As “enlightenment” or liberation is a process of increasingly greater transcendence, “dependent co-arising”, interesting though it might be on an intellectual level, loses its importance on the higher levels. — Apollodorus

I need to check: What do you think dependent co-arising is?

All conditions are impermanent, all conditions are suffering … The wise one knowing: “Sense pleasures have little joy, (much) suffering,” does not find delight even in heavenly pleasures (277-8;187)

This seems to imply that all (conditioned) life, including pleasure, is suffering from the perspective of the wise (paṇḍita). — Apollodorus

So says the Preacher:


Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
3 What does man gain by all the toil
at which he toils under the sun?

8 All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.

13 And I applied my heart[f] to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven. It is an unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. 14 I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity[g] and a striving after wind.[h]

15 What is crooked cannot be made straight,
and what is lacking cannot be counted.

16 I said in my heart, “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.

18 For in much wisdom is much vexation,
and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

2
I said in my heart, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure; enjoy yourself.” But behold, this also was vanity.[a] 2 I said of laughter, “It is mad,” and of pleasure, “What use is it?” 3 I searched with my heart how to cheer my body with wine—my heart still guiding me with wisdom—and how to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was good for the children of man to do under heaven during the few days of their life. 4 I made great works. I built houses and planted vineyards for myself. 5 I made myself gardens and parks, and planted in them all kinds of fruit trees. 6 I made myself pools from which to water the forest of growing trees. 7 I bought male and female slaves, and had slaves who were born in my house. I had also great possessions of herds and flocks, more than any who had been before me in Jerusalem. 8 I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and provinces. I got singers, both men and women, and many concubines, the delight of the sons of man.

9 So I became great and surpassed all who were before me in Jerusalem. Also my wisdom remained with me. 10 And whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil. 11 Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold,


all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun.

The Church itself can threaten with excommunication, for example, as this lies within its power. Casting people into hell is a totally different thing. It is not within the power of the Church. The Church can warn of the possibility (or likelihood) of hell, but it has neither the power to judge nor to carry out the judgment.

So, the talk of hell as punishment in Christianity must be seen as a warning, not a threat, similar to a road sign warning of danger ahead. The sign does not "threaten", it merely warns us by informing us of a potential danger. — Apollodorus

The Church is God's fully empowered representative on earth, it functions that way. Nobody gets to God except through the Church.

The only catch is, which church is the Church?

The way I see it, Christianity does not "threaten" anyone. It is simply stating what it believes to be a fact, namely that those who do not follow a path of ethical or righteous conduct will suffer in the next life.
— Apollodorus

Some hellfire preachers often seem to appear deliberately threatening but overall I agree with you. — Wayfarer

Christianity is, basically, telling you to throw the dice, and if you don't get the number they tell you you should get, they think you deserve to suffer in hell forever.

The irony is that if you don't let go of that vision, and of the need to "accomplish much" you will likely "die miserable". If you "look forward" honestly you will see that there is nothing to be had in the future, All you have and all you are is what you have and are now, and this will equally be so in the future. If you can live fully now, then you will likely not die miserable, and that alone would be a singular.and sufficient achievement. — Janus

And yet you have a retirement fund, don't you?

Also, some people feel burdened by ambition. Some don't.

Christianity threatens with eternal suffering -- eternal suffering -- everyone who fails to pick the right religion in this lifetime.
— baker

I think this a blatant misrepresentation, to be quite honest.

The way I see it, Christianity does not "threaten" anyone. It is simply stating what it believes to be a fact, namely that those who do not follow a path of ethical or righteous conduct will suffer in the next life. — Apollodorus

Numerous Christian schools make it clear: if you fail to pick the right religion and fail to become its member, you're destined for eternal suffering, regardless of how you've otherwise behaved.

It's like warning someone not to go in a certain direction because there is a danger there, e,g., wild animals, a waterfall, dangerous road or bridge, or whatever. It is important to distinguish between warning and threat. The two are NOT the same thing.

