Heart disease and traffic accidents are, in a general sense, brought on by lifestyle and personal choices. I do not necessarily agree, however, there are usually factors that come into play with those events. The implication is that Covid cannot be blamed on the person getting Covid and therefore we all have to save each other from covid exposure. I find the commonly used statement of "No more deaths need to occur." very poorly thought out, and exactly wrong. All the deaths that occur need to. It is the only certainty that we have. All of us will end, just a fact. How and when are the question, but the result is absolute. Perhaps Corona is the earth ridding itself of us, and if so, we have it coming, but likely not. I suspect more of a light thinning will be the end result.

food is the only thing that stimulates all five senses. Food can be touched (with your hands), seen (with your eyes), tasted (with your tongue), smelt (with your nose), and, finally, heard (with your ears). — TheMadFool

Food and Woman: for all the same reasons.

I have patients that experience "hallucinations" involving all five senses, would they, therefore be experiencing an alternate reality?

We cannot argue that there was a Christian God before Christianity started. — Joel Evans

Actually, we can absolutely claim that there was no Christian God prior to Christianity. The god may have existed, certainly, however, prior to Christianity, that divine spirit had no particular name to speak of, or at least was not a "Christian God" because there was no "Christian" to be god of.

A rose is a flower. It was a flower before it was called a rose, it will remain the same flower even if I decide to call it a Flamingo. The flower does not care what I call it. It simply is.

In general, to experience something by sight is to prove that it exists — Maureen

My psychiatric patients with visual hallucinations would then have "proved" a great deal of odd things exist, as they experience many things by sight that I have not been afforded to see. Similar claims would be applied to Auditory, Tactile and other hallucinations. I am not so arrogant to assume that my perceived reality is the only viable reality, indeed, if one can see, hear, smell, and touch a "hallucination" it is exceedingly difficult to dissuade them from believing it, it may also be morally incorrect to do so.

Some dude named "Jim" approaches me when no one is around, talks to me, tells me his version of what's what, I hear him, I see him, I shake his hand. Do I need external proof to support my experience as real? If my experience was not with "Jim" but "God" does that suddenly make my experience invalid, because I am claiming that I encountered divinity?

People seem very keen on devaluing the experiences of others, apparently because the "other's" experience is not supported by our own, and therefore must be lessened, otherwise, apparently, we are lessened. I suggest that both parties may have equally valid experiences, and that neither are lessened by the other.

I cannot prove that "God" exists to anyone else's liking, and have no interest in proving so to myself. I have my belief system, anthropomorphized divinity plays no role of value in it. I have no need of proof, I have, in my estimation, a sound rationalized theory, which is a good as reality gets.

I can see it, I can smell it, I can hear it, I can touch it... Why would I believe anyone that tells me it does not exist?

“Free-spirited, varied sexual encounters in pornography produce a sharp contrast versus the restrictions, commitment, and responsibilities associated with family and relationships and make the latter appear as particularly restricting — Ignance

So, clearly, these guys were doing things wrong in their married or serious relationships. Restricting relationships are restricted, I get that, but the blanket statement that family and relationships appear particularly restricting when contrasted with porn is more a reflection on the individual making the claim of restriction.

you seem to be saying that utopia will never be achieved in the future because it has not already been achieved — Alvin Capello

Actually, no. I am saying that utopia will never be achieved because Utopia is unachievable. The concept of utopia is different for each person, therefore, since there are, roughly, 8 billion versions of it, to establish a state in which everyone is experiencing utopia is, in essence impossible. If we consider Utopia to simply be a lack of suffering and strife, then death, or a very drugged state could be considered as having achieved a utopian state. However, as my version of utopia, or heaven, if you will, is far different than the version espoused by my fellow man, or mentioned in any of the religious books I have read, or heard tell of. It has not happened yet, en masse, because it cannot. I believe it has happened individually, and there it will remain, an individual achievement.

philosophy does not need proof. Proof would constitute fact. Philosophy is truth and theory oriented, not fact based. Truth is based on perception, therefore perception is truth. I perceive a cat before me, therefore there is a cat before me in truth. However, as "cat" is a label applied to describe a particular creature, should that descriptor be applied be an alternate culture to something else, for example, what I consider to be a "rose", then when a person of that culture sees a "cat" they are seeing at cat in their truth and a rose in mine.

