Are you eager to die? — TheMadFool

Not in the traditional sense of eager. More like anticipating with curiosity. I have a number of good reasons to continue living so while those remain, why rush the ending? I am rather happy with life and see a great deal of wonder in it. Unlike most suicides that end their life as a means to end physical or emotional pain, I really have none of that to speak of. Suicides are often afraid of death, but are more afraid of continuing on as they are currently living.

Now remove my current reasons to continue living and increase my boredom....suicide becomes a more likely option as things that keep me inclined to remain here decrease.

No, I find there is simply a preponderance of evidence to support option two.

I do not believe that we have control over our emotional reaction to words, and it should be clearly obvious that our particular emotional states are quite often strongly correlated with our actions. — Pinprick

We are emotionally affected by the words of those whose words we have allowed to emotionally affect us. Therefore, we have control over our emotional reaction to words, inasmuch as we empower those whose words can affect us emotionally.

Some random person tells me they are disappointed in me: no reaction at all. Hearing the same from my wife would have a far different effect. Equally true with positive feedback. Although I acknowledge that most people like positive feedback, regardless of the source, but that is usually just ego-stroking.

It's not about silencing people who think differently, — Judaka

Frequently it is exactly that. Those of us that think in a more outlier fashion are frequently silenced because we question the foundation of "obvious", mainstream thoughts or values. Not because we are inherently bad people, but we are looking for a more robust answer than "because it's obvious."

I get banned all the time for asking these sorts of questions. Uncomfortable? it's ok, ban that guy!

You don't fear death? Why? — TheMadFool

I do not fear death. There are two ways this can go: A) there is nothing after death, in which case, I have nothing to fear, as that which is me will cease to exist. Or B) there is something after death, making death another transition, and therefore, outside of being unknown, has no reason to be feared. Either way, not worth being afraid of.

My official stand, should anyone be interested, is option two. Another transition.

Suggesting that you be friends is a brush off, walk away. If it was first date, which your write up suggests it was, a movie was a bad idea, as would have been dinner. Try something more active next time (or tell me to shut the hell up, as you did not ask) conversing while in motion is usually much more productive and less "weird energy" builds up as both of you will be distracted with movement (whatever the movement is). She wasn't committed to the other guy, and probably still isn't, until something shifted that way for her she was keeping her options open. Avoid the friend thing, unless you actually wanted to be friends initially, which again, doesn't sound like what you were going for.

Try feeding pigeons at the park, or even better, seagulls at the beach, if you have that as an option. It will also let you know where she stands on animals, getting dirty, and stepping outside the standard dates.

The concept of moral duty, I find, is dependent on the point of the observer to that moral duty. For example, I have a moral duty (or at least a societal expectation) to save, or attempt to save, a child from drowning. I also have a moral duty, or expectation, to provide safety and security for my family. If by attempting to save the child, I place myself at risk, thereby also risking the safety and security of my family, as both of these would be substantially diminished in the event of my death, I also have a moral duty to not save the drowning child. Therefore an assessment of risk would be required prior to the commencement of either course of action.

An additional factor is personal values and core beliefs. Perhaps I am an individual that believes at a fundamental level that for the betterment of the species only the strong should survive. If that were the case then the drowning child could be interpreted as weak, and I would be duty bound to enhance the strength of the species by not saving the drowning child.

Do you work for the KGB or something like that? — Sir2u

No. But dropping $100,000 for some of the answers I am looking for would be a basement level bargain. So again, what is the title of this book? Finding 100k isn't all that hard.

Does your expensive work have a title? Depending on the content the price might be an amazing deal. I would drop $100,000.00 for the right information any day of the week.

I suppose those who only want followers, not thinkers, would not be supporting freedom of speech, or thought, as it would threaten their positions and power. Sad really.

I am not a brain in a vat, simply because I am self aware, therefore more than a brain. Now I could be a spirit occupying a brain in a vat, but the experiences I am being fed are still real as they are experiences processed through the brain which I occupy.

I keep asking for it, — Christoffer

yep. And then say irrelevant, or anecdotal. Either way, whatever you dislike, you dismiss.

your logic was assuming things would have been fine — Christoffer

Nope, not ever. You are projecting again. I think the pandemic response will result in more damage than the pandemic would have if there had been no response at all. Check the WHO site for anticipated deaths due to starvation, lack of TB diagnosis and treatment, etc. as a result of all the border closures and crap resulting from the pandemic response. Last I checked the numbers were about 50,000,000.

So, globally, we scrap upwards of 50,000,000 to cover a pandemic that has taken 3.9 million so far. Seeing as I am a population control kinda guy, I am liking your math here. However, since I am also an environmental supporting type...hating the response even more.

Where I work we are seeing adverse reactions to vaccine at 1:5. Not monster life ending stuff, but still, 1:5. Hard to support that. But hey, it's anecdotal right? So ignore it and carry on.