Except that we never actually get to see any of those wild animals, waterfalls, or whatever other dangers we are being "warned" about.
And of course, the people issuing the "warning" are usually not people one would want to have anything to do with. In fact, they are the threat.

those who do not follow a path of ethical or righteous conduct will suffer in the next life

Why did God, in his infinite wisdom and goodness, design the world such that the retaliation for not following "a path of ethical or righteous conduct" isn't apparent in the here and now?

And what is that, even, "a path of ethical or righteous conduct"? All kinds of things get to be called "a path of ethical or righteous conduct", it's far from universal.

Remember, the RCC did not excommunicate Hitler, but it routinely excommunicates girls who abort the pregnancies conceived when they were raped by their uncles or priests.

Buddhism and Hinduism say very much the same about hell, however "temporary" that may be. Why is temporary less threatening? Is it because it means you can disregard it? If yes, then why insist on Buddhist emphasis on suffering being so "unique"?

Because Buddhism promises an intelligible way out of suffering. Christianity does not. Christianity is a gamble.

In reality, it is not a threat but a warning. There are two possibilities: (a) the warning is based on fact, in which case it is advisable to heed the warning, or (b) it is a lie, in which case we don't need to pay attention to it.

There are more possibilities. Such as the possibility that the ones presenting the "warning" don't know the whole picture.

The choice is ours. People are free to believe or disbelieve as they think fit.

And suffer eternally for their choices.

I can see no logical necessity for the Buddhist version of hell to be any more real or credible than the Christian, Hindu, or Greek ones, or indeed, than the view that there is no hell.

Neither do I.

As others have pointed out, it is also possible to interpret things allegorically.

And what use is that?

If the passage I quoted from Plato is "too short to be able to discern much from it", then so is the passage I quoted from the Dhammapada, which is even shorter!

The passage from the Dhammapada was your choice. I don't know why you chose it. For references for Budhist doctrine, I would first turn to the four Nikayas, not a short summary text like the Dhammapada.

I asked you whether Platonism teaches dependent co-arising.

If the Buddhism of the Pali suttas "is not concerned with creating a society at all", then it has little practical value.

To you.

At least other systems do aim to create a better society.
If you have "no interest in a Buddhism that can help create a better society", what does that say about your concern (or lack of it) for other people?

Learn your doctrines, young padawan. Religions teach that the world is incorrigible, transient, a lost cause, the vale of tears. Insofar as religions teach betterment, it's only in the sense of being good stewards of what God has entrusted people with, and to use it as a means to serve God. Or else, in non-theistic religions, to make the best use of what is available. "Creating a better society" so that we can all eat, drink, and make merry is a secular goal, even when it is promoted under the guise of religion.

Are you sure it's just "interest", or more like "obsession"?

Envy is a capital sin.

And how do you know the Pali Canon is any better than other Canons, or for that matter, than the scriptures of other systems?

I don't know such. You seem to think that I came to Buddhism by rejecting the other systems. This is not the case, though. I admit that I capitulate before Christianity. I find it unintelligible and impossible to live. I don't know how Christians do it, esp. Christian women.

Finally, if you think it is "not possible to be religious/spiritual without being a right-wing authoritarian", does that make you a left-wing authoritarian? If I'm not mistaken, someone mentioned the phrase "Red Guard" in connection with your comments ....

Red paranoia.

Why do people hate Vegans? — TheQuestion

Vegans dare to question the status quo. Questioning the status quo is morally reprehensible, for many if not most people.

In my experience, this is actually not a problem. I've had the opportunity to interact with some people who focus primarily on the Pali suttas, some of them are fluent in Pali. After interacting with them for a couple of years, and doing some work on my own, the problems of translation started to look vastly different than they did in the beginning. In the beginning, they seemed final, definitive, set out for a final, definitive answer. Over time, I developed a dynamic, progressive approach to the matter.

I think that to get a sense for this, one would just need to interact with some people who focus primarily on the Pali suttas, consistently over a longer period of time.

