Why should the choice be exclusively one or the other? It seems plain that we both create and discover stuff. — Banno

I can accept that. Then the question becomes, how much of reality is created, and how much is discovered? But the more important question is: how do we distinguish between the two?

realism holds that ...stuff... is independent of what we say about it — Banno

So, the role of the mind in creating the world should have some bearing on that, ought it not? — Wayfarer

Is the mind creating it (like an artist), or is the mind discovering it (like an explorer)? We may never know the answer.

Nitpicking, eh? Well, I was using "constitution" liberally. I'll try to be more precise in the future.

Concerning the video, nice speech. Best quote, when Souter says: "the constitution is the embodiment of the desire of the American people [...] to have things both ways."

He goes on to refute the notion that all constitutional law lies within the constitution in advance and merely requires a fair reading by a judge to settle conflicting matters of constitutional fact. He mentions how the constitution must be viewed as a whole to be interpreted correctly, or in his words: "[...] to understand the meaning of those [constitutional] facts for living people").

Makes sense, and supports what I was saying: (fair reading was never the case here), it is far easier to interpret the constitution as supporting the right of the individual to choose for himself whether to accept or decline the covid vaccine. I would be interested to hear an interpretation of constitutional fact that supports mandatory universal vaccination. The only thing I can think of, is if Covid can be convincingly presented as an imminent threat to national security, like islamic terrorism.

I'll check it out and respond. Thanks

We are dependent on community in far more than merely a "symbolic manner". A democratic state is the result of the choices of the community. The democratic notion of support for individual rights has to be balanced against the harms that individuals exercising their freedoms do to others and to the community as a whole. — Janus

I would say a democratic state is the result of the choices of many communities. Nevertheless, the pertinent question is: how do we determine and measure the potential "harms" that the individual is capable of? With Covid, this is highly open to debate, as is evident on TPF.

You're indulging in all or nothing thinking if you believe that the state serves only corporate interests. The state may be more beholden to corporate interests than it should be; obviously the state is never perfect and where there are human beings there will inevitably be some degree of corruption.

Forgive my absolutist rhetoric, I can agree that the state does not serve only corporate interests. However, we are far beyond "some degree of corruption". It is no secret that there are high levels of corruption in the US government, and it is well documented. And in many critical areas, it forsakes the individual in favor of corporations. Issues like polution, wealth disparity and opiod addiction can be directly tied to the relation between corporations and government.

Thus, I have developed a very cynical attitude towards the state. Not all of it, but much of it. And at this point, I would rather fool myself and be wrong, than let the state deceive me into error yet again. How can you blame me?

Your second paragraph as I read it is alarmist nonsense; you can do better than indulging in that. The question is: if you see injustices and corruption in your community, in your state, and they really bother you, then what are you doing to try to help the situation? Whining about it and petulantly refusing to do a simple thing which carries little risk to yourself will only make the situation worse. So are you happy to become part of the problem?

You are right, I can do better.

For me covid is a minor problem with neglible risk, so I have no problem contributing to that problem. As I see it, there are much greater problems that carry substantial to severe risk. If I were to put forth any effort toward resolving socio-political problems, instead of simply whining about it on tpf, I would focus on those. One example is the the alliance between corporations and politicians. Have you ever heard of citizens united?

So I say I want to do something to your porch, and you're non-responsive. Not very clever or alert on your part. Or maybe you're clever enough to avoid an argument you cannot win. Saving you he trouble of trying to defend your indefensible claims. Any which-a-way around, you're not worth, or worthy of, engaging. — tim wood

I like when points are made clearly and directly, I respond much better. Thank you for that, and please excuse me for stringing you along with my bullshit, but that porch analogy deserved it in my opinion.

The point was that on your argument, rights are based on wants. The one who wants has a right to have, and the duty of others is not to obstruct individual rights.

You should have included this with your porch comment. Now I will give you a real answer:

That is not my argument. Rights are not based on wants. One can want all sorts of rights, but want is not the basis for the existence of rights. I hold to the traditional US definition, that rights are self-evident and inherent to the individual, they are also inalienable, meaning that no power in existence can contradict any right established in the constitution (at least on paper, unfortunately, in reality it happens all the time).

Obviously, covid is not mentioned in the US constitution, so no specific right has been established concerning covid, but that also means that there is no constitutional law regarding covid vaccines (nor vaccination in general for that matter). So, as per tradition, until the specifics are officially defined, this leaves it all up to interpretation.

