I probably shouldn't take antipiretics for the hot flashes. Unless I still have them tomorrow. I'll see how the night goes.

Besides, one cannot just go to the hospital here, unless it's an urgent matter. First, you need to go to your GP, who then perhaps refers you further. It all makes for a lot of waiting in situations that aren't particularly epidemioloigcally safe.

God no. Hospitals are places one goes to die.

Janssen, motherfuckers, about three hours ago.

My left arm feels a bit numb, and I get hot flashes, and some palpitations.

As of tomorrow, Slovenia will have some of the most restrictive measures in the world: the only places one can go without a valid covid passport are basic grocery stores and pharmacies, provided they are not in a shopping mall, but directly accessable from the street. Masks, social distancing, disinfection as usual.

The government is announcing even more restrictions, although I'm not sure what more they can do.

$15 million funding has been raised to re-animate a version of the extinct woolly mammoth. — Wayfarer

Some people have too much money. And time.

Given that most people who die from/with Covid are at the ends of their lives anyway you can expect natural deaths and Covid deaths to significantly overlap. — AJJ

And, of course, in some jurisdictions, for a death to be ruled a covid death, no covid test and no autopsy are required, just the assessment of a doctor.
So who knows how accurate the covid death numbers are.

I do wonder how the trade-off is made though, as children in school together represent an excellent way for diseases to spread from household to household, even colds, flu, and the like. — Srap Tasmaner

This is what is happening in some EU countries: A fully vaccinated teacher infects a class of children and coworkers. All must go to quarantene. Now what?

That's because you're those three monkeys, all in one.
— baker

Prove it. — Tom Storm

You see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The world is a good place for you.


Mwhahaha!

They're not "friendly" toward other religions, they just don't give a shit about them. Duh.
— baker

I'm not sure what is intended by your remark, but you can flesh it out if you feel like it. — Ennui Elucidator

The difference is in the intention. On the surface, two people can act the same way -- appear generous, tolerant, etc. -- but they differ in what motivates them to act that way. For example, one can be acting out of a genuine regard for others, another one out of pity. It can take quite a while to discern those motivations.

Have you, for example, never seen a mild, kind person explode in an, "I've been kind to you for so long, but now I've had it, no more! You ungrateful brat!" ? It reveals that they've been acting out of a transactional model of relating with others, that their kindness has been conditional all along.

A free lunch can usually only be found in mouse traps.

I am personally familiar with these religions being friendly with other religions and even encouraging education about other religions to their members. There is "ecumenical" work, interfaith groups, etc. So "not giving a shit" isn't even close to right. Non-proselytizing religions exist.

Aww, ye of great naivete.

Should terms denoting religious identity be exempt from being meaningful?
— baker

Last I checked you aren't a sociologist, ethnographer, or any other thing that could provide a useful inquiry into what is properly classified as "religion." Hand waving about a lack of Jesus or Jesus analogs precluding a group from being religious is not of much interest to me.

Oh. So anything anyone calls "religious" should be considered religious?
Anyone who claims to be a Christian should be considered a Christian?

I'm inclined to agree. I've had significant contact with a range of religious faiths - churches, temples and synagogues and running alongside ethnocentrism and in group chauvinism is also a vast wellspring of generosity, hospitality and solidarity, galvanized by best kinds of ecumenical commitments. — Tom Storm

That's because you're those three monkeys, all in one.

So what? Man lives to please one's ego. One could be dying in the gutter and still feel satisfied with oneself, blissing out in righteous indignation.
— baker

[Brother Wood replies with yet another derogatory remark intent on deflecting attention from the matter at hand.] — tim wood

Nonsense. People are generally driven to please their egos, above everything else. This is hardly a novel idea.

Thought experiment: when on the basis of simple and plain evidence generosity is exhausted or even inappropriate, what then? — tim wood

Then it's time to realize that one wasn't practicing generosity to begin with, but something else.
Be in the clear that you actually want something in return from the other person, and that this is why you're giving them something in the first place. That's not generosity, it's transactional thinking and acting.

Point here. I think you're exactly right. But against that I appeal to longer term interests. That is, they may be tactical, but lack strategic understanding. For humanity writ large, that may be fatal and soon. — tim wood

So what? Man lives to please one's ego. One could be dying in the gutter and still feel satisfied with oneself, blissing out in righteous indignation.

Or tell me why you are so concerned with assholes? — tim wood

Because at the end of the day, they get to rule the world. And this makes me think that maybe, this is an evolutionary advantage, or the Truth About The World, and as such, not something to repudiate.

Dismissing stupidity as a mere social issue has been standard practice, and in most cases probably best - to dismiss it. I find the world a place where even that becomes a luxury no longer affordable, except at an unacceptable price. Or are you, where you live, lucky enough to be unaffected by such things, or at least to think you're unaffected by them.

