I'm not convinced that we had no option regarding birth. I can see souls sitting around, bored out of their minds with eternity and infinity. And, while not necessarily uncomfortable with being All, they decide they want to drill down on being a part of All instead of All itself. After all, someone has to do it. So they say "This time I'll be that (person, place or thing)." And presto! It happens. Their memory may be wiped for having made the decision (it wouldn't be you if you started out with a slate full of knowledge, and life is learning, after all) and so they start anew.

Some go on to whine about not having been given a choice. But that's cool too. Maybe, as a soul, they said "I'd like to live and not like it. I'd like to live and blame someone else, like my parents. Someone has to do it."

:up:

Thank you water. I still don't understand what I am seeing when you move through. But you are good.

There’s a particular saying that should immediately enter your mind on reading this back. — AJJ

I know you would think that, but that's because you only think of yourself. Like I said, you are disrespectful, inconsiderate and selfish. I didn't vax for me. You stand corrected.

So you have a whole range of X, Y, Z, etc. options. You cannot select the option for no option. Is this just? Does imposing on someone the need to pick from a range of options negate the fact that the imposition leaves out never having the option to not play the game of options in the first place? I guess this goes back to "most people" again..cause if most people like the options, it must be just, even if you could not pick no option :roll:. — schopenhauer1

I'm reminded of two things:

1. The old liberal saying: "When someone gives you two choices, pick the third";
2. When the Marines say "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way" they forget the fourth option, which is to actively resist.

My point here is that, whether or not it is "just" for one to try and limit another's options, that other always has the option to not play. The one might kill you, or otherwise make your choice untenable, but, as they say, the last great act of defiance is "FUCK YOU!"

The fact that most people like the options does not make them just. They must rely upon something else besides numbers if they want to find justice. In the U.S. we have a system designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Certain rights are not dependent upon alliances. It doesn't always work, and sometimes it only works after the fact, but it is, nevertheless, there.

But it can be "just" to limit options. We can say you must take the vax or stay home. We should add: Or you can offer an alternative(s) suitable to us, but if we don't like it/them, then tough: vax or stay home. That is "just", whether you like it or not. Justice, or just us, doesn't matter: we have a right to not be subjected to your filthy disease or your ability to catch and transmit it. Justice can be isolation as a penalty for obstinance, petulance, stupidity, what have you.

there’s cause for concern — AJJ

worth considering — AJJ

In a world of such causes and considerations, it's a wonder you aren't hiding under your bed. The electronical that you are using poses a threat, you know. You should research that and let us know what you think. By gum, it's important! Why, I hear tell . . .

This in turn casts doubt on the claimed severity of the virus if both sides are inflating the figures in this way. — AJJ

No, it does not cast doubt. It just shows what a child you are to think so.

But presumably those numbers will include actual vaccine deaths/injuries just as the others will include actual Covid deaths. — AJJ

Go get your advance degree in the area, along with decades of experience. Then you can presume. Until then you are just "odd."

I’d be interested to see where you’re getting this from. — AJJ

Do your research. LOL! You're a researcher, aren't you?

I think it’s a common polite way of telling someone they’re dodging something. — AJJ

I've only seen it from "two" (?) people on this board. You and Isaac. Not so common, at least in my experience. And, since it's my experience, like your experience with covid, I must be right. After all, my curiosity is oh so sincere. Like yours.

That’s fine, but it’s a pertinent question and without an answer the claim that a vaccinated individual will be less likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated asymptomatic one is suspect. — AJJ

If it's pertinent, then it has been asked and answered by those with the expertise to study and opine on the matter. Do your research. Ask Fauci. That's where I heard it. Google "CDC" and read their site. They are infinately more knowlegable about this and all your questions about it than you will ever be. Or, you could ask Tucker Carlson. I hear he's an expert too.

Where are you getting this from? It makes no sense according to my own experience of those around me catching the virus. If “young healthy people” in Idaho are as a rule becoming seriously ill then they’re for some reason in the vulnerable category instead. — AJJ

You need to do your research. Oh, and asking a bunch of people like me on TPF does not count as research.