Show me a field of people without strife and I will show you field of corpses. Utopia is a pipe dream. Enough drugs will get you there, until the drugs run out.

I find your topic of particular interest, it is something that has drifted through my mind for the majority of my life as I do not understand people in general and, traditionally, they do not understand me. In a nutshell, I make them nervous. I frequently need to check in with my wife asking "is this a people thing?".

I have no real concept of "human values", at least as I have come to believe society suggests they are, and therefore find that "human nature" is an obscure topic.

My observed experience of human nature is that people will generally be kind and considerate until it is no longer convenient. At that point they will justify their actions with any number of rationalizations. Man is inordinately attached to his meat suit and momentary convenience, far more so than his ethics or morality. The former will lapse far earlier than the latter, under most circumstances, with most people.

In essence, human nature is that which the person is inclined to do without external motivations. What would you do when no one is watching? I believe one can change ones nature by expanding one's perspectives to be far more inclusive and considerate of other perspectives and values. This can be accomplished with a great deal of reading, contemplation and time. Lastly, one must be in a place where any change will not be opposed. (basic change theory)

Or is it the very fact that we talk cross purposes that makes it worthwhile to discuss a topic? — Benj96

It is exactly that which allows a discussion to bear worthwhile fruit. I will expound upon a topic from my perspective, you from yours, and, through effective use of language we will come to a greater understanding of the topic, perhaps enough so to add to, or modify, our original perspective.

She made a choice to commit suicide. Moral implications of that choice are hers, not her husbands. By allowing the husband to assume the moral responsibility of her action she is denied the responsibility of said action, which means, sadly, that even her last action will be attributed to her husband.

that's why you wear a mask while in the car alone. So that you can't catch Covid from yourself, as you are already closer than six feet from yourself...unless you have a dissociated personality disorder, then your are fine, sort of.

"Do or do not, there is no try!" — Henx

Gotta love Yoda. He nails it. Consider the context of the quote: Luke is whining and crying about how hard it is to raise the X-wing out of the swamp. And he tells Yoda that he will try, enter Yoda's quote.

Luke doesn't believe he can do it, the whining makes that clear, and uses the word try as a cop-out, thereby admitting defeat even before beginning. I do not "try" to shovel the walk. I shovel the walk, no excuses, no whining. My kid (even though I love him) "tries" to do stuff that I tell him to do, stuff that he does not want to do. If he says he will "try" then I know he will be less successful than if he says "ok". Usually "try" is used as a preemptive excuse for an anticipated failure.

Intentions are based on an anticipated or desired course of action. I intend to go to law school (mostly because I get bored easily and maybe, just maybe that will occupy me for a few years), however I have not yet applied. I have, therefore, the intent to go, meaning I want to, but have not tried to get in, as in have made no meaningful movement towards getting admitted. I have taken the LSAT cold, but have not sent in any application to anywhere. I can use excuses like I can't really justify the cost of law school to appease my boredom, but in fact, I have not tried getting in yet.

Intention does not require action or movement, it is, paradoxically, a static activity.

Trying involves action or movement, and is not a static activity. Using it in a future tense "I will try" is regularly associated with anticipated failure.

Action/effect is not always the result of intent. You intend to get to work on time, you drive quickly, perhaps over the speed limit, perhaps not, regardless, while rounding a blind corner you run over a deer. End result: you killed a deer and wrecked the front of your car. Which is neither your intent nor what you were trying to achieve. Intent: don't be late. Try: to get to work on time.

If you swap out a person for the deer you have a crime without without intent, hence Negligence causing death, instead of murder.

As far as the expression "at least you could try!" one could replace "try" with a " verb" and the expression would be almost identical. " I can't find a job...At least you could look!" etc.

Thanks for posting eh!