This tells me you have great self-confidence.
I try to never confuse stupidity for what might very well be strategy. I find that people are generally strategic, not stupid. They just play dumb, because this can give them an advantage.

There are still legal and insurance issues about the covid vaccines that undermine trust in the vaccines:

Of all the concerns the public has about vaccine safety, there is one that has us stumped for a straightforward answer: “If the vaccines are safe, why is the government protecting itself, health professionals and companies from vaccine compensation?” In fact, the UK government has passed regulations reducing legal protection for anyone injured by a COVID-19 vaccine approved for emergency use.
/.../
Generally, vaccine safety is excellent, which makes it even more incongruous that the government is not putting its money where its mouth is and providing a clear, generous and uncomplicated compensation scheme that would immediately quash any concerns the public has.

https://theconversation.com/uk-citizens-get-less-legal-protection-for-covid-jabs-than-other-vaccines-and-that-could-undermine-confidence-151455

Your OP _is_ the messenger. You always talk about yourself, you set yourself up as the arbiter of wisdom, truth, whatever it is that you like. You're incapable of presenting and discussing a topic on a socially relevant issue without being an asshole.

There's always an element of chance.
— Wayfarer
In the process of the complete cessation of suffering?
Do you have a canonical reference for that?
— baker

How about the Chiggala Sutta? — Wayfarer

Which is precisely the sutta I had in mind when I asked the above question.

Attaining nibbana does not depend on chance, but on deliberate action.

Indeed, it may be a sheer coincidence that one meets an arahant or comes across a sutta, but this alone is not the deciding factor on one's path. Many people may meet an arahant, or read a sutta, but do nothing with that.

Am I to infer that both of you prefer stupidity to reasonable alternatives, including reason itself, And have settled yourselves down to enjoy your ride to hell-in-a-handbasket, notwithstanding that in the years 2021 and following, perhaps for a thousand years, in taking that trip you take others with you, in short victimize them on your stupidity? — tim wood

There you go, brother Wood.
Good luck with ruling the world!

Cars are a lot safer than they were fifty years ago, or even twenty, and we still drive. — Srap Tasmaner

Cars may be safer, and the traffic infrastructure as well, but people are worse drivers.

Is even the elimination of the risk Covid-19 poses worth mandated medical treatments? — AJJ

The matter is primarily psychological and ideological.

This whole covid crisis has long since stopped being about the virus or health, but about people seeking ways to feel good and to feel safe. The emphasis being on _feeling_ good, _feeling_ safe, as opposed to actually _being_ such. The former is much easier to accomplish than the latter.

Issues of social psychology need to be taken into account. In times of crisis, people tend to give up critical thinking. It's not clear for how many people this applies, but some of those for whom it does apply are extremely vocal and influential. Resisting those people can result in short-term and long-term harm for the resisters.

There are also issues of the placebo effect, en masse: If enough people have enough faith in the covid vaccines, the covid vaccines can, in effect, be more safe and more effective than they would be without that faith.

Is it moral to refuse to participate in a mass social delusion, if said delusion can have at least short-term good effects for society at large and for the individual as well? — baker

We have to risk our health, or even actively sacrifice it on one thing or another: Whether it's polluted air, polluted food, work related injuries and diseases, socially praised poisons like alcohol, coffee, and nicotine, hormonal contraceptives, and the occasional experimental vaccine.

It would be unrealistic to think that living in the modern world could come without costs, risks, and sacrifices.

As long as we agree not to engage in a game of what is a true Scotsman? — Ennui Elucidator

Should terms denoting religious identity be exempt from being meaningful?

Do you know of any religion that has ever been friendly toward another religion? I don't.
— baker

Unitarian Universalists
A variety of liberal Jewish movements:
Reconstructionism
Humanistic Judaism

Humanism Generally.
Ethical Humanism

I'm sure I could find others with relatively little effort, but I'm not sure what a more comprehensive list would do for the conversation. — Ennui Elucidator

They're not "friendly" toward other religions, they just don't give a shit about them. Duh.

As an aside, this is a problem for religions interested in applying to everyone everywhere. Religions that are happy to constrain themselves to insular thinking (you do you, we do us, and we are the best) probably exist more than you might think. Not every religion intends to have everyone in the world agree with them or advocates that everyone in the world should agree with them. — Ennui Elucidator

You're not saying anything new.

Brother Wood, don't be daft.

Not to me — tim wood

Pffft. My experience with you informs me otherwise.

One word, bodhisattva. I'm told their primary goal is the liberation of all sentient beings. — TheMadFool

Inform yourself better. They're actually perfectly ready to leave you behind.

