:up: My friend has 135 of those. I'm wearing their socks as I type. :grin:

I hope peace and calm can be found without the need of better coping skills in life against stress, physical pain, or sadnesses. Life seems to offer more shit with time, and removes the means to counter. Aging is inflammatory. I prefer the idea of not requiring special skills to find it. — TiredThinker

I understand your point. I just keep thinking of the old man in Kung Fu. :lol:

I guess it was a rhino, not an elephant, and while this occurred on an empty street during shutdown, apparently rhino's do this even when there is no shut down. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/watch-rhino-strolling-on-streets-chasing-man-away-amid-coronavirus-lockdown-68382

The "news" I saw had other example of other animals in other countries, too. Maybe BS, but the I liked the idea. :grin:

That I can't decide. Even though I've lived in both situations. — god must be atheist

I think there is an unnecessary "either/or" thing in the approach to this issue. When I said:

It kind of told capitalism as we practice it that it is not the life's blood that it thinks it is. We don't need to be held hostage. We can slow our roll and make capitalism come to us. — James Riley

I was thinking that maybe we could cut our military budget in half and still have the world's preeminent defense system by several orders of magnitude. And, where the production of a bomb or a helmet here generates X amount of jobs and the resultant taxes, etc., the production of a widget for the poor over there generates X amount of jobs and the resultant taxes; for a wash. The only difference is, at the end of the day, we have a widget instead of a bomb or a helmet. So we harness capitalism to do our bidding, instead of it harnessing us to do the bidding of a Plutocracy dependent upon the MIC.

Another angle is trickle up, instead of trickle down. Anyway, I wasn't looking for an argument on this issue. I was just thinking about some of the lessons that the pandemic taught us. Workers and consumers have more control than they think they do, especially when we bail out people instead of mega-corporations and banks. The return on the investment is spent right here at the bottom and if the top wants in on the action, they have to actually work for it.

For some reason I thought you were American. — praxis

I am. I saw it on the T.V. set. :death:

My wife and I were just talking about this very thing this morning. We had many substantial life changes occur (both good and bad), none of which had anything to do do with Covid, but all of which solicited a question from one or more people about whether Covid had anything to do with these changes. Indeed, we even got to the point of associating Covid with these changes, until we gave it more thought and realized, things change. Especially as you get older.

I do know folks who have gotten sick and/or died from Covid, but those incidents didn't factor into the foregoing analysis.

I just thought of a long standing phrase of "Fuck Cancer." I will add to that and say "Fuck Covid and fuck those who have supported it."

I've actually enjoyed and benefited from some aspects of our collective response to Covid, but I know it's not all about me. I did enjoy driving when the highways and streets were empty (that period did not last long enough) and I also liked seeing some elephants and other wildlife come down out of the hills and start wandering towns.

Social distancing is in my nature anyway, and a mask is not inconvenient for me. Not in the least. And the needle? Meh. I've been stabbed with worse.

I encourage everyone to remember some good wisdom that came out of the pandemic: "In the rush to get back to normal, think about what is worth rushing back to." And "This could be a pivot point for the better, with lessons learned." It then listed a bunch of lessons, like essential workers are paid the least, working from home, material culture we can do without, etc. It was a good list. It kind of told capitalism as we practice it that it is not the life's blood that it thinks it is. We don't need to be held hostage. We can slow our roll and make capitalism come to us.

Does magick exist? Yes.
. . . is it possible that the paranormal is more ordinary than we assume? Yes.
Does prayer work? I do not know, but I think it might, depending on who does it and if they do it "right." I have to take this opportunity to jab Rush Limbaugh and his disciples: If hope is not a strategy, then neither is prayer. So go suck on that.
Are miracles possible? Yes (but the definition of "miracle" is troublesome).
. . . . if magick is real, should there be law governing how it can be practiced? No. Such a law would be a waste of time because magick is beyond the jurisdiction, literally and practically, of any who would pretend to enforce.
. . . should there be institutionalized rules for how magick is conducted? No. See "law."
. . . should there be punishment(s) for violating those regulations? No. See "law."
Is magick real? Yes.