Surely you've experienced something similar in other fields of expertise.

I also speak three languages fluently, an bits of others. The notion that there should be 1:1 translation is, based on experience, foreign to me. When one is fluent in several languages, one naturally develops a dynamic, flexible approach to translation. I don't think someone who speaks only one language can understand this.

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

That it’s inappropriate in this medium. I’m happy to debate ideas and I am open to criticism but I don’t want to be told what I should think. — Wayfarer

And on this account, you dismissed some of my most insightful posts. The shoulds in them are really not controversial, but are well-meaning truisms.


(Although I suspect I know what's actually bothering you.)

The only thing you do sometimes that annoys me is failing to state your case while claiming that if your interlocutor was familiar enough with certain texts they would see that what you are saying is true. — Janus

This is wrong.

The direction of my quest is, "If the other person knows X, and I know X, what else does the other person know because of which they think of X differently than I do?"

If, in the discussion, it becomes clear that the person doesn't know X, I usually cease discussion with that person, as any further discussion with them would not be conducive to my quest.


The most I claim is that if my interlocutor was familiar enough with certain texts they would see what I'm seeing. If I would be certain that I know the truth, I wouldn't be discussing things with anyone. I'd be off blissing out or something.

Will every problem eventually become economical or even psychological since with immortality and money will come new ventures to entertain, profit, and enjoy a long and happy life? — Shawn

Every vampire's dream.

You can bet that in Buddhist cultures there will be some monks who will teach that Christians and Muslims are all doomed for the Buddhist Avici hell unless they convert. Fundamentalism is cross-cultural. — Wayfarer

I don't see it as "fundamentalism" in the sense of some kind of abuse or perversion of the genuine teachings. I see that simply as part of their doctrine.

Hence the supremacy of the emic.
— baker

For those who haven't encountered it, 'In anthropology, folkloristics, and the social and behavioral sciences, emic and etic refer to two kinds of field research done and viewpoints obtained: emic, from within the social group (from the perspective of the subject) and etic, from outside (from the perspective of the observer.

But the situation of today's global culture tends to blur that distinction.

I think the emic-etic distinction is useful and relevant when discussing matters on the metalevel, like we're doing here.

I'm not meaningfully Buddhist in any ethnic or even cultural sense, so am an 'outsider', like a lot of Western people who have encountered Buddhism through popular books and visiting teachers. And I'm often suspicious of Westerners who adopt Buddhist cultural trappings as it so easily seems like pretence.

When referring to oneself in relation to some group, the emic-etic distinction can be taken as a dynamic process of self-identification and self-analysis that can go on for a long time.
It's for the academic writing a study that the emic-etic distinction is final, has a sense of finality.

similarities between contemplative prayer and meditation — Tom Storm

"Meditation" is such a broad term. Descartes wrote "meditations".

The Buddhist key term is bhavana.

/.../ Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd. — Karen Armstrong

Hence the supremacy of the emic.

You seem to have missed the point. If it can be established that Christianity originally was not about suffering or punishment in the way you describe, that would be a noteworthy contribution. — Tom Storm

There is even a book, explaining via linguistic analysis that the Bible doesn't actually talk about eternal damnation. My knowledge of this is a bit rusty by now, but if I remember correctly, there was a church council at which they decided, on a vote, how to translate certain phrases in the Bible, and that's how we got "eternal damnation". When the Bible actually talks about "long term damnation".

However, none of this matters. Christian culture today is what it is. It's built on the doctrine of eternal damnation, or on efforts to oppose it. Going anywhere near Christianity, one has to deal with the issue of eternal damnation one way or another.

I see you fishing around for early Buddhist accounts to get close to the original meaning, so how is this different?

For me in particular, this is actually co-incidental. I'm not trying to "get close to the original meaning", this has never been a theme for me. From the beginning, I felt in my heart of hearts an interest in the Pali Canon, and that was all.

