This might be more of a psychological question. But is being depressed or even anxious the human default? I saw an article to that affect once but can't find it anymore. I assume we do more for the survival of the species when we aren't satiated? What evolutionary benefits might that have? Is depression a deeper more complex state that expands the mind more? Is there a reason childhood is generally happier for most? — TiredThinker

Check out Kierkegaard. One of the presuppositions that he based his philosophical experiments upon was that anxiety is a fundemental and psychogenetic disposition of mankind. He didn't emphasize the evolutionary benefits of anxiety, but he did have some decent points. One was that anxiety is a deeper and more complex state (than, say, contentment) that requires a sufficiency of seriousness in one's life in order to counteract. One of the more interesting points he made was that in modern times, many people have an aversion to facing their anxieties, observing a massive retreat from boredom into hyperactivty and amusement. Furthermore, anxiety is latent in the child due to its innocence, which correlates directly with its level of maturity - at a certain level of maturation (whatever that entails), anxiety surfaces as the child loses its innocence. It is almost as if innocence is a protective barrier between the psyche and its natural anxiety.

Is it true/false? Whatever the case, Kierkegaard has some very interesting ideas

With the Ukraine crisis in effect, it looks like covid is becoming phased out as "the greatest threat of our generation". I suppose we can finally close this God forsaken thread. :hearts:

But at this point, given these political times, anything can happen... — Manuel

My prediction: there will be a resurgence of covid lockdowns and mask mandates that will sideline aggressions on both sides

So if everybody does this, but nobody does that....where should the productive emphasis reside? — Mww

Definitelty not in the speculative sciences. Ethics perhaps?

Do you agree that it is impossible to knowingly believe a falsehood? Where do you stand on that? — creativesoul

Absolutely not. With just a little cleverness, one can construct a logical framework around the most heinous falsehood in order to make it appear as truth - as something that can be easily believed. It happens all the time everywhere.

How do you square that with the classic line, “The pen is mightier than the sword”? because written words are more potent than spoken ones? as in the classic line “Say it, forget it; write it, regret it”? — Leghorn

I don't see why you are distinguishing between spoken and written words when you initially were speaking of verbally abusing a hypothetical old woman.

That line is about pens and swords, not words. A pen is not properly classified as a weapon (like a sword), so nobody expects to be stabbed in the neck with one. That makes it mightier.

Still, I’d rather have sticks and stones thrown at me than be thrust through with a sword. After all, when Steven was stoned, the Bible says he fell asleep.

I sometimes fall asleep when I get stoned also.

We aim to please. — Banno

We? How many of you are there?

Yep. — Banno

Finally, you admit...
I so happy :blush:

another typical reply from somebody with zero argument.

That's pretty feeble. — Banno

Really? that's all you have. :rofl: Typical reply from somebody with zero argument. You should just admit that you have no clue as to what you're talking about.

Animals can be included in the others to which one may relate. So, have you something to say? — Banno

Indeed, I do!  Conducting animal cruelty in private would only be an ethical issue if the sole human in the scenario were to make a judgment concerning his own action...this is because animals lack the capacity for abstract thought that is required to make ethical judgments.

That noise can equate to an ethical judgment is a ridiculous notion, and I can't believe its coming from you, I expect better. A noise might coincide, or even correspond, to the ethical judgment of a moral agent, like when I say aloud: "wearing masks is evil". But it is never the case that a noise is actually an ethical judgment, especially when it is from a nonmoral agent incapable of ethical thought. Where does it end...the chirping of birds? The flushing of a toilet?

Humans are the only moral agents capable of ethical judgments. Morality exists primarily for the individual as ethical judgments about one's self, and secondarily as ethical judgments about other moral agents.

you mask wearing sunavabitch!

Sorry for that outburst there, you hit a nerve

Well, ole Merkywurdy! Haven’t seen your name pop up in here in a long time. I assumed you had gotten yourself banned.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you kicked a dog when nobody was looking, ‘cause you once verbally abused openly in this forum in the most vulgar tones an old woman I described who was wearing a mask in the supermarket in the early days of the pandemic. — Leghorn

No haven't gotten banned. It's not very difficult to navigate the intricacies of this forum. The key is to refrain from liking the smell of your own shit, because those who do inevitably find their heads far up their own asses. Once that happens, people get banned.

I remember the early days of the pandemic, when all the cowardly retards bought up all the toilet paper and water. Fucking idiots. And to clarify, I would only kick a dog if someone was watching. When I punt a pooch, I require somebody to witness the distance I get, especially if it's a small dog. However, when I verbally abuse hypothetical old women, I don’t mind doing so in privacy.