The OP asked for reasons regarding Vaccine yes or no. I am saying no. Do what you like based on the data. Unless you are frontline, your data is filtered. I am taking the data I see, anecdotal as it is, and working from that. And No is what I come up with.

Philosophy is the name given to the attempt of describing the guiding principles of one's life...to someone that likely disagrees, or at best, doesn't understand. An attempt to bring meaning and purpose if you will.

Oh, another unrelated comparison. — Christoffer

There it is. Never gets old eh, back to the old "irrelevant" position. So your position is that it's ok to rebel, maybe, but not now, and not against this, because....it weakens your position?

People need to understand their place — Christoffer

They should sit down and shut the fuck up and let the ones who are actual experts run the show — Christoffer

It's not about "Big Brother — Christoffer

Contradicting yourself their eh. Just saying, pick a direction and stick with it. Either we don't understand our place and should "shut the fuck up" and let someone else take over, (big brother) OR it's not about big brother, which invalidates the first bit.

how do you know the world "would have been fine" — Christoffer

Also; just because you put in parenthesis doesn't make it a quote. I have not used the phrase "would have been fine."

Ghandi rebelled eh. Peacefully, and effectively, but he still disagreed with the powers that were and changed his world.

Mother Theresa worked around the restrictions placed upon her, effectively rebelling against those who would stop her from doing what she thought was right.

You are doing what you think is right. As am I. We will both be ignored by history, and yet, one of our positions will be more accurate than the other, such is the way of things. We are rebelling. Good for us.

Or would you rather someone had told Ghandi

sit down and shut the fuck up and let the ones who are actual experts run the show. — Christoffer

Seems like a bankrupt plan.

Not sure if you will get a lot of objections. I can think of one poster that seriously supports censorship and the blind following of government, but outside of that, nada.

I always thought if one only wanted to hear one's own opinions...find a mirror.

Agreed. With one exception: I feel no need to forgive myself of anything. Otherwise spot on.

I am not anti-vax. Not at all. However, much like I do not buy the latest, newest model of anything, I will let them work out the kinks before accepting this latest piece of technology.

I think this is one of those cases where if we all do what we want then the collective outcome is worse. Like, that beautiful mind movie. So, on the individual level for everyone hesitancy is rational. Personally, I see it through social contract theory; where if you choose to live in society you ought do what keeps the society alive. The last person to get vaccinated probably won't need it, but we don't know who that is so the only successful approach is over-vaccinating the required number of people. I think we have the right to make selfish decisions and be held accountable for them, so in some sense I agree. — Cheshire

So, for arguments sake, I will go off the deep end here and dive into a theoretical worst case scenario: Strictly hypothetical.
- As per social contract theory, I and my fellow citizens ought to do that which keeps the society alive. Agreed.
Therefore, as per the current narrative, we all roll up our sleeves and get stabbed as required. Yay us. We achieve 98% vaccination rate as desired. We have done our duty to society.

However, as there are no long term effects known, ten years later it turns out that the Mrna technology resulted in a genetic mutation which results in a pronounced decline in fertility, not in us that were vaccinated, but in our children. The already decreasing birthrate decreases to the point that without some form of drastic technological intervention the species will be functionally extinct within 100 years.

Under that scenario, the social contract theory would have us hide in caves rather than get the vaccine.

We do not know the long term effects of this vaccine, this virus, or the technology of the vaccine. It's all pretty new stuff, perhaps mild caution is in order.

That is really all I am saying.

People are stupid, most of them have zero ability to logically conclude anything, review facts, or come to conclusions that are sound. I don't agree that people shall "make up their own minds", people should know their limits, they should know when they don't know all the facts to make a conclusion. — Christoffer

People need to understand their place. — Christoffer

So...big brother knows best eh. Scary stuff.

There are too many people thinking their opinions matter or are important, they aren't, most people don't know anything and their conclusions are laughably inaccurate — Christoffer

Applicable to you my friend.

I don't like uneducated people who speak like they are the world's experts on things they don't understand even the basics of. — Christoffer

And yet...you are still posting. Most of your rant is fully applicable to you as well eh. Or is that another irrelevant detail that you will overlook in defense of your position?

It is refreshing to hear someone actually come out and just say that people should not make their own decisions and just follow the leader, because the leader knows best. Appallingly ignorant and short sighted, but refreshing none-the-less.

There would be no United States if people had listened to what you are pushing. No one can rebel in your philosophy of obedience. How dreary.

You have yet to specify when I claimed any sort of conspiracy theory. Still waiting on that.

I have given examples of when public health has had less than scientific approaches; if you want solid examples of this, look them up. There were pamphlets written in the early 20's and 30's explaining the rationale behind segregation policy. The eugenics policies aren't exactly hard to find, look them up too.
They were wrong, but were supported at the time.

