I can get behind the idea that selfish people deserve any negative consequence they reap, I find it a lot harder to get behind the idea that mistaken people do. — Isaac

It's Christian thinking: You deserve eternal suffering if you fail to pick the right religion.

No. It is overwhelmingly the unvaccinated - those who choose not to act in their own and the community's best interest; and children.

Don't bitch about something that is entirely in your control. If you don't like being cast out, get vaccinated. — Banno

Exactly. Vaccination is first and foremost a social measure, not a medical one.

The rules permit that a person infected with this disease can congregate with the uninfected,
— NOS4A2

No, they don't. — Banno

They do. All you need is a covid pass, and then you can do anything you want. You can be a superspreader.

The vaccinated folk get a cold. The unvaccinated folk get to go to the ICU. — Banno

Except when they don't.

In Slovenia and some other EU countries, 40% of those hospitalized for covid are vaccinated, 20% of those in ICUs are vaccinated.

If the consequence of congregating is a cold, then there is little need to slow the spread. Any rules still standing are only there to protect the unvaccinated. — Banno

What we're "protecting" first and foremost is the dogma, and the government and the pharmaceutical industry from any and all responsibility.

I question the efficacy of the vaccine. Yes, a whole bunch of people are going to call me names for it, but seriously consider: Vaccination for small pox= no more small pox. Vaccination for measles= no more measles. Same for polio; chicken pox, mumps. You get my point.

Then comes covid...
/.../
After achieving fully vaccinated status : Mask, social distance, limit movement (domestic and international), decrease social interaction, work from home when possible. Virus spreading, people dying. — Book273

Exactly. Covid simply isn't like small pox, or measles, or polio etc. With those diseases, once a person is infected, they mostly get the disease, and it's clear they have it. In contrast, in covid, most people have mild symptoms or none at all. Covid just isn't comparable to those other diseases.

I wonder if they’ll segregate the vaccinated, just to keep us safe. — NOS4A2

I wonder when (!) they'll start segregating the vaccinated based on which vaccine they've been vaccinated with.
There is already a trend to hold those who got Pfizer in better esteem than others.

I ask you to please consider this: if you given a choice to play Russian roulette with a loaded machine gun with 1999 live bullets and 1 blank; or else with a machine gun with 1999 blanks and 1 live bullet; which machine gun will you choose? — god must be atheist

This is the mentality of mobsters, gamblers, and drug dealers. I am none of that, so I don't reason this way.

We're supposed to have a scientific and ethical approach to the issue of public health.

Perhaps in 2030 when you go to your local medical center, you'll still see some signs about how to prevent COVID-19. And people won't bother about it, but likely many won't shake hands anymore. I assume that will happen: the World will be a colder place with less physical contact with people you don't know. Hand shaking is then such an old gesture then, I guess. Just like the gesture of a man kissing the hand of a woman, it will perhaps become too theatrical. — ssu

It's so convenient to blame covid for what is actually the general decline of quality in human interaction.

I sometimes watch interviews with people talking about how covid measures are restricting their lives, and how alienated they feel because of them. And I wonder, have these people never gone to school? Do they not work?

What has been the normal, regular, ordinary experience for so many minorites, for those bullied and mobbed, excluded from normal society, has now become a temporary experience for a few more people. And they cry foul?!

So I’m going to tell people to get vaccinated, am not morally responsible if it harms them, and won’t pay them any kind of compensation if it does. — Michael

So you command people to do things, or you give them (unsolicited) advice, and you take no responsibility for the outcome if they act accordingly.

I wouldn't dare do that.

Have you ever met anyone who would be happy about another's claims of enlightenment?
— baker

Well, for starters, there aren't many who actually make that claim. — Apollodorus

Must by just my karma that I've met some!

Second, you would want to first see some evidence in support of that claim.

No. Things don't work like that. But I suppose that to understand this, one needs to have first-hand experience of witnessing someone making the claim.

Third, you would need to know (a) what enlightenment is and (b) what enlightenment means in the case of the person making the claim.

Usually, people are so restricted and defined by their day-to-day concerns that they don't get involved into such things, and instead just shrug their shoulders when hearing claims of enlightenment.

So I think that, statistically, the chance of anyone being in a position to congratulate others for being enlightened is pretty small ....