Enforcement protocols are stupid, and bring to mind the Salem Witch Trials. Ineffective and stupid.

I believe magick is real, and I have experienced it.

I also think others have experienced it. However, like the movie "Men Who Stare at Goats", it is beyond the jurisdiction of those who would pretend to reduce it to their non-magick-world ambitions.

I think spooks (CIA, KGB, et al) have crossed into the realm, with astral projection, remote viewing, moving objects with the mind, etc. but I also think it does them no good whatsoever, at least as far gaining advantage over opponents.

A final thought, by analogy only (could apply to moving objects with the mind): At one time, people were awed by the sunrise and the sunset. They may have perceived it as magick. Then along came those who don't believe in magick, reducing the phenomena to calculations, paper, science, physics, reasonable explanation, critical and analytic thought, etc.. They thought that by doing so they had pulled the magick carpet out from under the phenomena. They were and are wrong. It is still magick to this day, notwithstanding all the truth of their efforts. Only those who are no longer awed by it, who no longer perceive the magick of it, have suffered. I would feel sorry for them, but they are off in their frenetic search of something they will never find, simply because of the search.

There are still a few among them though, after a long days work in the lab, who sit out back with more than a few beers, watching the sun set or rise, and cry with the awesome magick of it. Good on them.

The same analysis could apply to a pre-contact Amazonian Indians seeing an airplane fly over head. The pilot only thinks he knows better, and that simply physics holds him aloft. But it is magick. Everything in life is Magick, most especially the "now." I won't listen to one who has not found "the now" tell me that magick doesn't exist.

Done.

:up: Will pass it on. Thanks.

Your friend needs a new thesis statement. — tim wood

The freshman text goes something like this:

"standardized education is not inherently bad but the way the system is executed is poorly done and neglects the interests and talents of many students. it also forces students to learn things they don't' care about as opposed to igniting an interest in learning"



Great. I will cut and paste for him. Thank you for your time.

Can you ethically justify eating meat? — Kaz1983

I can ethically justify killing animals and eating meat myself. I have a hard time justifying my eating of meat that was killed by others who are part of a profit stream related to the killing and processing of animals. The layers of separation between me and the animal are an issue for me.

I see nothing wrong with, and I think it is entirely ethical to treat an animal in accord with it's nature. Prey species are prey; that's what they do. They evolved for it and they are good at it. And they make me a better predator for having tried to engage them in a free and open encounter. I don't hunt predators. I don't even hunt omnivores (like bear, etc.). And I don't hunt animals that mate for life. But I hunt. And I don't hunt to kill. I kill to have hunted. yGasset.

I tried going veggie once (for ethical reasons alone), and I made it for two years. But I couldn't maintain it. I love meat. So I try to assuage my conscience with the idea that I think about the animal I eat, not only as I eat it, but all the animals that make up who I am. Including those I wear (I like leather, belts, boots, etc.). I want to say that I don't merely say grace before I eat, but I try to live in grace with what I eat. But I confess I can't do that when I don't even know the conditions under which the animal I eat was raised or slaughtered. I suppose I might be like Thomas Jefferson, in that I know what I am doing is fucking wrong, but I do it anyway.

I will, however, advocate for, and support changes that force all of us to make it easier to hunt and/or not permit the suffering of animals. Not good enough, I know.

I used to represent a slaughter house and I've been in many over the years. I wish more people had to kill and butcher their own meat. Anyway, I penned the following back then:

Next!

No longer wild, no longer free
Domestic, you belong to me
But that sparkle in your eye
Makes my ownership a lie

No matter what that we have done
You are still another one
I know this now in empathy
As I watch your tragedy

Up the ally on your way
To where you’re going to die today
The smell of death and anxious fear
Now you fathom what is near

The bellows of the ones before
Who’ve passed beyond the cold steel door
Still not sure, you stay in line
Past the gate a false light shines

If it is the worst to be
Time permits you fight or flee
But now the noise and sight to greet
A head-knocked friend slides at your feet

Any chance that it won’t be?
You look around most desperately
Too late, your Sacred Hoop spills on the floor
Down the drain to ever more

And still they cause death and injury. — Cartuna

Wait, I didn't think you got to use that argument? Everything causes death and injury. We're all going to die. So go kill yourself if it's no big deal. Or if you want 100% safety, stay home and hide under the bed while the rest of us take government-mandated precautions, created by people who are experts in the field. You know, like seat belts, and emission control devices, and staying in our lane, etc.