We choose what is easy. Those that would pursue a right path, no matter the difficulty of said path, elicit such hatred in the rest that those seeking rightness are destroyed. Ever notice that "do the right thing" and "obey" are very nearly interchangeable? As far the person telling you to do the right thing is concerned anyway. Every path has an exception, every rule has a proviso allowing it to be ignored, and therefore nothing has consistency. Follow the rules and obey...except when you don't eh.

Clear as mud. We aren't setting up future generations for failure so much as guaranteeing we cannot succeed ourselves. Enjoy the show.

Masturbation avoids the problem of safe sex. Also, at the present time of the pandemic we are almost prohibited from meeting others so masturbation is about the only uncomplicated form of sexual expression left open — Jack Cummins

Well, as per our national chief medical officer, as long as you wear a mask while having sex, then it's ok to have sex during the pandemic. Which, to me, says she is doing it wrong. This also explains why our national pandemic policies are so bizarre, if you think a medical mask during sex is the way to go, clearly I can disregard anything else you ever say.

To the point of the question, I would suggest that NOT masturbating would be more of a violation of moral duty to self. I would further support that by explaining the value of masturbation to the self as successful masturbation releases pent up stress, relaxes the individual and allows for improved sleep.

I think it's better to accept that humanity will ultimately consume itself, then mock it all for its incorrigible stupity. — Merkwurdichliebe

You forgot to make popcorn while you watch the show. Of course humanity will consume itself, it consumes everything else and is nondiscriminatory that way.

what problems does Block see with specifying that the judges be good at thinking about thinking? — PhilosophyStudent

The problem with specifying that the judges be good at thinking about thinking is that the judges, based on their own ability and understanding of thinking, would potentially bring bias to the test. The best the judge could do is, as mentioned, determine which respondent is "thinking". That being said, "human level cognition" has a massive bell curve attached to it. AI that falls within the curve may or may not be impressive. Most people are not.

The definition of "thinking" is unclear. An amoeba reacts to stimulus (food), envelopes it, and carries on. Can this be defined as thinking? Plants are known to react to external stimuli by secreting chemicals and communicating to other nearby plants, so...thinking plants? My dog thinks, my cat thinks, in that they respond to external stimuli, have internal motivations and preferences, demonstrate external responses to internal feelings. Both demonstrate fear, anger, frustration and affection. "Thinking" is only valued if it can be effectively communicated to the judge or observer. A lack of ability to communicate will reduce the most fantastic thinker to imbecilic levels, or lower.

you could have saved space and simply blamed women for everything. Heavy stereotyping in your perspective.

I have known many women, young and old, who do not, and have not, desired children. I know many men that have.

Actually I accept the "kill yourself if you are that upset about things" perspective. Either play the game as best you can, or, check out and end the game. But spending a life time bitching about it seems wasteful, unless one enjoys the bitching. However, if that is the case, they are playing the game anyway.

Abstaining from procreation; as a basis for the reduction of suffering, from the perspective that that which remains unborn cannot suffer, is, when extrapolated forward, a fantastic logic for mass murder as a means to reduce universal suffering. Which is entertaining, but largely unsupported by...well almost everyone. Suffering is based on perspective of the individual choosing to accept that what they are experiencing is suffering.

By way of example: I have been very fortunate in my life to have experienced extremely good sport fishing. I have fly fished Alaska for salmon and have had days that at the end of the day my arms were only semi-functional because of all the fish I had caught that day (I release nearly all I catch). On the less productive days I am able to enjoy the glacier fed river I am in, the beautiful scenery, and life at it's more relaxing pace. Maybe I catch a fish, maybe I don't, but I chose to enjoy and embrace the other, more leisurely activities going on at the time. My Nephew on the other hand has also experienced this high level of fishing, however, when the fish aren't biting he is angry, disappointed and unable to appreciate anything going on around him. He is choosing to suffer, despite having a plentitude of amazing things around him that he could enjoy, if he chose to. His birth has very little direct effect on his amount of suffering, his choices directly cause his suffering.

However, without suffering there is no joy. I have lots of really good drugs that will relieve you of all your suffering, they will also relieve you of everything that makes you you. So will a well placed bullet.