The topic was how come claims of enlightenment generate so much hostility.

the center point of Buddhism is suffering and the end of suffering. The Buddha said that he teaches only one thing: suffering and the end of suffering.
— baker

That’s why I don’t think there is much difference between Buddhism and other systems. — Apollodorus

What other system is organized around the idea of a complete cessation of suffering?

Yes, the idea of suffering and the idea of making an end to suffering can be found in many religions, ideologies, etc., but these systems differ greatly in the relative importance they ascribe to the problem of suffering. To the best of my knowledge, no other system but Buddhism gives such prominence to suffering (although Jainism is close).

Well, when you have a number of competing systems, I think it is legitimate for people to want to learn more about each of them. After all, anyone can claim that they can show you "the way to Nirvana”, only to take you for a ride.

This is true only for academics and academically minded people with too much time on their hands. Pretty much everyone else decides within seconds as to wether something is worth paying attention to or whether to dismiss it with an idle hand gesture.

The general view in the old days was that Western systems (especially those based on Christianity) were superior to anything the East had to offer. These days the attitude has been reversed. It has become customary to belittle all things Western and to idealize and idolize everything Eastern (or non-Western).

This is a trend, sure, but I don't see it as the main one. There is also another trend, and that is to dismiss everything from the East as "Eastern nonsense". Where I live, this latter is prevalent. Even people who are into yoga and meditation approach them with a politically corrected, Westernized attitude, so that the only thing that is "Eastern" about their yoga is the name.

The way I see it, this new trend is mostly rooted in ignorance of Western traditions, which is part of the general cultural decline in the West.

Western philosophy and Western religion have brought this upon themselves, though. Not just with bloody religious wars, but with blatant classism, elitism, and a general callous disregard for other people and other beings.

Part of the reason why "Eastern wisdom" seems so atractive to some Westerners is because it seems so available. Western philosophy is largely impenetrable for a person without a formal education in philosophy, while the Eastern one seems to be available and ready-to-use for everyone, regardless of their socioeconomic status and education level. (Of course, as some Westerners eventually realize, this isn't quite so, it's just a "seems," and Eastern philosophy is still classist, elitist, and requires formal education.)

If the objects of sensory consciousness (pravṛttivijñāna) are momentary, a higher, more permanent form of consciousness (ālayavijñāna) is needed, and if that is also not permanent, a final, absolutely permanent consciousness is required. Otherwise, enlightenment itself would be impermanent.

This is why three basic levels of consciousness and being are common to Buddhism and Platonism alike - each level of reality being superseded by the next higher one that generates it, until the Ultimate Source of all is reached.

The “obliteration of consciousness” that is supposed to take place in enlightenment may well be only the obliteration of lower forms of consciousness. This would make the real Buddhist position compatible with that of other systems like Platonism and Advaita Vedanta, as McEvilley suggests. — Apollodorus

And all this is said by scholars who have not practiced any of the paths they are discussing ...

I've always assumed spiritual practices and beliefs generated just as much acrimony and division as anything else constructed by human beings. You have done way more work in this area - what do you think enlightenment looks like?

Spiritual systems all seem to coalesce around an etherial endgame - a blissful realm that humans can achieve with the right attitudes or practices. Enlightenment seems to be one of these stories. The endless quest for perfection and arrival. — Tom Storm

Sure, in such general terms, ideas of enlightenment seem to be similar across numerous cultures, traditions, religions, etc. But once one looks more closely, the similiarities end.

Both the middle class secular Westerner and a Buddhist monk have ideas of "perfection" and "arrival", and use the same words. But they mean very different things by those words.

To be enlightened is to be free from suffering but life is suffering (one of the Noble Truths) and so... — Agent Smith

Do you have an actual canonical reference for backing up this very popular claim?

carefully devised cruel methods
— Paul

Which are ultimately self-defeating. — The Opposite

In what universe? Tolkienverse?

What holds together a society is the enforcement of morality through the use of force (the law). You get enough dissent and nonconformity to your society's morals, you kill your society. That's why a society has a right to defend itself from such nonconformity, according to the majority of the population. — L'éléphant

Sure. But it's not the majority who has the say; it's those with power who have the say, and they can do that even if they are statistically a minority.

Those with power can also act directly against the principles of morality, and this will have no adverse effect on society and will not be considered a breach of moral principles.

On the contrary, L'éléphant, from the bottom-up morality usually holds a society together in spite of the top-down regime of laws (and law-enforcement). — 180 Proof

Nothing needs to "hold society together". Society just exists, or doesn't exist, depending on one's ideological outlook.