I think you can have better than insider knowledge by subsuming insider thinking within a more encompassing framework that transcends its limitations. Lapsed Catholics , former cult members and reformed drug addicts are examples. — Joshs

You think taking failed insiders, who are therefore not insiders (anymore) at all, are the best source of insider knowledge??

That's like saying that college drop-outs are the best sources on what college is like and what it is supposed to be like.

If we however question what the conclusion of such a war looks like, we can aquire an interesting perpective. — Vishagan

The outcome of a war is not necessarily predictable. If the prospective parties to go to war are unequally powerful, then going to war to settle a dispute can only work in favor of one party and the result is clear in advance. Such a war is a meaningless waste of resources.

Also, the actual act of fighting a war can change the perspectives of the parties involved.


Relying on a war to determine who is right is a form of judicium Dei, an ancient judicial practice; it's going to war based on the premise that those who win are right or innocent. It's an attempt to absolve oneself from the responsibility of deciding in ethical matters, and instead relying on the principle might makes right.

I dont conclude from the article that one has to be a practitioner of a religion in order to combine the emic and the etic. — Joshs

You think you can have insider knowledge without being an insider?

I'm no expert but there are earlier Christians traditions of universalism - all people will be saved and no one burned. Hell being a more recent idea in the history of Christianity. David Bentley Hart writes a lot about universalism and the early beliefs from patristic sources. If you read Christian writers like Father Richard Rohr, Thomas Merton, Cynthia Bourgeault (and Hart) you can see there were and remain other traditions utterly opposed to the judgmental, punishing, evangelizing tradition so well known to us all. Contemplative prayer (essentially mediation) plays a big role in this expression of Christianity, along with allegorical readings of scripture (which Hart maintains were the original readings in most cases). — Tom Storm

And what use are those other traditions?

Unless a person feels "in their heart of hearts" that one of those other traditions is the right one, why on earth would anyone want to go anywhere near Christianity, other than out of fear of eternal suffering?

What you describe also strikes me as an awfully self-indulgent spirituality, apparently devised to be more palatable to people who are not all that interested in might makes right or who don't want those interests of theirs to show.

Or it means that religions are explanatory systems around which rituals and practices are constructed, and as such one can compare their explanatory structures from a critical distance. — Joshs

I refer to the emic-etic distinction.

Such as by reading Machiavelli?
— baker

Of course. The West has never produced anything other than Machiavelli. — Apollodorus

You misread my tone.

The topic was Westerners who went East and what they have to offer being an enhanced feeling of inner happiness and peace (and perhaps a certain degree of self-importance), all of which may be equally achieved with practices that are available closer to home.
I think that much of what goes on under the heading of "religion" and "spirituality" is actually right-winger mentality. I'm not sure it is even possible to be religious/spiritual without being a right-wing authoritarian.

It's not clear it's even possible to get "an enhanced feeling of inner happiness and peace" from studying Plato and acting accordingly. Or from following the principles in De Imitatione Christi. The Prince, on the other hand, seems a more likely source. It's not a conicidence that religious/spiritual people tend to associate with right-wing political options, and that right-wing political options tend to associate with religion, insofar said religion has been a majority religion in the region for a long time (and that can be Roman Catholicism in traditionally Catholic countries, or Buddhism in traditionally Buddhist countries). Most Western Buddhists I know fit the right-wing profile, some are even vocal supporters of Trump.

And India does not have its own Machiavellis.

I don't appreciate your tone and you ascribing to me some kind of secret admiration for the East, or specifically, India. I've thought about writing you a long list of things I resent about the East, or, specifically, India. I decided against doing so. But if you persist, I might change my mind.

My only interest is in the Pali Canon, and because of this, I'm actually resented by Easterners and Westerners alike.
This is the type of attitude one usually gets if one is interested in the Pali Canon.

Western spirituality has no equivalent to (serial) rebirth or reincarnation, thus making a person limited to what they have here and now and to what they can do here and now.
— baker

Not true.