Also, you shouldn't confuse physical violence with verbal abuse because it leads to ethical dilemmas. They differ qualitatively as was proven in the classic line: "sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me".

I'm sure the poor wee beastie would object. — Banno

That's a funny notion: beasts making ethical objections.

What about a moral agent who is entirely alone? Does he cease to be a moral agent until there are others to relate to? — DingoJones

DingoJones
Yep. — Banno

Then you would have to agree that animal cruelty is perfectly amoral, as long as there is noboby else witnessing what you're doing.

Think it through, dig deeper, further than "Calvin & Hobbes". — 180 Proof

I like that bumper sticker with calvin pissing on shit.

if people are falling for misinformation, and we care about that, it's on us to make the information more convincing. That's what I see transparency as doing, that's what I see reasonable debate as doing - making the crucial key message more convincing. — Isaac

The misinformation is quite convincing...is that not why so many are convinced? Socrates proved that nothing is more convincing to mankind than misinformation, and history has corroborated. You have made some key connections here...it would seem that if the crucial key message is to be made more convincing, then it should be packaged as misinformation. This would probably require that the presentation be sufficiently inflamatory so as to incite emotional reactions (rather than logical responses) in the target demographic.

If nothing else, a generation will pass, one which is physiologically unaffected by covid, then the free world will be imposed upon by another fabricated immanent threat...one that the easily convinced will buy into without blinking an eye.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: !

Enlightenment is basically getting the dosage right. — TheMadFool

I get it...always stick to the phi ratio:

ϕ=1.618... [proportio divina] — TheMadFool

1.618 in each hit/cap/bump/gram/tab/pill/shot/drink/&c., is the perfect dose to reach enlightenment on any substance.

Libertarianism is a cover for plutocracy. Most are just corporatists. All are capitalists through and through. — Xtrix

Sounds like me...when I say: "democracy is a cover for marxism". Just another slave morality underscoring a mass of codependent bleeding-heart pussies.

that everyone should be able to live their lives the way they want as long as it doesn't restrict others from doing the same? — Harry Hindu

We can't speak of libertarians in a vacuum, otherwise we tread on the borderline of anarchy. Libertarianism is best understood when contrasted with the state. A true libertarian competes as an individual against other individuals at all times, and ideally for the betterment and upbuilding of the nation. Ideally, an individual's "restricting" of others is not for the purpose of destroying or diminishing of the nation, but a matter of stimulating creativity and innovation in the face of competition. The libertarian is always in favor of the sovereignty of the individual and minimization of state authority - the state's only purpose, to regulate the competition between individuals in order to prevent an outbreak of anarchy, and also to prevent the formation of an oligarch.

A person taking one side of a false dichotomy. — Xtrix

Are you suggesting that individual-collective is a false dichotomy?

Placebo effect will increase the efficacy of the vaccine by about 30%, the usual rate of improvement associated with the placebo effect with medication administration. As far as psychological state and related philosophical outlook on life, and the effect of same on viral response, I would say that the nocebo effect is in play. Placebo, 30% increase in efficacy due to belief in same. Nocebo, 30% decrease in efficacy due to belief in same. You think something will work well, so it does. You think it won't work for shit, so it works for shit. You are stressed out and fearful that if you get the virus you are going to die...much higher chance of dying if you get the virus (and you know that you have the virus). Think about going down stairs, we do it all the time and rarely fall, then, when we are concerned and fearful about falling, we a much more likely to do so. Self-fulfillment is a bitch. — Book273

Great point. It is very interesting how frenetic the mind can become. It is unfortunate that neuroscience and psychology are confined to a deterministic/mechanistic model of how it works, and have severely insufficient data concerning how the mind can, both individually and collectively, shape reality. I have a hunch that the power of the mind would be better understood through the lense of quantum mechanics. But I could be wrong, it's a terrible tragedy.

A doctor's note is sufficient for exemption. Religious exemptions don't require any evidence. That's why it's become the strategy of choice. — frank

Religion is great strategy. I have also heard of unvaccinated people who identify as a person who is vaccinated. Where will it end?

But you have no right to infect others — Xtrix

There you go, making wild accusations that I am going around infecting people with covid. Where is your hard evidence that I am doing that?

If we proceed by your logic here, it is perfectly reasonable to accuse you of going around infecting people with HIV at your homosexual orgies. Afterall, I don't need any hard evidence to prove this is in fact the case, I only need a rationale for the possibilty, and it becomes truth.

There is no force in the world that can convince you to accept some data that you want to reject. — Olivier5

Likewise, there is no force in the world that can convince you to reject some data that you want to accept.