It’s no surprise you’d bring up the fatuous “fire in a crowded theater” cliché, used as it was to justify jailing a man for speaking out against the draft. Anyone with “the ability to understand nuance and think analytically” knows the phrase is meaningless, not legally binding, and the underlying case was overturned back in ‘69. — NOS4A2

Anyone with a modicum of analytic and critical thinking skills, and an understanding of nuance, knows that an analogy, by definition, is not the thing itself. It is no argument to attack it as such. Rather, it is incumbent upon those who would attack it (you, in this case) to draw a distinction with a *relevant* difference. You have entirely failed in this regard.

If you don’t believe in the fundamental right to bodily autonomy just say it. — NOS4A2

I do, but like all rights, it is not absolute. Only a child (or a conservative) who sees the world in black and white, either-or, two-valued and illogically dualistic, would think that there is no nuance.

Tell everyone, “I want to trade your will with my own”. — NOS4A2

I want to trade your will to spread your nasty, filthy germs with my will to not let you. How's that?

Let them know that you and the government should decide what to put in their body. — NOS4A2

I hereby let them know that me and my government should decide what you get to exhale into my body whilst out in public. How's that?

“I want to exclude you from society because you refuse to do what I want you to”. — NOS4A2

I want to exclude you from society because you refuse to respect the bodily integrity of others by spreading your filth, your pollution, your poison all over everyone else.

You are right! I feel much better! Distance, mask, wash, vax, or stay at home and hide under your bed until this is over. Those are your choices. Otherwise, I'm all for rounding you up, putting you on trains, and hauling you off to the camps where work will set you free. Maybe we'll get a branding iron and put a big "T" on your forehead, like the scarlet letter! Belay my last: I'm sure you've already branded your forehead with a big MAGA.

How so? — AJJ

Because, like those who challenge Covid deaths based upon comorbidities, any death and debilitation that supposedly occurs within the former group have not been shown to be the result of the vaccine. There were a few allegations of some hearth inflammation, but that has not been proven either. Regardless, even if, the numbers are within a statistical norm for people who didn't get the shot.

Then I find odd the reluctance to provide an answer to my question about why viral loads are supposedly lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated asymptomatic (or mildly symptomatic) individuals. — AJJ

You sound like Isaac who likes to find things "odd". Are you sure you are not him? I find it odd that two people in the same thread find so many things to be "odd." In any event, I haven't seen a reluctance t provide an answer to you question about why viral loads are supposedly lower in vaccinated individuals. It could be because we aren't experts in the field.

It’s been long known that young healthy people aren’t particularly troubled by this virus so I’m not getting the intended force of this hypothetical. — AJJ

That's because you have been paying attention. Go to Idaho. Go to any other location where people like you are coming in sick, begging for the vax, taking up beds, getting treated and sometimes saved by medicines that are not fully approved by the FDA, and sometimes dying; all while others are turned away because of the likes of you.

Whether vaccinating the young and healthy on balance helps the vulnerable community enough to warrant the death and debilitation that occurs within the former group. — AJJ

That question has been answered. The allegations of death and debilitation that supposedly occurs within the former group are tenuous, at best, whereas the aid to the vulnerable community is proven.

But, since we are crunching numbers on human life, let's try this: If the death and debilitation that supposedly occurs within the former group are less, by huge orders of magnitude, than the death and debilitation that occurs in that group from Covid, and if their occupation of hospital beds and their drain on resources kills other people suffering from non-covid related injury or disease, then is it okay to rip the vents out of their yaps and dump their bodies out the hospital window to make room for human beings?

It would. — AJJ

No it wouldn't.

I question in all areas of life. — AJJ

No, you don't.

I enjoy it. — AJJ

No, you don't.

We all have a “side”. — AJJ

No, we don't.

Have I though? — AJJ

Yes, you have.

This is basically saying I believe things for reasons. — AJJ

No, it's not.

This is true. — AJJ

No, it's not.

I hold my political and religious beliefs for reasons too. — AJJ

No, you don't.

I am. — AJJ

No, you're not.

This is what you’re doing. — AJJ

No, it's not.

It’s what everyone does all the time. — AJJ

No, it's not.

Not that effective. — AJJ

Very effective.

People still get ill and a train of booster shots is on the cards. — AJJ

No, they don't.

Debatable. — AJJ

No, it's not.

Lots of documented side-effects, some truly awful. — AJJ

No.

Perhaps, but if they do this by reducing viral load and a healthy person’s immune system does this anyway then they’re a superfluous risk for those people. — AJJ

No, it's not superfluous.