As for "no child left behind" policy, never heard of it though it squares with the bodhisattva's mission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

Treating people like objects might seem smart to you, but what if they prove to be alive and objectify you?

The world is made of rotting things.

The question, then, is how to fight the war to win it. Not just to fight it - that's a mug's game - but to win it. — tim wood

Vote for rightwingers, obviously.

But what do you hold to be the source of the greater dangers in the world, both to individuals and to society at every scale? — tim wood

Greed and hatred, and believing that greed and hatred are good.

Do I wish our population were more like Norways? Yes, I do. — Xtrix

Then why don't you do something in that direction?

What concerns me is navigating the differing perspectives of our fellow citizens. It's all very well to choose not to consider those who differ with us enemies, but in some cases they will consider us enemies. I worry about that. — Srap Tasmaner

Indeed. Apparently, the solution is in lowering one's expectations about mankind, and renounce one's humanist sensitivities.

I think when it comes to the exemplars on this forum, both sides actually believe it. Both sides think the other side is the enemy of everything good in the world. — Srap Tasmaner

We don't have both sides on this forum, as far as I know. I haven't seen any vocal anti-vaccers here.

From what I have seen, there are only the vocal pro-vaccers and the moderate pro-vaccers here. The vocal pro-vaccers automatically class the moderate pro-vaccers as the enemy.

Further, the moderate pro-vaccers don't see the vocal pro-vaccers nor the vocal anti-vaccers as the enemy, much less as "the enemy of everything good in the world".

Are you saying some people are unworthy of the truth, orthodoxa (right belief), which is just another way of saying some people should suffer? Whatever belief system tells you that is surely not the right one. — TheMadFool

A belief system that tells you that everyone is equally qualified for the highest attainments is surely not the right one.

Buddhism has no "no child left behind" policy.

Is it possible for any religion to offer nothing but calm and non-judgement? — Tom Storm

With enough mental acrobatics, certainly.

Do you know of any religion that has ever been genuinely friendly toward another religion? I don't. By "genuinely friendly" I mean that in its doctrine, a religion doesn't condemn another religion, and instead considers it an equal path.

Take one of the countries with an enormous population and a history of religious versatility: India. There, all the various religions generally appear to coexist peacefully, mutually respecting eachother (with the occasional unrests). Take a closer look, and you'll see that the one belief many of them have in common is "Everyone should know their place and mind their own business". They don't care about eachother, they're just minding their own business and knowing their place. And the result is, arguably, better than what any ecumenical effort could bring about.

Then take a seemingly inclusive religion like Bahaism. Look closer, and you'll see that Bahaism has its own idiosyncratic view of each of the religions it is comprised of or sourced upon. So that, for example, what the Bahais believe to be Buddhism, no Buddhist would recognize as Buddhism. Further, while Bahais give some credit to other religions, they still believe that theirs is the supreme one. This view "All are good, but ours is the best" can sometimes be found in religions, and if one isn't careful, one could readily mistake it for religious tolerance, when it actually isn't.

Religions can seem friendly toward another out of socio-economic necessity as well. Take Germany, for example. With their numbers whittled down, scrambling for funds, German Catholics and German Protestants get along tolerably well, even though each doctrinally believe about the other that they will burn in hell for all eternity.

Can an amateur learn how to enjoy "academical" philosophical discussions?
No. One either has it, or one doesn't.

But otherwise, are there any good resources on how to learn to enjoy those word battles? — Ansiktsburk

To begin with, learn the proper meaning of "to enjoy", and stop using it the way commercial advertisers and pop psychology gurus do.

In the light of a 4th film and nearly 20 years since the last one, were the 2nd and 3rd films that smart? — TiredThinker

I really wouldn't know, I fell asleep soon after the beginning.

So sue Creationists and flat-earthers, etc?

I won't bother following this line of thought. But thanks for the tip. — Xtrix

Put your money where your mouth is.

And then, instead of dying at the stakes and from persecution, people would be dying from boredom. The horror!

I'm fairly certain that if religions were tolerant and open minded people like Dawkins would vanish. — Tom Storm

And so would religions.

Sure, when you have the luxury which often up to monster. Some dangers are zerosum, bordering on lose-lose (pyrrhic), where it takes a monster to defeat a monster. Last resort, yeah; but not unthinkable. — 180 Proof

Batrachomyomachia!

If a certain group is under the impression that its belief system is the right one (orthodoxa = right belief), that group will also consider it a duty/responsibility to edify others of it. — TheMadFool

Not at all.

Rather, my intuition is that such an individual or group who is certain to have found The Truth will protect it, seek to keep it for themselves, and share it only with those who prove themselves worthy of it.