot. This is at different levels in different countries.

And that is fair to you? It is the same as 'wear a green hat or get sacked'? To repeat, this is medication not clothing.

@Janus If you believed the same as MondoR then you wouldn't take it. It would be 'dangerous' for you and you certainly would fight to stop your children being forced to too.

Get it?

This is untrue. See article above that I quoted. Member in the US army are being told they must get vaccinated. Others may not be allowed to shop or exist as others because they haven't taken a vaccine.

No, this is a philosophy forum. We're effectively talking about changing the social contract.

If I am wrong about how the difficulties of creating a vaccine show me how?

I see no one else doing so either?

The 'subject' is forcing people to take medication in the terms I am arguing.

Other people can still get infected and although their risk of hospitalization or dying is greatly reduced there is still a risk. Also if they have a breakthrough infection and then infect others who are vaccinated the chances that someone will be hospitalized or die increase. Being vaccinated is such a minor thing to do for the sake of those you are close to and the community as a whole that there is no good argument for refusing vaccination. Given that, any reduction of risk to others is a good argument for being vaccinated. Not to be vaccinated is simply a selfish act. — Janus

Read my previous post. It isn't a 'minor thing' for everyone. You don't need to educate me about Covid trust me on that ;)

The good argument is that it is demanding people do something with their bodies (medical) without a say in the matter. Do you not see how this is dangerous?

Emotional reactions are not going to get us far in a discussion here. I see the need to attack anyone saying anything sensible by ignoring the sensible points and blowing others out of proportion.

It isn't all that terrible in terms of the cost of life - it will be in terms of the knock-on effects for the poorest people but that is more about how the problem has been handled in a highly politicised environment globally under the shadow of sensationalist media.

The far deadlier repercussions are the manner in which it has been handled and the winding down of the urgency to deal with the problem. I wholeheartedly disagree with anyone backing a mandatory vaccination (even if this hasn't been made 'law' in an absolute sense we're talking about effectively FORCING people to take medication).

Is it really 'effing stupid' when I put those words in this context:

Covid isn't particularly terrible and we've got a much better understanding of it now so it makes no sense not to get back to normal asap ... and perhaps deal with things that actually kill far more people globally like heart disease (due to greed in the food production industry) and basic poverty (which has been intensified due to lockdowns). — I like sushi

The 'terrible' part comes slowly drip by drip over the next decade. We've already seen several problems start to rise due to prolonged lockdowns (backlog of untreated/undiagnosed medical conditions), isolation likely to lead to spike in colds and flus, and the glaringly obvious economic costs that are not immediately being felt (on top of those that are).

As I said, it isn't that terrible as we now have a better understanding of it and vaccines produced. The difficultly was producing the initial vaccine for a new virus now it is basically a job of updating vaccines every year with new strains (NOT completely unique viruses) much like the flu jab in winter.

NOTE: I can already hear the reactionary wheels whirling in people's heads as they read this because they'll say "he just said it's the same as the flu!" NO I DIDN'T! And it is seriously tiring having to point this out.

To repeat, my point here is this ... People shouldn't be effectively forced to put something into their bodies. This is the law for all vaccinations. I may not agree with people's choices for not taking a polio vaccine but it is their choice for their children and if we wanted to protect our children at all costs we'd break the law to do so, but we shouldn't be forced to break the law when it comes to these decisions (that is authoritarian).

Is that clear enough?

@kudos Sometimes a trait can be perceived as a strength in one particular environment whereas in another it will be perceived as a weakness. A marathon runner needs stamina whilst a sprinter needs raw power.

So yes, in many circumstances what is ‘weak’ for x can be ‘strong’ for y.

I’m talking about bullying/forcing people into taking the vaccine. If people cannot work when they want to that is bad. People can be tested to see if they have the virus so employers should do that instead rather than have the right to basically force people to take medication they don’t feel safe taking.

You have a right to refuse a vaccine, you don't have a right to infect others. — Xtrix

I think that’s a pretty poor argument anyway. If other people have taken the vaccine then the chances of the, getting infected and dying are very very small. If the chances are not very very small then those refusing to take it have an even better reason not to take it as it wouldn’t be effective.

All I’m trying to do here is a make what I thought was a reasonable and common sense argument against effectively forcing people to have injections they fear and/or don’t believe in. A large number of people who have no problem with taking the vaccine have voiced exactly the same concerns here - including nurses threatening to go on strike at the suggestion of this.

That is all. My point about the army is that if a huge proportion refuse then I doubt they’ll kick thousands of people out fo the army. If they cannot the next step might be to fine them for refusing? That would be pretty horrific but many horrific things happen.

Sounds like pan psychism … which I think you’ll find interesting. Personally I think it’s blind speculation.

? I guess mature discussions aren’t for you. Bye bye.

I think it’s a strange idea not to allow people to choose what to do with their own bodies. Of course you can say people can do what they want (but they just cannot go to work).

Wearing hats (as someone mentioned above) is not really equivalent to medication.