Some are reborn in the womb, those who are wicked in the underworld, the righteous go to heaven, those who are pollutant-free are emancipated (Dhammapada 22.1)

This is exactly what Plato is saying in his dialogues like the Phaedo:

The impure souls wander until the time when they are bound again into a body by their desire for the corporeality that follows them around (81e).
The soul that has performed an impure act, by engaging in unjust killings or perpetrating other similar deeds goes to the lower regions of Hades where it suffers every deprivation until certain lengths of time have elapsed and the soul is by necessity born into the dwellings suitable for it (108c; 114a).
On the other hand, each soul that has passed through its life both purely and decently receives Gods as companions and as guides alike, and then dwells in the region appropriate to it (108c).
The pure soul goes off into what is similar to it, the unseen, the divine, immortal and wise, where after its arrival it can be happy, separated from wandering, unintelligence, fears, and other human evils ... (81a).

The passage is too short to be able to discern much from it. It seems to be compatible with some more secular, "generous" versions of Christian doctrine, but it's not clear how far it is compatible with Buddhism.

Platonism of course places less emphasis on reincarnation than Buddhism and Hinduism.

Folk Buddhism "places a lot of emphasis" on rebirth. In the suttas, rebirth is mostly part of cautionary tales.

But this is exactly what one would expect from a system that focuses on liberation.

How does one achive liberation according to Platonism?

Does Platonism have a teaching on dependent co-arising?

This is one of the reasons why I think that Buddhism’s ability to create an ideal society is more wishful thinking than reality.

What a strange idea. The Buddhism of the Pali suttas is not concerned with creating a society at all, ideal or not. It gives some pointers on how to make do when living in a society, but its aim is to leave the process of rebirth (and with it, social life) altogether. The Buddhism of the Pali suttas is, essentially, a self-terminating project.

In the course of this thread (or a similar theme), people have posted links to articles talking about secular Buddhism and how it can contribute to society, or help create a better one, and such.
I have no interest in such "Buddhism". I do not believe that Buddhism can in any way create a better society or help toward it. Given its origin, I think it's actually rather bizarre that it had become a major religion in the world.

The way I see it, in order to find spirituality you need to be spiritual yourself. In which case you will tend to find spirituality wherever you are.

I generally dislike the term "spiritual", "spirituality". I do not consider myself "spiritual". I feel sickened if I read about "spirituality".

Realistically speaking, “Nirvana” or whatever we choose to call it, is either (a) unattainable (which is the case in the vast majority)

What do you mean by "which is the case in the vast majority"? That most people cannot attain nirvana?

or (b) it is attainable through meditation or introspection.

If (b), then Nirvana or enlightenment cannot be something distant, or different, from the meditator. If it is experienced, then there must be an experiencer. And the experiencer is the consciousness that gradually disengages itself from lower forms of experience until it experiences itself.

We may not be in a position to say what is beyond that, but I think all forms of meditation, Platonist, Buddhist, or Hindu, must logically lead to a point where consciousness experiences itself qua consciousness, i.e., not thoughts or consciousness of things.

If we posit a reality other than consciousness, we need to explain what that reality is, which is an impossible task especially in non-materialist terms. Even if we were to deny the existence of consciousness we would merely confirm it, as consciousness is needed to conceive that denial.

Again, back to dependent co-arising.

Suffering is certainly central to Christianity. The goal of Christianity is salvation from suffering and death, which is also the goal of Platonism and Buddhism. — Apollodorus

Christianity threatens with eternal suffering -- eternal suffering -- everyone who fails to pick the right religion in this lifetime.
It takes more imagination than I have to portray that as being concerned with "salvation from suffering and death".

Life is painful due to ignorance and sin (i.e., wrong conduct). This is what motivates all three traditions to engage in ethical conduct and seek higher knowledge.

Picking the wrong religion is an eternal death sentence, according to Christianity.

I don’t think scholars need to personally practice any of these systems in order to identify parallels between their intellectual frameworks.