I suggest that suffering promotes growth, which, eventually, leads to acceptance and internal peace.

we really see the US aggressively attempting to reassert its role as world policeman? — jamalrob

I hope we do not. I suspect that, should the US attempt this, we will see dramatic reprisals from countries that are interfered with, and understandably so. The US is no longer a shining example of effective and functional democracy. I would suggest it is more the latest example of democratic chaos and near failure, which may yet occur. Hardly suitable material for a policeman.

Should Biden pursue too aggressive a foreign policy I foresee the US being slapped down. However a war might unite the US citizenry, perhaps the real goal Biden is working toward.

I chose to accept the version of "torture" for myself as you described. Having said that, your description of torture; having to listen to someone scream for an hour, is basically a bad hour at work for me, which I currently do for a decent cheque. Not so intimidating or concerning really, but it depends what you are used to. I do not feel particularly obligated to help the stranger, however since I get that experience at work already, sometimes for far longer than an hour, buddy can avoid having his fingers broken, I will just get another coffee once the screaming stops.

God is a transgendered Cat? Not a bad position, and I cannot refute the theory.

In a nutshell...Yes. "God" is whichever the beholder needs "God" to be. Is the Ocean male or female? The ocean doesn't care what you call it, and neither does "God". People seek to determine, or establish, the gender of the divine, most likely to increase relatability to it, but the divine has no gender to speak of. It consists of both, equally. Or none, if that is preferable. When the bible was written (primarily by men I am told) the predominant pronoun would have been masculine, not because the deity is masculine but because the writers were. Had the writers been predominantly female the pronouns used would have reflected this. Assuming the gender of the divine based on the anthropomorphized version presented by the narrator is limiting at best, outright wrong is more likely.

Consider the economy of murder: Bob kills Jim (reasons are unimportant) Jim, being dead, has minimal positive economic value anymore, once he has been buried little to no economic return will be attributed directly to Jim. Bob goes to jail, resulting in temporary employment for lawyers, judge, etc. after which only the penal system gains by the murder of Jim.

Economic value is limited to confinement and care of Bob.

Consider the economy of Rape: Bob rapes Jim. Jim carries on living, employing various sectors such as acute healthcare, on going counselling, family services, possibly divorce lawyers (substantial trauma is life changing), Jim may need additional training for alternate employment, his family may need counsellors, etc. Bob goes to jail, employing essentially the same people as the previous murder example.

Economic value consists of confinement and care of Bob, plus all of the supports that Jim and his family require on an ongoing basis as a result of the rape.

Mathematically there is less employment, and therefore less societal benefit, to murder than other violent crimes, therefore murder is the worst crime as it has the least long term benefit for society.

Death is that which gives life value. Life has meaning because it is limited and ultimately ends. Eliminate death (if it were possible) and create a living hell.

I will not ever take the vaccine. Firstly, if one can become immune to covid 19 then I do not need the vaccine, having already had the virus. Secondly, if one cannot become immune to it, as multiple countries have told everyone who has had it already, then the vaccine is pointless. Thirdly, if the vaccine operates similarly to a Flu vaccine, meaning the most likely 4 strains are immunized for annually, it leaves far too much room for error than I am comfortable with. Currently my options with the flu vaccine are: get vaccinated, resulting in guaranteed full-on flu symptoms for 2-3 days; or risk it and be sick for 4-5 days IF I get the flu. Neither choice is appealing. Lastly, and oddly almost as compelling as all the others combined, is the means by which many of the Covid 19 vaccines are being created is the same means used at the of Wil Smith's "I am legend" to cure cancer. Watch the movie if you can't recall how that turns out. In 30 years, once I have seen the longitudinal effects of the vaccine on those who choose to get it, maybe I would consider it. However, in 30 years I will likely be looking for the door anyway, so still unlikely to agree.
I have worked 14 years in critical care. Rushing a vaccine is ALWAYS a bad idea.

Good and Evil are a matter of perspective, neither can exist without the contrast of the other. As with light and darkness. If there is no darkness there can be no light, as light is most easily defined as the absence of darkness. Without contrast there is simply being. Through the elimination of all contrasts there would be an exceedingly boring state of being. On the upside, as there would be nothing to contrast with that state, no one would know anyway. Sounds fairly hellish in truth.