That sounds rather like a prescription for reactionary authoritarianism. — Wayfarer

Also known as "society".

Often, people who make a point of appearing hopeful, optimistic and as having an idealistic view of the future are actually deeply unhappy and scared. The apparent hopefulness, optimism, and idealism are just attempts to cover up their unhappiness and fear.

If one recognizes this dichotomy, recognizes this underlying unhappiness of theirs, this is then the depressing effect of apparent optimism.

This kind of succintness is what makes Zen so easy to exploit and pervert, and to assume more familiarity with it than one actually has.
— baker

You're right, but what a westerner might call vagueness, mysticism, contrariness, or irony is a real part of eastern philosophies. — T Clark

As mentioned by some others, those pithy Zen sayings are part of a vast and complex system of doctrine and practice. Once considered that way, they cease to seem vague, or mystical, contrary, or ironic.


- - -

In my OP, I was wondering if enlightenment means the same thing in different cultures. I guess I was asking if it is the case that enlightenment (if and when it takes place) transcends culture and religion. — Tom Storm

Look at what people say that enlightenment means to them. Do they all mean the same thing by it?

Enlightenment is no different to other things people believe. It isn't something outside of people to be found in some particular way. It's just a story, like so many others we tell. — Tom Storm

But what you're saying above about stories isn't itself a story?

Perhaps enlightenment is a pissing competition recast as a meta-narative... — Tom Storm

Enlightenment, regardless of what in particular is meant by it, appears to be such that people tend to generate hostility or envy around it.

Have you ever met anyone who would be happy about another's claims of enlightenment?

No, we can enjoy non-attachment to some things, it is just questionable as to whether we could realize non-attachment to all things, and in any case that is not what is being claimed for the enlightened ones, since they are acknowledged to be attached to their practice if nothing else.

Also, you keep ignoring my suggestions that you might see it more favorably if you think in terms of 'reactivity' instead of attachment. Anyway if it's not for you it's not for you. It's not entirely for me: I have no intention of becoming a Buddhist monk or even an avowed lay practitioner, but I think the idea has practical merit. It is found in the Epicureans, the Pyrrhonian Skeptics, the Stoics and Spinoza, as well. — Janus

Sure, and the Epicureans and the others that you mention have whole systems of metaphysics into which they embed their notions of letting go. Those systems make sense of the letting go, and so they also make it meaningful and easier.
But what do you have? You're against metaphysics to begin with!

Batchelor equates the unconditoned with the state of non-attachment, which makes sense to me since our reactivity is based on concepts of what should be the case, how people and relationships should be, how I should be, what I am entitled to and so on, that have been socially inculcated (conditioned). "Your original face before you were born".

So, his interpretation (which he backs up with quotations from the Pali canon) is an non-metaphysical one — Janus

If one is creative enough, one can "back up" all kinds of things with the suttas. The difference is that the suttas say a great number of things that Batchelor doesn't say, or where he and the suttas are in conflict.

I just used it to symbolize original nature, what we are before the socialization process has worked its magic. — Janus

We can be something before/outside/despite socialization?

Right, but only those who are really fuckwits won't let go once they see that the alternative is unacceptable, or else cannot see the alternative is unacceptable when its unacceptability is staring them right in the face. — Janus

The question is how far you can go with this letting go.

So far, we've mentioned gross examples of people refusing to abandon their cars which are stuck on collision course with trains, refusal to stop smoking despite severe health damage from smoking, and such.
Perhaps you'll go so far to accept that there may be situations in which one has to sacrifice a part of one's body in order to save the rest, such as cutting off an arm that got stuck stuck under a rock in a mountaineering accident.

But how about letting go of your body altogether, once keeping it seems unacceptable?

But one can give up a greater unhappiness when one sees that will deliver them to a lesser unhappiness.

Not in my experience. Unhappiness is unhappines, one cannot make deals with it.

With such prospects, what can possibly motivate a person to give up their attachments, when they've got nothing higher to live for?
— baker

Being run over by a bus is not a prospect but merely an unlikely possibility. People of course will not be motivated to give up their attachments until they see that their attachments are causing them to suffer, and that if they were less attached they would suffer less.

I'm talking about the inevitability and unpredictability of death.