At no point have I suggested any conspiracy theory, that is all you. If you disagree with this claim then it should be easy to locate exactly where I claim a conspiracy is underway. Don't paraphrase: quote me.
It is unfortunate that to every example I have given to support my position you counter with some version of "irrelevant." or "prove it".

Also, I am not yelling at you, nor swearing, nor seeking the moderator to intervene on my behalf, nor am I questioning your place on this forum.

I suggest that people make up their own minds and determine their own course of action; as close to informed consent as they can achieve, and not blindly obey (unless they want to). That is all. Why this infuriates you is beyond me. People thinking for themselves should be a good thing, correct?

:up:

When did I say there was a conspiracy? Be specific now.

You are clinging to the premise that public health is entirely correct and that they are completely trustworthy. Maybe they solidly believe what they are peddling. I completely understand that you believe them.

However, public health in the 20's and 30's also supported eugenics as a viable heath initiative. This is true for many countries at the time. The most infamous, and the one that resulted in the end of publicly supported eugenics, were the Nazis, master race and all that. It was wrong, but at the time was a supported theory.

Other initiatives also supported by public health include racially separated bathrooms (theory of the time being that non-white people spread disease), removing children from transient peoples (gypsies, etc) as transient people were clearly of lower breeding.

Yep there are some epic fails in the history of public health, mostly based on the politics and perspectives of the time, not based in science. We should question what is going on. IF the answers hold up, great. If not, following directions might not be the way to go.

What the fuck do you think would happen if we didn't have any restrictions or countermeasures in place? — Christoffer

In about a year...actual herd immunity. And minor population control.

Now Ebola...That goes pandemic, I will likely get the vaccine. 70% mortality rate gets your attention.

worse than anything ever reported about the vaccines — Christoffer

So far. Give it a few years eh. Let me know then.

life isn't safe eh. We all die. Adjust. I disagree with getting the vaccine, at least right now. I don't buy into the sales pitch. A lot of us that work in healthcare don't, no matter how much that may shock you. At the end of the day I am very glad you don't make the rules I have to live by.

Vaccine information is medical information, that makes it none of your business. Wear a mask if you want to fly, fair enough. Come to my country and you need to have your yellow fever vaccine. Sure, it's your country. Want to buy a cheeseburger, show me your vaccine history: WTF?

Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. — Christoffer

Any evidence that contradicts your position you deem irrelevant. Just pathetic.

The mask thing for airlines I am fine with. You want to fly, you play by their rules. Fair enough.

The vaccine thing I disagree with. There is no way to determine who is vaccinated and who isn't, who can be but chooses not to and who can't be (for whatever reason) but would if they could, without requiring everyone to share way too much personal information. Sure some people won't mind, others won't care, but many will object, and I feel that they should be respected when they say "I should not have to tell you that."

I like Florida's position: $5000.00 fine for any business requiring vaccination information from customers. Just awesome.

So what about anti-vaccers and those pushing ideas of breaking restrictions, if people follow that or if they follow their own ideas, shouldn't that be considered in the same manner as driving blindfold or getting someone else to do it? — Christoffer

Not at all.

the swine flu vaccine that had serious consequences? — Christoffer

Hey thanks for bringing that up! I had forgotten that crap. I work for the same outfit now as I did then. Then it was mandated that I get that vaccine or lose my job. I needed the money as my kids were young, so Daddy stepped up and did as directed. In a nutshell, that sucked royally. Now they aren't mandating this vaccine as they did the H1N1 vaccine. Likely because a full third of the staff would go home, and hospitals can't run on 2/3 of staff for any length of time. They assured us it was safe then, much the same as this vaccine. All full of doom and gloom then too. And a whole lot of not much was the result.

If you don't get the vaccine, you have no right to the same level of freedom, — Christoffer

There ya go! Restrict all them anti-vaxers! They are evil bastards that won't listen to what we want! Damn all those who will not obey! ( I am out of torches, you will have to make your own for the Anti-vaxer march)

It is unfortunate that humans appear to be truly unable to accept each other's choices without railing against them. I am not asking everyone that has had a vaccine to stay away from other people in case the vaccine has some unknown communicable side effect. Worth noting: being vaccinated does not prevent catching Covid, or prevent spreading Covid eh. It reduces the severity of the illness, and may reduce transmission ( not solidly proven yet, but it seems to be working out that way).

So the vaccine has unknown long term side effects, decreases illness but does not prevent it, decreases transmission (lets just go with it) but does not prevent it, and....I forgot why I should get this again. The sales pitch falls flat.

Thalidomide had awesome reviews initially and was the wonder drug of the time. That did not work out so well longer term. Long terms studies matter. Multiple short term studies do not have the same value as a single decent long term one.
You are comfortable rolling up your sleeve for the vaccine, good for you. I, and many other educated individuals, are not so keen. Perhaps in five years, or ten, maybe. You do not know the long term effects of it, no one does, not even those that make it. We also don't know the long term effects of Covid.