I find it quite simple to extrapolate from preexisting constitutional rights, the right of the individual to choose for himself: whether to accept or reject the covid vaccine. I think you will find it to be quite a difficult contrivance to interpret the constitution in such a way so as to use it as an argument for the necessity of universal vaccination. But if you can, I would love to hear it.

And as to your porch analogy. Inherent to the right of the individual to choose for oneself is something called accountability. When an individual chooses, it is very easy to place direct credit/blame on the one who chose, and with credit/blame is what we know as consequence. In your porch analogy, you might have to face the consequence of my old lady blasting an unknown intruder with her shotgun while your dick is in the mailbox. On the other hand, I respect and support the right of the individual to accept or decline the covid vax. As such, I will have to face the consequences (for my opinion, i suppose) . . . whatever the consequences might be, we have no clue at this point, it is all speculation.

You missed the point completely - not surprising for someone who is not interested in the point. You go o the not-worth-the-trouble list. — tim wood

But you made no point, other than indicating that you're a pervert.

I think he just meant he wanted to expose himself to your mailbox. — frank

I can post the security cam pictures and make him famous

Though I think seldom humanity was betrayed for such a small sum. — Tzeentch

And the scale has never been greater, it is global. It's really incredible.

Why aren't politicians telling people to stop eating junk food, since obese people are 3X more likely to develop severe symptoms? — MondoR

No wonder there is a bed shortage in hospitals, each of those fatties must require 5-6 beds minimum

isn't that the truth. One thing youll notice is that most of the idiots that have bought into the covid hysteria are hard line democrats. Personally, I have no problem with the democratic party, I think the republican party is equally retarded and evil. But the correlation stands

He is posed a still unquantified risk by the vaccine. By declining it he is “inconsiderate”. — AJJ

Yes, we will all be soviet nazis when the dust settles. The rest wil be in concentration camps. I wish I could bet that in vegas

Well, I guess that is all there is to it. Where do you live. I want to come over and do nasty things to your porch. Obviously you won't mind. After all, I want to. So what I do is none of your business. Yes? — tim wood

Do you mean you'd like to fuck my mailbox?

I can accept that we are dependent on community, in a symbiotic manner. But the community and the state are not the same thing. Any state that is a true democratic republic is set up to serve and protect the individual's rights. Where I live, the state no longer serves the individual, but rather corporations at large; perhaps this is why the opinion that the indivual is dependent upon the state and should give allegiance to it is fast gaining popularity in the so-called free world.

Unfortunately, with that attitude toward the state's purpose, it is only a matter of time before we to go to the grocery store and hear: "show me your papers". Luckily we will have an administration of corrective labor camps set up for undocumented citizens, so they will have a place to eat dinner and won't have to starve.

To put it very crudely, if one does not have a passion for truth, reason has no function. My modern translation of 'passion' is 'giving a fuck'. — unenlightened

I like that, lol. Thanks for the clarification

We could put it in the payloads of some missiles and bomb Texas with it. — frank

I've always considered Texas as a kind of convict colony. But if we are going to use bombs, I prefer neutron.

No, this is taking the discussion in the wrong direction. — baker

More like, in a different direction. And in certain democratic states which hold the protecting the right of the individual to be the primary concern of government, it is relevant.

Covid has a wide range of potential symptoms, ranging from nothing to death and everything inbetween. This makes it a complex disease and our response to it should reflect that responsibly both on the part of individual citizens as well as on the part of the government. — baker

Yes, it is very complicated. This means we need to be very careful how we proceed, or else the new world that we are creating right now will suck much more than pre-covid world.

Where we may disagree here is that choices are never just for the self. — Janus

Never? Ever?

Seems to me that every choice begins with the self. From there we can begin extending out choices to others when applicable. But, it is not necessary to extend a choice beyond the self, and if a choice stops at the self, then the choice is just for self.

It also seems that many complications can arise from choosing for others. Do we choose the others we choose for? Because that clearly seems like a choice for just the self. Or, do we choose for everybody by default? Then, what are we to make of disagreement and conflict? Do we choose to choose for some and not for others? But that takes us back to the problem of choosing who we choose for.

No, that all sounds too complicated and confusing, and I didn't even mention how personal responsibility and accountability factors in. So, personally, I will stick to choosing for just myself, and I will respect and support anyone who chooses for just oneself.