Your life and your project of giving up your attachments could be cut short by a disease, a vehicular collision, a robbery, any number of things. People die every day, at all ages, for a number of reasons. Why couldn't you?

This is your prospect: an inevitable and unpredictable death. And since you don't believe in karma and rebirth, the death of this body of yours is the end of you.

In the face of this prospect, with a view such as yours, what can possibly motivate a person to give up their attachments, when they've got nothing higher to live for?

If the Tathagata (“One who has arrived”) “understands everything that is perceived and pondered over by the mind”, “sees the disappearance of consciousness”, etc., this seems to suggest the presence of some form of consciousness or awareness that the Tathagata has.

This may not be the ordinary consciousness (viññāṇa) associated with everyday experience, as the Tathagata is said to “see the disappearance” of that. But it may still be a higher form of consciousness, otherwise we couldn’t speak of “seeing” and “understanding”. — Apollodorus

I think the salient point here is that the Tathagata doesn't "make any new karma". He understands, sees things in a way that doesn't lead to suffering, to rebirth.

An arahant still has functioning eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin, intellect, he still has volition. But the way he sees, hears, smells, tastes, touches, thinks, and wills is such that it doesn't give rise to suffering, it doesn't give rise to rebirth.

(We, as ordinary unenlightened people, cannot see things the way an arahant does, we cannot see things from his perspective, so we cannot describe the way things look from his perspective. Yes, from our unenligtened position, we cannot but think that an arahant sees things from a particular perspective.)

(We could perhaps also take up minimalism and not get into discussing topics that by far exceed our attainment.)

The “melting away of I and mine”, etc., seems fairly clear. But this doesn’t answer the question of what remains in the end. In Western traditions like Platonism and Hindu ones like Advaita Vedanta, the answer would be “consciousness”.

The Buddhist answer seems less clear. — Apollodorus

It's easy to lose sight that the center point of Buddhism is suffering and the end of suffering. The Buddha said that he teaches only one thing: suffering and the end of suffering.

Glossing over this, and instead trying to chart Buddhist doctrine in ontological and epistemological terms characteristic for some other philosophies/religions, is to miss the whole point of Buddhism.

I think what tends to happen is that when people don’t know about something but they know (or are told) that it exists, the mind will compensate for the lack of information by imagining things and this can be equivalent to getting “tangled in theories”.

In any case, no one expects a full-blown theory. But a better explanation might help people to understand. If not, it amounts to saying that Buddhists have nothing to say on the topic, which doesn't seem to be the case. — Apollodorus

There is the idea that Buddhism isn't about metaphysics, that it eschews metaphysics. Many people take this to mean that it doesn't concern itself with abstract cosmologies/cosmogonies, ontology, or pretty much any idea that seems "out there" (so such people cast away the notions of karma and rebirth on account that they "are metaphysical").

The way I understand things is that "metaphysics" is what one does when the views/theories/doctrines that one holds far exceed one's attainment.

A simile is instructive:

The Blessed One said: "Suppose an elephant hunter were to enter an elephant forest and were to see there a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are dwarf female elephants with big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.

"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, and some scratch marks high up. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are tall female elephants with prominent teeth & big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.

"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, with some scratch marks and tusk slashes high up. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are tall female elephants with tusks & big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.

"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, with some scratch marks and tusk slashes high up and some broken-off branches. And he sees that bull elephant at the foot of the tree or in an open clearing, walking, standing, sitting, or lying down. He comes to the conclusion, 'That's the big bull elephant.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.027.than.html

To do metaphysics would be to see a large elephant footprint and to conclude "there is a bull elephant here" and look no further (or, at best, spend a lot of time, even the rest of one's life examining that one footprint and trying to establish from that and that alone that it is the footprint of a bull elephant (and that the bull elephant is still in the forest)).

Most organized religion/spirituality works like this, it's metaphysics: You're shown something (or you see something), and then you take this as evidence of something much much bigger, more complex, you commit yourself to that view (as a matter of your honor), and then you leave it at that.
Buddhism, too, can be approached this way: one perhaps has a few insights or experiences that draw one to Buddhism, and then one learns and internalizes a vast theory, a vast doctrine, sets up a meditation or other practice, but all this without having the personal attainment to back it up.