What we are talking about here with the law making process, is the individual's right to choose for himself whether to accept or decline the covid vaccine. The right is granted on the basis of interpreting constitutional fact, and this has not yet occured so that it has become a law of the land. Since nothing in the constitution officially opposes this idea ( via fair reading), it is wide open for debate.

What if I reject the narrative of law making process the same way you reject the the scientific narrative? — Caldwell

First let us be clear about what we are talking about with "narrative". Since I introduced the term to the conversation, I should better define it. It is the bullshit story we make up, using our empirical knowledge and reasoning capabilities, which sometimes turns out to be true, but not usually.

I am more than happy to answer your question, providing you give me an explanation of the "scientific narrative".

Okay, fair enough. No one can force you to accept facts or reality. — Caldwell

Okay, forgive me for implying you are fascist.

But then, there's also the law, which could make a convincing narrative that you should be put in jail (as an example) for being a menace to society and ignoring facts.

Wait a sec ... what law is that?

Now that I think about it, some facts should be a law automatically. Actually there are things that are both facts and laws at the same time. — Caldwell

That is fascist. What about the constitutionally established process of lawmaking that protects the individual from possible forms of state tyranny.

Jumping off a bridge above the freeway is both a fact of death and a prohibition at once.

Terrible example. And worse analogy

Scientific data just flows logically -- that's the believable narrative. — Caldwell

Are you aware of the "scientific method"? It does not dictate how individuals "should" behave. Narrative is entirely interpretive.

You're supposed to understand it, because with understanding comes acceptance. If you're not convinced of scientific data, then something else is happening here. — Caldwell

Yes, it is just another born fascist pretending to telling me what I "have to do". As if there are not three sides to every narrative.

You know the saying, have faith in science. By faith, we don't mean blindly. We mean there's a society we live in that ensures that science is behaving like science. — Caldwell

Sounds more like religion.

to show solidarity with the group who actually need to. — Isaac

The prevailing sentiment of our generation - shameful at best.

Now we know you're vicious. Deflated is far the more likely, certainly internationally.

I'll waste no more time or energy on this: it's clear you're not worth it. — tim wood

No, I'm savagely honest. And the only thing that has deflated is your argument. Let me ask (even though I know you won't answer) are you simply regurgitating someone elses beliefs? How can you diminish the importance of the individual through all of this and then think that your individual opinion is of any relevance?

But, no worries, your argument is a weak and derived contrivance anyway.

Another standard tactic of those holding unfalsiable claims: simply dismiss the evidence and the data. Try to undermine the sources of the data, the data itself, etc. — Xtrix

The data must convince me. If it does not, it needs to do a better job of creating a believable narrative. If you are so gullible as to be easily convinced by a soft and rehashed narrative, so be it.

I don’t think anyone, anywhere, is arguing in favor of forced vaccinations. — Xtrix

So you are in favor of the individual's right to choose? What are we arguing about then? Do you mean that when you say:

This is why we should care that everyone is being vaccinated unless, of course, they want to isolate themselves from society, which is their choice. — Xtrix

Are you not implying that there should be legislation that mandates vaccination and locks out of society all who decline? It clearly sounds like you are.

.

700,000 fucking dead people in the US. Is that real enough for you?! — tim wood

We all know about the inflated statistics concerning covid fatalities, don't be naive. Plus, dead people don't have a say.

Is there an argument here you're making? As to "correct" interpretation, I think his point was that "correct" is in part determined by surrounding realities, correct then not correct now. — tim wood

Yes, that the constitution supports the right of the individual to choose for himself whether or not to accept or decline the vaccine.

Who is the final say on how reality is judged? Your reality is based in the fear of a disease with indeterminate risk, involving a fascist imposition over others. My reality is based on the potential rights of individuals and the assent to the consequences of individuals choosing for themselves. I say your reality is mistaken and not correct, it is an error of perception and quite irrational.

And the general welfare part is going to be hard to get around. — tim wood

The bill of rights will also be hard to get around. Even if those rights are conditional, they are still constitutional facts that cannot be ignored. As Souter said, the constitution has to be viewed as a whole to be interpreted correctly.

SO science is discovers, ethics created? And we can work our way on from there.

But to make the job more interesting, language is created, yet is used to talk about what is discovered. I suspect that might have something to do with Hanover's position. — Banno

That makes sense. So then language and ethics being both created, does that mean that ethics is built into language, and that any time we speak there is an inherent ethic in the particular language used? Or that perhaps, various languages carry with them proclivities toward certain morals?

It's not one or the other. Both come into play. — Wayfarer

How do we distinguish between them? When I try to make sense of it, all I can think about is chicken and egg