It might be *about* the community, but whether they’re overall good for a community is debatable. — AJJ

No, it's not.

See, I can play the disrespectful, inconsiderate, selfish child too. The difference is, you enjoy it and adults don't. Carry on. :roll:

That would actually be a good one if I’d described something resembling a conspiracy theory. — AJJ

Read the thread. There's not much else you could hang your hat on.

To be honest, I didn't devote much time to reading what you had to say. I found my eyes rolling so much for the umpteenth time that I couldn't make it out. My bust. Carry on.

QED — AJJ

More like, simply Q.

:100: I wanted to distinguish health care providers from climate scientists (you know, the guys in the pockets of big environmentalists :roll:) but then I remembered, my doctor and all the other health care professionals around the globe are in the pocket of big pharma and the insurance companies that have reduced doctors to the status of Saul Goodman. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Anyway, you have more energy than I have if you want to tilt at this AJL windmill.

:roll:



:down:

We either have “the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health decisions”, or we do not. — NOS4A2

That is the "reasoning" of a child. Either we have a right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater, or we do not. When you develop the ability to understand nuance and think analytically, you will understand.

And I'm no fan of the ACLU and their failure to champion power to the people via the 2nd Amendment (They think it's a "collective" right instead of an individual right. I've explained to them, legally, the error in their analysis, but, deaf ears. Nevertheless, I digress.). But they are protecting the rights of the infirm to not be infected by some filthy disease that you *will* spread if people like you have you way (read up on Delta and other variants that would not exist if not for people like you). It's not like you or anyone like you has the power to avoid infection or spread, unless you crawl in a hole (see below).

Even if you never come near to becoming infected with the disease, and thus never come near to infecting anyone, let alone the at-risk group, — NOS4A2

It does not take a sophist to place the burden of proof upon you in that regard. Further, if you are sure that will never happen then you don't have to fear gubmn't making you vax. You will be isolated and no one will be the wiser. Just make sure you don't come out into society with the rest of us. Simple, really.

I think this entire thread is a ruse to justify child pornography, — Xtrix

:up:

When I first read the OP, and some subsequent posts, I felt there was a not-so-well executed effort to veil, or bury child pornography in with a pile of other verboten activities as a way of pushing it out from under the fridge; so it wouldn't get stepped on. The fact it was last in the list, as if it was a mere afterthought, was part of it.

I think there might be better, even more open and honest ways to engage on the subject but I've got the same amount of interest in such discussion as I have for racism, fascism, slavery, the Stars and Bars, statues of enemies in the town square, and whatnot: Fuck 'em.

I could be wrong, though. Hmmm.

We don't have to wonder -- it's happening right now, all around us. And people like Isaac help it along -- which is unfortunate. — Xtrix

:100:

I hope I have not contributed to the problem by giving oxygen to it. My natural inclination is to engage, but standing down might be the better part of valor. While Covid can fix stupid, I certainly can't. :blush:

This is an example of bad faith, I think. — Xtrix

I agree, though as I said, I'm not trained up in psychoanalysis. I had written up a rather lengthy explanation of what I thought might be the motivation, but it went way beyond the gadfly or sincere intellectual curiosity, or the insolent, or the petulant, or the sadistic glee of the troll. Those are things I'm qualified to speculate on. No, this goes beyond that. It wouldn't be an issue except there are those who are persuaded to avoid the vax based upon such posturing.

I tried to explain how one should not merely cite sources, but find out what the other side said about what the sources said, and then the reply. But I'm not seeing any intellectual rigor. I agree bad faith is the explanation. It would be interesting to see what a shrink had to say about it, but that's another thread. I wonder how many people have died as a result of this type of "thinking"?

:100: Don't forget Ronald Raygun and "government is the problem" mentality.

:up:

Snip psychoanalysis of those who provide aid and comfort to a virus. I remembered I'm not a psychologist, even if I could play one on the internet.

in some less enlightened places, this hustle is also called "marriage". — 180 Proof

:lol: :up:

The child porn discussion reminds me of snuff films. "Yeah, I'm just watching, so it's harmless, right?" But isn't it like torturing dogs and cats: *Even if* we were to accept some specious argument that "no sentient beings were harmed in the making of this film" we should consider the mind that is attracted to it for anything other than morbid curiosity. Is that mind, harmless though it may seem now, one that we want wandering around among us? Haven't studies shown that those who kill humans for pleasure were often found to have tortured pets when young?