This assumes that it is possible to ascertain the truth of a religion without practicing it.
It's not clear how such is in fact possible. And if it is, it means religion is nothing more but a process of going through the motions.

If you happen to live in Eastern Europe it is probably correct to say that non-European systems there are not in general highly regarded. But in the West the reverse is often the case, especially in large cities across the English-speaking world.

I wouldn't know. 30+ years ago when I went to school, a public, secular school, in a (nominally) secular country, it was the norm to consider Christianity (and by this was meant Roman Catholicism) the one and only true religion, and everything else was dismissed as wrong or nonsense. Secular academics (!!) had that attitude as well. Many still do.

(You can see this reflected in secular university curricula for philosophy. There is usually a course called "The existence of God", but all the course material is about Western, implicitly Roman Catholic notions of God, no hint of Hindu theism.)

If it's Leibniz optimism "We live in the best of all possible worlds", then yeah, that's quite stupid. Even geniuses as Leibniz undoubtedly was, say pretty silly things. — Manuel

How ironic that only his personal secretary attended his funeral.

It is easy to construct India as a nation of enlightened sages devoted to prayer, meditation, and the study of scripture. — Apollodorus

I never understood that. To me, India has always first and foremost been a country of cholera and poverty. And cholera. A dreadful country I hope I never have to visit. I wish to have nothing to do with it. Or any Eastern country.

The belief that earthly existence is painful; observance of abstinence and strict dietary rules; moral and spiritual purification through control or eradication of negative emotions and impulses, and cultivation of opposite inclinations; the attainment of detachment and impassibility (apatheia); meditation and contemplation, etc., are found in Western (Greek, Christian) and Indian (Hindu, Buddhist) traditions alike.

Sure, but they differ in the level of detail and in how actionable their advice is.
They also differ greatly in how approachable they are, depending on a person's level of formal education and socio-economic status.

Moreover: Western spirituality has no equivalent to (serial) rebirth or reincarnation, thus making a person limited to what they have here and now and to what they can do here and now. For many people, this means that they are facing the prospect of not accomplishing much and dying miserable. Hardly something to look forward to.

However, with the possibilities offered by the latest information technologies, I think it would be advisable for Westerners to first acquaint themselves with what is best in their own culture, before uncritically embracing other traditions.

The Dalai Lama advises people not to convert to Buddhism easily, but to first make the best they can out of the religion and culture they were born into.

If anything, what these Westerners have to offer is an enhanced feeling of inner happiness and peace (and perhaps a certain degree of self-importance), all of which may be equally achieved with practices that are available closer to home.

Such as by reading Machiavelli?

In fact, the term “enlightenment” itself is of Western origin and is not used in Indian traditions. So this may be a case of Westerners Westernizing Eastern traditions and believing their own perception of them as a substitute for the Western spirituality whose existence they choose to deny in the first place. If so, then the whole thing may have more to do with psychology than with spirituality as such.

Sure. In some of the Buddhism I have come to know there is actually a lot of criticism of Westerners, similar to what you're saying. But the mainstream Western Buddhism is usually louder and stronger.

Maybe she worked out you were not someone to con? — Tom Storm

It made me feel shitty. I saw her praising the others. But I was again the black sheep.

*sigh*

Maybe you're the kind of person who just likes to know things for the sake of knowing, someone who enjoys knowing.
I'm not. Knowing things should help one do this and that. Or knowing itself should do something, make a difference.

But now there is a new synthesis beginning to emerge, which is neither the standard-issue neo-Darwinian materialism or old-school theological. I mean, nobody can plausibly argue against the empirical evidence, whatever philosophy you have has to be able to accomodate that. But if you let go any form of literalism with respect to the interpretation of ancient texts, and read them allegorically, then it's possible to arrive at a holistic understanding based on both scientific discovery and spiritual principle. — Wayfarer

And what use is that understanding?