But Buddhism can be done another way as well: as walking a path, a combination of theory and practice. The practice being the foot on the ground, and the theory being the one off ground and looking for a place to put it. This is a "minimalist" approach. It's on principle incompatible with organized religion/spirituality. But it is realistic, in the sense that one only works with whatever one currently has and knows, and however far one currently sees.

For a person approaching Buddhism this way, the multiplicity of Buddhist traditions and/or interpretations, in addition to apparent contradictions in the texts, are not a problem.

Of course, actually living this minimalism can be very difficult, esp. if one takes it up after first having approached Buddhism the usual, metaphysical way. Because a move toward such minimalism will likely mean that one will be faced with accusations (from other people, as well as from oneself) of lacking faith, "having commitment issues", being stupid, worthless, one will probably lose one's Buddhist friends and not make any new ones, one will not fit into any Buddhist group/school/lineage. One will probably have trouble making sense of much of the Buddhist literature. At the same time, one is likely going to feel alienated from the ordinary, non-Buddhist folks and society at large as well.

By minimalism I'm here refering to working on things one knows, one is sure of, those areas of one's experience where the Dhamma currently seems to apply. Chances are that this isn't going to be much, hence minimalism. This could include some elements or portions of the Four Noble Truths or the Noble Eightfold Path, or not. It could be inspired just by some small statements in a sutta or in a Dhamma talk. Something that one currently sees as right and true and is able to act accordingly.

This way, one will probably not be a good Buddhist, but at least one will be true to one's experience, and preserve some measure of sanity.

My own view is that this notion of enlightenment is simply tied to various narratives people hold. — Tom Storm

How could it be otherwise?
Do you know anything that isn't somehow "tied to various narratives people hold"?

But you just said:

To me, the suttas seem relatable enough, it's the socio-cultural context in which they are provided (by this I mean various Buddhist venues, such as temples, books, websites) and the people who provide them that I don't know how to relate to (and around whom I generally feel out of place).
— baker

which is what I meant. — Wayfarer

Okay. It's been over a year now since I've distanced myself from organized Buddhism. I can report that its grip on me has loosened a bit. While before, I thought it was impossible to have any kind of practice inspired in any way by Buddhism without this practice being defined by organized Buddhism, it now doesn't seem this way anymore. I've been able to carve out some space for myself. Of course, this came with a cost -- I lost all my Buddhist "friends".

Not unfavourably - it's that sometimes you come across lecturing - like the post I made that remark about. That's what I meant by 'didactic'.

So what exactly is the issue? That you resent being lectured by someone inferior/junior to yourself?
Or lectured altogether?

A didactic tone is common in all religions/spiritualities.

Okay. But why should the Western ones have the final say? Because we're at a "Western" forum?

Vaccines reduce the chance of death and serious illness from COVID, are less dangerous than COVID, — Michael

Which doesn't matter at all when _you_ are the one who suffers the negative side effects of the vaccine. Such as paralysis after a stroke.


The same arguments that are good when applied to the population as a whole are not the same arguments as those that are good when applied to the individual person.
We see the former all the time, but not the latter.

You're being pedantic; the fact (if it is a fact) that a few fuckwits cannot let go of their attachments even when the alternative is dire is not relevant. — Janus

Except that pretty much everyone is, to use your word, such a fuckwit about one thing or another.
Some people refuse to abandon their broken cars that are on collision course with a train. Some stay in dysfunctional, destructive relationships. Some maintain a religious affiliation even though they don't believe the tenets anymore and only pretend to do so, which is making them miserable.

It could be said that the alternative to being non-reactive is always dire; and that it is coming to see that that constitutes the greatest difficulty we face.

One can only give up a lesser happiness when one has sight of a bigger one.

But so far, your theory doesn't seem to offer any such bigger happiness. Per your theory, one tries to become as unattached as possible, but if one's life is cut short by, say, a bus, well then, tough luck, that's it. With such prospects, what can possibly motivate a person to give up their attachments, when they've got nothing higher to live for?

We all know that we can let go of attachment to things when we need to. — Janus

People whose car gets stuck in the rails while they're crossing the railroad not rarely die in the collision with the train, because they refuse to leave their car. Even though they had enough time.
Or they get shot or stabbed by robbers after they refuse to give up their briefcase or purse.
Or they keep on smoking, even after they had a tracheostomy.

Clearly, not everyone knows that they can let go of attachment to things when we need to.

But maybe being on collision course with a train is not an objective clue for letting go ...