Who knows what thoughts are in the mind of that person walking across the street over there? And if I see another person, dying, say, falling from the Twin Towers as they burn, am I to give them the benefit of the doubt, assuming they are an "innocent" victim, and not a guy who just beat his wife or molested his daughter that morning? Or maybe she cheated on her husband, in the utility closet, seconds before the plane hit?

There is a lot to be said for the state staying out of our heads. On the other hand, whenever someone (or something) "was harmed in the making of this film" then I see no problem with the state criminalizing the watching of the film. I feel sorry for all the cops who can't un-see all the shit they've seen in the course of their duties. What if they secretly felt a stirring in their groin? What if they were repulsed and calloused because of it? What if they gave an extra few whacks with the baton on some criminal that was complying, just because the cop was traumatized by what he'd seen that morning in the evidence locker?

Watching people get shot used to be a rarity, or acting. Now you can watch combat on youtube from some helmet cam in Helmand Province. Maybe that improves the species, to see what soldiers see, and learn to abhor war. Or maybe it just gives PTSD and fucks up your dreams at night.

Maybe life is ugly and the internet is life. Maybe you find there the collective human psyche, good and bad. Maybe our brains are dark. Maybe the light is a lie. Maybe it's grey. Maybe we should create the VR dolls I reference in another thread. Maybe that would move us to the next level of human evolution.

I don't know. Just spit-balling.

I love and hate when nature upsets the best laid plans of mice and men. From fetal viability to age of majority to promiscuity to hormonal differences and on.

I love to watch mankind fidget, wring his hands in discomfort, wail and cry about that over which he has no control, and yet he tries to control anyway, with law, civil or criminal. I particularly like reading the case law on such matters, and the words of the best legal minds and philosophers we have, contorting and twisting and trying to make square pegs fit in round holes.

If animals were as sanctimonious as we are, they would say "Suck on that bitches! You ain't above or beyond us!"

On the other hand, I hate when I'm the one on the short end of some natural stick. I want to punish, civilly or criminally, or even self-help on the matter at hand.

But I do find, as a general principle, that the older one gets, the more objective, distant, forgiving and understanding they might be. I think it is good for people to read those the legal opinions for just that reason. The only part that leaks out to the public, in snippets and sound bites, are the upshot of words and phrases, like "heat of the moment" etc., layered with levels like 1st degree, 2nd degree, black heart, negligent, blah blah blah. But there is usually some good explanation of the genesis of the wisdom and that is a good thing to read. You have to read the whole opinion. The dissent. Understand it.

In the end, though, underlying many of these concerns is the hormone; nature. And sometimes mankind choses not to fight. The criminal is decriminalized, leaving the civil, which in turn can be rendered impotent, bringing us back to "sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you."

In this light, regardless of the intensity of feeling that springs from betrayal, and regardless of society's desire to limit revenge and self-help, there is a reason to not exact revenge upon one who has betrayed you: That reason is you. That reason is them. Everyone is human. Everyone is an animal. If you aren't your type, then why should you be anyone else's type? And if you are your type, then fret not the betrayal. You always have you. Fuck them.

PSA:

Proof the SC is political will be found in their hearing of a case over legislation from a Blue State that is drafted using the same exact work-around language that Texas used. (guns, anybody?)

When that happens, feel free to hold the SC in contempt of the United States.

The more you know . . . ***

Texas and the idiots in the Supreme Court migh just give birth to more Texas and more idiots at the Supreme Court! — TheMadFool

Being from Colorado, a common carving on bathrooms walls: "Here I sit, buns a flexin'; givin' birth to another Texan."

Personally, I am in favor of saving the statues for everyone. We have not had the ability to feed everyone and even if they did, they would multiply and the problem would get worse. However, we can feed everyone's spiritual well being and destroying cathedrals, mosques and Buddist statues is wrong. Those who destroyed the Buddist statues would know that if it were a mosque being destroyed. — Athena

:100: :up: I'm no big fan of religion but I find the guy's excuse to be disingenuous.

Thank you moon. Good to have you around.