In highschool, I went with a small group of classmates to a tarot reader or palm reader (or whatever it is those people do). Nobody can say I'm not open-minded, so let's try that. She read my palm and said I was a very old soul. Her dislike of me was palpable. She gave me much less time than she gave the other young women.

Alan Watts — Wayfarer

Ha! Some years back, as part of my own quest, I summarized my quest as "how to be a genuine fake".
Then I googled it. Turns out someone else had that idea too! But I wasn't impressed with Watts' work.

Can I confuse anything else for you? — Cheshire

Yes. Your image of me.

If there were no common morals and each one followed his/her own morals, tradition, etc. there would exist just a group of individuals and much disorder. That could not be called a community or society, could it? — Alkis Piskas

Do you know any place where there is just a number of individuals who follow their own morals, tradition etc.?

Care.

Do you know what that is?

What are you talking about??
I'm vaccinated. Do I feel safe, protected? No.

refusing vaccination has basically saved government from further scrutiny — boethius

That's why mandatory vaccination could be a last resort. It would force the government to act more transparently and to take at least a part of the responsibility for the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.

The only problem is that with covid in particular, the "effectiveness" of the vaccine would be about the same as the course of the disease without the vaccine, and then the government could take the credit and make vaccination mandatory indefinitely.

What do you not understand?

Dealing in potentially dangerous substances, calculating odds, and playing Russian roulette is how mobsters, gamblers, and drug dealers operate.

But it appears that gone are the times when mainstream society would think that operating that way is not ethical.

...besides which, as I understand baker's position, it has nothing to do with the significance of the reduction and everything to do with the heartless abandonment of the poor sods for whom it doesn't work, or worse. — Isaac

At this forum, not once have I seen that a pro-vaccer said that people should get vaccinated for their own sake.
Not once has anyone who has told me to get vaccinated said that I should do it to protect my health.
Not once. Not a single time.

Instead, they said I should do it for others. Or that I should do it in order to protect others or not to be a burden on them.

I watch the national news on tv, and parts of the news on several other channels. It was only a handful of times that I've heard people who advocate for vaccination said that people should get vaccinated for their own sake. Instead, the overwhelming majority of exhortations to vaccinate are that we should do it for others. To show solidarity with medical personnel who are overwhelmed. To show solidarity with the already vaccinated. And so on, but it's almost always about others.

As if our lives don't matter, or as if we matter only insofar as we could be spreaders of the disease or take up a hospital bed that someone else wants.

Such profound contempt of humans, masquerading as altruism and solidarity.

the heartless abandonment of the poor sods for whom it doesn't work, or worse.

The moral numbness that we are now being forced into ...

Anyone who ever said that the vaccine totally prevents Covid is wrong. — EricH

And yet every day we hear things like, "If so and so would've gotten the vaccination, he'd be safe and well."
You said such a thing just the other day, I quoted you.

The pro-vaccination lobby insists on this simplificationism. Sure, when talking in the abstract, they'll say

The vaccine does not prevent a person from getting Covid. The vaccine significantly reduces the odds that you will catch it - and if you do catch it the vaccine significantly reduces the odds that you will have a serious case. — EricH

But when it comes to pointing fingers in actual cases, they forget all about that, and we get

Most victims are people who refused to get a simple vaccine that would keep them safe. — EricH

Your dead cousin being one of them.

More rightwinger sentiment.

800th time, a vaccine doesn't have to be perfect to be relevant.
— Cheshire

:up:

A good 250 pages in, I wonder how many times repetitions have been posted. — jorndoe

The same wrong argument made a million times is still the wrong argument.

You're forcing us into mediocrity, into thinking like gamblers, mobsters, and drug dealers. Into narrow-mindedness and hard-heartedness. Into moral depravity.

People just love it when something that has been nearly a vice can be portrayed as an virtue. — ssu

Is it really a vice or anything even resembling a vice?

Do you know anyone who actually believes that the stuff written in the Declaration of Human Rights matters?

Very few do, and they are ridiculed.