Qualia are not a matter of life and death. COVID is. — Olivier5

I'm not so sure about that. If covid is a matter of qualia, it is indeed a matter of life and death. And at this point, we are standing at the edge of a great philosophical debate.

Are you game?

no one in our time believes in tyranny. It's a recipe for great tragedy

So what's her beef then? — Olivier5

Just because you choose to be vaccinated doesn't necessitate that you should require everyone else to. For example, If one respects the right of the individual to choose for oneself.

Merkwurdichliebe
Well, no. The literal dictionary definition is the ability to influence others. I was framing it as 'control' because if the individual has more control it will affect others - we don't live in isolation after all right? — I like sushi

Yes, okay: Power as the ability to influence others. I will re assess the op

Almost every negotiation starts without trust. — Benkei

Not true. Aztecs? Iroquois? Africans?

But I don't care about that. I really want to know what mr. unenlightened means when he says:

I'm suggesting that reason is and ought to be only the slave of passion. — unenlightened

:grin: It's a complicated argument for me. Sorry if my volte-face offends you. Not intentional. — TheMadFool

It is impossible for TheMadFool to offend merkwuerdich

Interestingly enough humans cannot be carnivores, exclusively, due to the noted occurrence of scurvy when without fruits or vegetables for prolonged periods, yet the main argument for vegetarianism is "not eating animal products" but that conveniently does not include breast milk for obvious reasons, while socially breast milk is not an "animal product" is surely is product from a mammal, so depending on how rigid your beliefs are we still do in fact require food product from mammals. — Outlander

Just to clarify, (I am not trying to be antagonistic here) but it is not vegetarianism, but veganism that refuses to eat "animal products" in general. Vegetarians only refuse to eat certain specific animals.

Non-vegetarians could be omnivores (not meat only). Carnivores feed exclusively on meat. I dunno! — TheMadFool

Yes, of course. I am mistaken.

I think you need a more definitive thesis here...however, I will add: outside of choosing for one's self, the individual is powerless, and ultimately irrelevant.

Nonvegetarians — TheMadFool

Is that the pc term for carnivore?

btw, you never adressed the general concern about your hope for the indiscriminate vaccination of everybody on earth. The concern is: it is very naive to think everyone on earth can be vaccinated. After all, how can everyone get vaccinated, if as you say:

some who want a vaccine can't get one. — Xtrix

???

Answer...or cower in defeat! The choice is yours

What might a valid exemption be anyway? — jorndoe

How long until a person can identify as vaccinated and be considered a valid exemption?

If you add a mention to a post later, the person mentioned doesn't get a notice. — T Clark

Try being more antagonistic...they'll notice

yup! In society, we must conform to a historically embedded logic to survive, but in philosophy, we survive by our abilty to construct our own categories. It's beautiful, I love it.

It also helps if said creature doesn't try or is unable to kill you. — Outlander

Very true. I always take the easy kill. Low risk, high reward...? :grin:

What we're seeing in this pandemic is that criticial thinking is being pushed out of all venues. Even at a philosophy forum, the one place in the world that should allow for some nuance and detail, we're now supposed to be all politically correct and superficial. — baker

Don't worry about the merk, I always stay nuanced with my strangelovin'

From what I have heard there are already people getting exemption certificates from doctors and a market in fake vaccine certificates. — Janus

Absolutely. You can get anything on the black market. And nothing can stop it. It's hard to argue against it, but it's equally hard to argue for it.

If an individual takes the choice to go the black market route, I support and respect their right to choose for themselves; equally, if an individual takes the choice to go the socially legitimate route, I support and respect their right to choose for themselves.

a voter qualification test — tim wood

I believe the Soviet Union administered such, with critical acclaim. I wish I could have lived there too.

I don't always agree with you, but I love your philosophy. Keep it up

Awww...everybody look, xtrix is upset because I don't agree with him.

Nice response, xtrix, I bet you walk around in pissy underwear with yellow stains. You should really try defending your position instead of crying and whining like a little bitch.

If the vocal pro-vaccers believe they are so right, so superior to the unvaccinated, then what on earth is stopping them from passing laws in accordance with that? — baker

They are called vaxcsists. And nothing is stopping them from doing that, other than their inability to make it a reality. But you can be certain they are working on it right now.

This is why apple pies are so expensive. — frank

If only we could spike pie with the vaccine, the world would be vaccinated in no time