:up:

I have worked a lot with people experiencing homelessness and I am often surprised by the level of virtue - generosity, courage and selflessness I see in their behavior. — Tom Storm

:100:

:100:

The point is, your way does not get good results. Not in Afghanistan, your neighborhood, or your family. — Athena

The only problem with "my way" is that it wasn't "my way." My way did not involve hanging around and trying to teach good parenting habits to an asshole, or coddling his kids, or nation building. My way, swift and violent, has worked wonders for centuries. It's unfortunate, but sometimes you have to light a back-fire to put out the flames. If your way worked when dealing with assholes then I guess we wouldn't have any assholes. Yet the world is full of them and yes, I am probably one of them. But if you'd get out there and get the job done with the neighbor then I'd be more than happy to stand down and go back the garden. In fact, if you promise to protect me from assholes, then I'll gladly turn over any reigns I might have. But maybe you should post a bond, first? Or submit some insurance coverage?

I submitted a piece on research to a friend of mine and he felt compelled to respond. I'll let him remain anonymous but I thought it was funny so I have to share. He cranks this stuff out off the cuff and on the fly all the time:

" I have some thoughts.

Well, they say they’re researching. A Ouija Board is kind of like research…if you don’t think about it too hard. It’s not like we’re asking that they be able to diagram the fucking Krebs cycle. A minimum of understanding is acceptable; “Germs bad, make people dead. Peoples includes me. If peoples dead, no Slurpees at Quicky-mart! Some peoples know more than me. Good to listen to smart peoples, good to stay alive.” This would be fine And you don’t need any empathy for your hatchlings of Grandma, let alone those other people who, allegedly, exist. Of course, the mere act of acknowledging that some ‘peoples’ might know more about some things than the average gentle Fox news viewer, is a mortal insult to the audience’s patriotism, if not a direct attack on their ego-centric narcissism.

Just based on what I know about human history, it appears that with great regularity, a decent percentage of our fellow humans go completely off the fucking rails. Or, disturbingly, perhaps the moments of lucidity are the aberrant state. Anywhoo. Usually, it’s due to an idiot or group of same, manipulating people for power, wealth or maybe simply self-aggrandizement. Sometimes it just happens sort of organically. Giles the Goat Boy has a vision of the Virgin Mary giving him a hand job in heaven, and the next thing you know the whole town is naked and burning down the Jewish quarter.

One would think that basic survival instincts would prevent this kind of thing. Or, now that we’re ‘literate’ and know how this shit ends, we’d put the brakes on. (FYI It ends badly, for everybody, including the instigators-though by then you and I and our ilk are dead, so, no “I told you so,” for us.) Unfortunately, the only thing that has actually stood in the way of going full ‘demented lemming’ has been the weakest of all controls…manners.

Sometimes these are believed to be enforced by theological principles. Fear of being toasted on Old Snape’s marshmallow fork for eternity if you pork the upstairs maid while the wife is at bridge club. Or, using a handkerchief, lest demons fly out when sneezing. Sometimes the law. But, really, who thinks about the federal sentencing guidelines when knocking over a liquor store. The Crack ain’t going to buy itself Bubba!

But at bottom, (another place not to put your marshmallow fork, per Leviticus) it is the rare neurotic that actually makes the connection between not flushing and the fiery pit, or consults the neurotic OCD of Emily Post, for that matter. Generally, it is an unconscious compliance with social norms, which one would hope reflect some selective pressure not to overtly stifle DNA’s mandate to continue on. This can be seen in such conventions as reconsidering carbs, when half the village drops like flies after eating Mrs. Dengue’s dinner rolls, running with scissors and burying the dead in the water supply.

It has usually been socially unacceptable, and therefore personally embarrassing, to openly express stupidly dangerous and objectively false ideas. Except in certain religious traditions, where it is mandatory to maintain group identity.. and to get unfettered access to the complimentary donuts.

Equally unfortunately, manners are dependent on unspoken and often subconscious group consensus. So, once the current trend-setters start picking their noses, slapping the waiter for thrills and farting musically at state dinners, well, the door to a hell-scape creaks slowly open. It’s worse when defying social norms becomes a noble expression of resistance to ‘tyranny.’ Such as the tyrannical notion that casually and randomly killing your fellow citizens is, at a minimum, unsporting.