So my choices are: A) Trust in my body to do what it has always done by responding appropriately to new pathogens and trust in the health of others' to do the same; B) Allow myself to be injected with something new, that has had testing time that numbers in months rather than years, to protect me from another new thing that has been known of for less than two years, which we also know not much about. I go with option A. The second just seems too risky. The speeches attached to the vaccine are very snakeoil salesmanish.

You are espousing the position that I should take the vaccine, or hide away, for the health of the species. I say that I should not take the vaccine, nor hide away, for exactly the same reason; the health of the species. I have done the research, I have read the monographs, I have listened to the experts explain the value and then go back and change what they said as new information arose (multiple times). I remain unconvinced, therefore elect to not be vaccinated. I see the data, not what I want to see, but what is there.

over-dramatic nonsense — Benj96

Going with the over-dramatic option. Sure we could end our existence on earth, but will we really? Nope. I kinda wish we had the stones to though. At least it would show some commitment as a species. I see people that try to explain human value as if we will save the planet, but really, the planet will be fine. Our species has been around for the length of a decent hiccup in the lifespan of the planet. How arrogant are we to think we matter at all to anything other than us? The planet will shrug off any damage we cause and carry on regardless. We might not survive, but that would be another species going extinct, nothing more and hardly a horrible loss at that. Don't worry, something will replace us.

This has nothing to do with the logic — Christoffer

And that pretty much captures your stance. Also nothing to do with ethics. Bravo.

And colchicine as well. Used to treat gout for many decades. I won't take the vaccine but I would have no problem with colchicine if needed.

Thank you for clearly elucidating basically everything I find abhorrent with the pro-vaccine types. It must be horrible living with that kind of abject terror everyday. To justify forcing your beliefs onto others, simply because you are afraid, puts you on par with pretty much every dictator ever. "I will do this, and don't worry, you will thank me later" Said the church as they took people's children, burned down places of worship, and set about destroying "the heathen", "to save them from ignorance."

What a crock of shit. I assume you justify rape as saying that those who refuse to engage in consensual sex are against the continuation of humanity and are therefore guilty of complicit genocide, therefore, for the security of procreation, must be made to procreate regardless of their opinion on the matter?

Therefore, I'm not sure what you mean by "hate speech". — Gladiator of Truth

I mean speech specifically designed to promote hatred and subsequent violent response, for example "all french Canadians are less than human and so should have no rights or property and are less worthy than cattle." That, to me, qualifies as hate speech. I am French Canadian, so hopefully no one gets pissy about my example.

I support free speech. Not hate speech, but actual free open discussion to expand understanding of a topic. Disagreeing with the other posters greatly improves the discussion. If I only want my views, I need only find a mirror.

I support that we should be able to question whatever we feel will result in a decent conversation/discussion, however, as I have had threads deleted due to the question I was asking, clearly there are topics that are not supported. Which is unfortunate, I had been hoping for a less restrictive discussion environment. As for being "woke" and "politically correct", I certainly hope the forum does not go that way too far as it will spell the end of reasonable discussion. I can get flavour of the week on CBC.

So, if you are at the risk of dying, refuse the vaccine, and become a strain on medical personal, then maybe we can see it as putting yourself at an unneeded risk, and as a consequence, you take the place of someone who actually needed that care. — Christoffer

So through a personal choice, declining the vaccine, one could become a drain on the system, taking the place of someone who needed the care. Correct? Like the smokers that need respiratory therapy, or the cardiac patients that are obese and smoke, or the alcoholics that need to be stabilized from GI bleeds or rampant high sugar levels...Oh wait, 95% of those are also based on a personal decision, so I guess they are also taking the place of someone who needed the care. I couldn't agree more! No treatment for anything that resulted from a personal decision! No addictions therapy, no cardiac care (unless based on genetic problem), no treatment for smoking related complications, No orthopedic surgeries for anyone that is obese, etc. This could also solve the problem of healthcare costs! I love this approach. Also, I will likely have no job once it is in full swing, but hey, small price to pay.

Lastly, this approach will result in huge mortality rates eh. Just saying, a lot are gonna die.

I disagree with the OP. Belief in God is irrelevant to being good, or evil.

Both are a matter of perspective, nothing more. In a nutshell, that which supports or strengthens my position or belief system is good, that which weakens is bad. Change position and that which makes up good or evil also changes. All things are permissible and all things are prohibited, depending on the reference point.

God has no bearing on the matter, unless of course one's behaviour is being attributed to the demands of an invisible and unprovable being, in which case there are other, possibly more pressing, problems to deal with.

They also push for organ donation which I also did not sign on for. There are a lot of party lines that I tend to ignore.