Everyone has an opinion, but very few play in actual field. So if all the spectators can shut the hell up, those of us actually involved, trained and formally educated for this stuff, can get to work and do our job. — Book273

It is morally reprehensible that the government has left it to individuals to decide whether to get vaccinated or not, and with which vaccine.

So many people complain, "Oh, these days, everyone's an epidemiologist!" Yet this is the situation that the government has pushed us in! We have to make life or death decisions about things we're not qualified for.

Either way, people get thrown under the bus. And that's apparently okay.

'The unattainable is attained through its unattainment'. A very Buddhist formulation, I felt. — Wayfarer

This kind of succintness is what makes Zen so easy to exploit and pervert, and to assume more familiarity with it than one actually has.

So I’m going to tell people to get vaccinated, am not morally responsible if it harms them, and won’t pay them any kind of compensation if it does. — Michael

IOW, it's perfectly okay to throw a certain percentage of the population under the bus.

not being notified of responses — Janus

AFAIK, the system sends out notification based on the post as it is first posted. If the post is later edited, and new mentions of people added, they are not notified.

...from the analysis found in Wittgenstein. You know, philosophy. Like some do on the philosophy forum. — Banno

The thread topic is enlightenment. Since when does philosophy concern itself with enlightenment or should have the final say over it?

Can you ethically justify eating meat? — Kaz1983

From
William James, Is life worth living?

When you and I, for instance, realize how many innocent beasts have had to suffer in cattle-cars and slaughter-pens and lay down their lives that we might grow up, all fattened and clad, to sit together here in comfort and carry on this discourse, it does, indeed, put our relation to the universe in a more solemn light. "Does not," as a young Amherst philosopher (Xenos Clark, now dead) once wrote, "the acceptance of a happy life upon such terms involve a point of honor?" Are we not bound to take some suffering upon ourselves, to do some self-denying service with our lives, in return for all those lives upon which ours are built? To hear this question is to answer it in but one possible way, if one have a normally constituted heart.

Meat eating can be justified ethically, provided that one lives honorably and does something worthwhile with one's life.

It's the living merely for the sake of living that is problematic.

So the call to consciousness ("you're selfish if you don't vax") is just a cry of fear coming out of vaxed mouths. — Cartuna

Not just fear. It reflects the human craving for uniformity: "Everyone should do the same thing, be the same, even if in the process of becoming so, they die."


Last week, Greece made it mandatory for people over 60 to get vaccinated. The government official who announced the measure listed as one of the reasons for it that it is out of solidarity with the already vaccinated that those not yet vaccinated should get vaccinated. He didn't further specifiy, but it seems he meant something like, "if other people took the risk and got vaccinated, then you should do so too".

You keep evading the question of the moral responsibility of pro-vaccers.

We treat what comes in, when it comes in. We don't sit at the door in judgement and decide who is worthy of saving or not. — Book273

This is already happening here, though. Individual people report that their GP refused to see them if they are not vaccinated.

We have spent so much investing in this fear response, we can't let it go now, it would be wasted effort. — Book273

History has shown what people united by dogma can do. It's hard to say no to that.

Quick question: if the vaccines actually work why the fuck am I still wearing a mask and why does anyone that has been vaccinated give two shits about Covid?

It looks like a sign of the times: a small improvement, but advertised as a major breakthrough.
It's like those tv ads selling kitchen appliances, thermo socks, mini heaters, wart removers, and so on: "Buy this and your life will turn around completely!"

Society at large has lost all sense of proportion.

MORAL RESPONSIBILITY.

How strange that it works only one way -- the non-vaccinated hold a moral responsibility toward the vaccinated. But those promoting vaccination (and the vaccinated) have no moral responsibility toward anyone. Least of all towards those who become ill from the vaccine, or who become ill with covid despite being vaccinated.

In any case, I probably won’t need the ICU bed because I’ve been vaccinated. — praxis

Careful there. The going rate in Slovenia is now 40% of those hospitalized for covid are vaccinated. 20% of those needing ICU are vaccinated.

You should get vaccinated — Michael

If he gets a stroke and becomes paralyzed, will you pay for him for the rest of his life?

A brave warrior -- meaning, someone who has killed many people.

Thou shalt not kill -- except when you should.

Yeah, as if. It's a good thing no one has introduced this ridiculous proposition into the discussion then. — Tom Storm

Meh, kids these days. No ambition.