Basically, the difficulty is that, as I believe you and I know all too well, acting stupidly and selfishly is fun. Especially if you’re in a gang who won’t make fun of your intellectual limitations. It’s especially great if you believe you are doing the Lord’s work. The cherry on top is pissing off the smart people who you believe are mocking you for your ignorance (I admit it). Who doesn’t enjoy placing others in fear, experiencing what passes for power on T.V. and generally inflating one’s poorly constituted ego? Lastly, believing something that is widely contradicted, or acting on it like you do believe it, makes you the holder of ‘special knowledge.’ God knows, feeling special is better than merely being a faceless cog and, it takes a shit load less effort than figuring out what the actual source of your fear and discomfort might be.

Folks dimly sense the world is a cruel place, in which their desires and needs are unmet. This despite what they are told to believe are their best efforts to improve their situation. Such efforts as Fox once indicated, when complimenting the work ethic of Cheeto Jesus, “He watches all the shows!” Their only understanding comes from a steady diet of ‘bootstraps’ propaganda and conspiracy stories which advise them it’s not their fault. This an extremely pleasing answer and a real time and energy saver too. They do not look up, or examine the policy decisions of those they have placed in power which have made them Walmart waddlers, teetering on the verge of penury. Always, as instructed, they direct their blame at the convenient ‘other’ du jour. Deliberate ignorance and self-deception, especially if it comes with the comfort of herd identity and, don’t forget, cool hats, makes the world a brighter place. In the same sense that a grease fire in the kitchen, really improves the lighting… at least temporarily.

In a world where hypocrisy is unnoticed, if not admired, shame no longer operative as a bar to misbehavior and deliberate ignorance is considered evidence of a virtuous commitment, a free society cannot rely on social norms to restore rational balance.

If you can’t fix stupid, and evidence, logic and mockery are unavailing; That leaves law and force. Sadly, that never ends well, in spite of our American belief in quick violent solutions to complex problems. Though, I admit, in the short run, shooting the deliberately ignorant is satisfying. One can always rationalize it as ‘educational.” Or, as Voltaire put it, “Pour encourage les autres.” From Candide:

They arrived at Portsmouth. The coast was lined with crowds of people, whose eyes were fixed on a fine man kneeling, with his eyes bandaged, on board one of the men of war in the harbour. Four soldiers stood opposite to this man; each of them fired three balls at his head, with all the calmness in the world; and the whole assembly went away very well satisfied.
“What is all this?” said Candide; “and what demon is it that exercises his empire in this country?”
He then asked who was that fine man who had been killed with so much ceremony. They answered, he was an Admiral.
“And why kill this Admiral?”
“It is because he did not kill a sufficient number of men himself. He gave battle to a French Admiral; and it has been proved that he was not near enough to him.”
“But,” replied Candide, “the French Admiral was as far from the English Admiral.”
“There is no doubt of it; but in this country it is found good, from time to time, to kill one Admiral to encourage the others.”

BTW: as you know anti-intellectualism, to give it a fancy name, is as American as apple-pie, racism and misogyny. We’ve even studied it!

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. Arthur C Clarke

“If a nation expects to ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” Thomas Jefferson… (who then broke into “Somewhere over the Rainbow” while fondling Sally Hemmings

The Shrinks weigh in:

“The difference between willful ignorance and true self-deception is subtle, but important. Willful ignorance tends to be more adaptive than self-deception. Willful ignorance is a cognitive strategy that people adopt to promote their emotional well-being, whereas self-deception is less controllable and more likely to be detrimental. Although willful ignorance and self-deception sometimes help individuals to avoid unpleasant facts, in the long run, it is usually better to confront reality than to avoid or deny it.”(Really? That seems tiring.)

“Studies have demonstrated that leaders who make bad decisions with harmful outcomes — but are willfully ignorant about those decisions — are usually punished less than straight-up dictators. Other researchers have pegged deliberate ignorance as an emotion regulation and regret avoidance device, a way to avoid liability while also driving performance.

In short: Self-deception basically works the same way deceiving others does. The person avoids critical information so they don’t know the whole truth; biases aren’t quite self-deception, but self-deception does involve a bias in what information you accept. In a 2011 paper in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, researchers argue that self-deception may have an evolutionary purpose in a blatantly depressing way: We self-deceive, they say, because it trains us to be better liars. “In the struggle to accrue resources, a strategy that has emerged over evolutionary time is deception,” the researchers write. “Self-deception may be an important tool in this co-evolutionary struggle, by allowing deceivers to circumvent detection efforts.” In other words, the more we convince ourselves of little lies, the less likely we are to demonstrate the nervousness and idiosyncratic tendencies that come with lying to other people, allowing us to become powerful, even if precariously so. Which, while that is likely true, is sort of a bummer.