Why not? The state kills people. The general populace are not allowed to kill each other as that specific privilege belongs solely to the state. However, if one party may engage in a task, any party may engage in the same task, outside of the laws written by the state.

the "sin" of killing is based upon the perspective of the individual doing the killing. The bible informs us that all human life is sacred, meaning, essentially, that everything non-human does not matter. However, unless an individual is of that specific religion, that tenet is not applicable. Therefore, either all life is sacred, or no life is sacred. Those that consider nature to be murderous, as animals prey upon each other in order to survive, would fall in the former category. The latter category is rarely strictly adhered to as society's laws prohibit the killing of humans, unless done by the state, and under specific circumstances. The working definition of life is important to the first category of believers as this definition allows them to move forward with something they already want to do and are simply seeking permission to do so (as something not alive cannot be killed, therefore the tenet does not apply). Supporters of the second stance would only consider the definition of life as important with respect to punitive action if proceeding with their intention.
Most people abide within a self created grey area between the two and hence have difficulty in determining a course of action when what they want to do conflicts with societal values.

the wave was not destroyed, it was transformed. I cannot die ( be destroyed), not because I do not exist, but because death is not destruction but transformation. The pattern is not destroyed but transformed into a new pattern. Energy alters form yet remains, so to shall I.

I have found the greatest problem with most attempt to "prove" the existence of God is that the definition of "God" is not defined, and therefore, exceedingly problematic in proving. The anthropomorphized version of God is difficult to prove, as conceptually, the idea of it is ridiculous, therefore attempting to prove the ridiculous by way of reason is inherently flawed. How does one prove something by reason if it is not, at it's core, a reasonable concept?

"Good and Bad" actions. I assume these descriptors would be based on the perspective of society, rather than on those committing said actions? I seek specific clarification of subjective terms as I have been gifted (my perspective on it anyway) with a profound ability to not relate to societies accepted norms. I understand that they are accepted norms, I just have no idea why, so I ask what are often perceived to be offense questions. They are not meant to be offensive, but to allow a greater understanding of another's perspective.

I noticed the usage in one of your earlier posts and was curious as to your parameters applied to the term. I cannot find the reference now.

Regarding the social determinants of health, wealth (socio-economic status) play much larger roles than simply being able to purchase treatments. Wealth allows one access to quality foods, preventative health regimes (exercise programs, equipment, etc), adequate housing, clothing, as well as allowing restorative downtime. Additionally wealth allows increased security, both perceived and real. All of these are contributors to an individual's base health level.

I stand corrected.

Define " Moral responsibility" please. I would like your definition as I am curious regarding what it encompasses. Thanks.

"disproportionately affecting" Always an interesting concept. It pre-supposes that all things should inherently be affected in equality, something I have never seen in reality.

Covid is an amazingly elegant beastie. It affects each person individually according to their baseline physiological weak points, seemingly analyzing where and how to have the most effect. No matter how good the mask, it cannot protect you from a life time of being unhealthy.

The mortality numbers in the US are high while the mortality rates are less disturbing. Canada has less mortality, raw death number-wise, yet nearly triple the mortality rate (confirmed infection to death ratio).

Low socio-economic status results in a generally less healthy lifestyle, lower quality food, less exercise/more sedentary lifestyle, less medical follow up, etc. The basic determinants of health, as a baseline. In comes Covid and finds a population of less healthy individuals...Poof! higher infection rates, higher mortality rates. Covid highlights, and hits, the weakest points within a healthy individual, weakening them further, perhaps unto death, most often not. Leaving the survivor depleted, with an adjusted baseline, that, theoretically, can be restored with time, exercise and commitment. However, if an individual lacked the resources initially to be optimally healthy, it is highly unlikely that they would, after infection and initial recovery, suddenly find themselves in a position to rectify a lifetime of previous lack.
The poor are always hit harder than the wealthy. Again, fundamental determinant of health : Can you afford to be healthy? or are you doing the best you can with what you have?

I suggest that "appropriately affecting" is a more accurate term. There are reasons populations are affected as they are, whether these reasons are readily identifiable is not always clear.