“the strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’” Isaac Asimov

Check out Asimov from 1980…Hmmm, what happened that year?? :

https://aphelis.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ASIMOV_1980_Cult_of_Ignorance.pdf"

However, it is in complete agreement with what some Muslims are doing. — Athena

Yeah, that patriarchy can cause problems. I just hope that when you go over to the neighbor's house and politely ask them to please keep their teens in check (and to please turn the kids over to authorities to answer for their acts), there is not some patriarchal SOB in his wife-beater, beer in hand, who tells you "Go fuck yourself, and deal with my teens when they are in your yard, not when they've skedaddled back to my house". Oh, and "Get off'n my land, you little . . .".

:wink:

I like your analogy to a person's home. The other day I was thinking about that, and the fact that in many neighborhoods there is that family. The parents, of course, ostensibly have sovereignty over their home and the teenagers that reside therein. Now, if they want to let the kids run wild in the house, that's fine. But when their kids start trashing the neighborhood, come over to my house and trash it, I have a right to redress. If I get no satisfaction, then, eventually, I will go over to their house, along with the majority of the neighborhood, kick their fucking door in, beat the shit out of them, kill the fucking kids and leave. But in deference to their right to run their house the way they want, I will not then hang around and try to teach them good parenting skills.

Oh, and while I want to tip my hat to cultural sensitivity, I won't stand idly by and watch them fuck little boys or cut the clitoris off little girls with a piece of broken Coke bottle (not Afghanistan, I know, I'm just making a point here). You see, while it is expected that I should be culturally sensitive, I also expect people to be sensitive to my culture. Part of my culture is killing monarchs, racists, slave owners, traitors, emperors, dictators and other vermin who abuse the innocent. I simply ask that others honor my culture. I don't' think that is a big ask. :grin:

Notwithstanding the law, the Constitution, rules, regulations, minority or majority of public opinion, I hereby reserve unto myself sovereign jurisdiction over the life of anyone who resides within my body. No matter how they got there, when they got there, and no matter any consideration of them; I can kill and remove them, or direct their killing and removal. I also expressly reject jurisdiction of any other entity.

Finally, I hereby recognize and stipulate to the sovereign jurisdiction of all others over any who reside within their body.

“it is logically impossible to verify a universal proposition by reference to experience (as Hume saw clearly), but a single genuine counter-instance falsifies the corresponding universal law.” — Neri

Nothing I said runs afoul of that.

I suggest you read the above material with a view to comprehending it. — Neri

All your longwinded Popper stuff does is point out the logic of not relying upon anecdote. Just because something is X a jillion times does not mean it will be X on a jillion + 1. And one time that it is not X, discounts the notion that something is always X. That's first year logic, and a subordinate corollary to my long winded thoughts on "A" but I don't want to start over on that with you. I'll just cede the floor. But for any who have followed my ravings on this issue, this is a simple part of my point regarding burdens of proof, self-evidence and proving negatives.

Oh, and when you want me or another poster to know you are talking to them, use the feature that provides for notification. I simply happened upon your responses to me and could very easily missed them. Not that it matters, I guess.

I might have added the obvious fact that the generalization I gave as an example was the categorical proposition, “All swans are white” and not the proposition, “Swans are white.” The latter statement is not categorical for it includes white swans but does not exclude swans of any other color. — Neri

The modifier "all" is not unlike the modifier "some." Without the modifier, the contention that swans are white would mean that any bird that is not white could not be a swan. I stand to be corrected, as I have not yet had my coffee and I'm shooting from the hip here.

But perfectly sane, rational, unbrainwashed, unmanipulated people hold this view and announce it publicly every Sabbath. — Cuthbert

I disagree. I think such people have been brainwashed and manipulated; often starting at an early age.

Thank you to all who use compassionate judgement in keeping busy those who would otherwise use their time to harm me and mine.

Could it be possible that some folks would rather err on the side of caution when being coerced into injecting biological agents into their body? — NOS4A2

No. That can't explain it. First, they aren't being coerced. They are being asked, pleaded with, bribed.
Second, those same folks don't exercise such caution when injecting other biological agents into their body (usually through their Trumpette mouths). Must be something else.