I will stipulate to one point: I'm stupid to try and fix stupid by even opening this stupid thread to rehash arguments that start ALL OVER AGAIN every time some stupid person enters the ring with their stupid understanding of the issues. Yet I keep doing it. WTF is wrong with me?

I hereby publicly promise to never open this stupid thread again.

One thing is clear: The empathy of doctors and nurses, who continue to engage the enemy in the face of overwhelming stupidity on the side of the virus, is totally beyond my empathy. And to think, I'm more empathetic than the people who won't think of others. Jeesh!

Bye!

I think it's a sound argument. — Cartuna

You don't think. Cars and drivers are heavily regulated, they have emission control devices that are not 100%, you have to wear seat belts, obey limits, stay in your lane, cars don't make each other stop working simply by being there, I could go on demonstrating many other distinctions with a relevant difference, but again, it's already been done.

So all cars should be banned, including the roads they travel on. Like all no vaxing should be banned in your eyes. — Cartuna

False equivalence. Read the thread. This argument has already been trashed, soundly.

If someone gets a stroke and becomes paralyzed, we put the burden of proving it was the vax that did it on the person, using the same standards we must use to prove it was him who gave Covid to and killed my loved one.

Sounds like Slovenia is not in accord with world results. So maybe that's not on the vaccine. Probably a bad batch or some black market shenanigans. Let's put the burden of proof on those who cite this tripe without investigation.

Regarding moral responsibility, it's a numbers game, like everything else in science. Society is not morally responsible to provide 100% safety to anyone. Their required emission control devices, seat belts and helmets are what they are. Those who want 100% can stay home and hide under the bed.

Funny how the "tough" crowd wants everyone else to stay home while they go out and create variants.

You are the one who is only concerned for yourself and your loved ones. — Cartuna

Indeed I am. I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about others.

All your talk about caring for loved ones is just part of your persuasion technique to make others follow the road as fixed in your mind. — Cartuna

That is the opinion of one who is selfish, inconsiderate and disrespectful. I find that a lot these days. I want to say it's a sign of the younger generation, but I know a lot of kids who are not like that, and I know a lot of adults who are like you. In fact, I think some 33% of the U.S. is like that. Not sure about elsewhere.

You should learn them if you care about others. — Cartuna

Yeah, I could go back to school, get my PhD in immunology, practice for 30 years and see what I come up with. Or I could just trust Q, drink some bleach, get some horse de-wormer and roll the dice. :roll:

i won't take it. I, me, myself, and I. How selfish I am... — Cartuna

Yeah, I typed up, but was not going to post in the hopes you went away. But since you came back:

I ... I . . . I want it all . . . My . . . my . . . ... — Cartuna

There, fixed it for you. And there you have it.

The recent banning (and the pro-con arguments related thereto), got me to thinking about whether speaking another’s language, in order to communicate with them, would somehow be hypocritical.

I am attracted to the idea of peace. But I find the idea to be contrary to my nature. So, in typical philosopher fashion, and in an effort to justify my nature, and possibly find a work-around, I followed up on a phrase I heard “Peace is not the absence of conflict . . .” My search revealed different endings to that sentiment, but the most compelling, and easy to work with, for me (considering my intended goal), was that stated by Gandhi. Specifically, “Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it.”

(Others, like Ronald Reagan, concluded “. . . the ability to deal with it peacefully.” That did not satisfy my end goal of justifying my innate response to certain situations that I deemed to be unjust.)

We all cope differently. Gandhi has his way, while others have theirs. Can others be calm and at peace inside, but violent on the outside? Can that be? Or is that inconsistent with "peace."

I considered the concept of “coping” and decided that one could not only remain calm in the turmoil of conflict, but one could actually participate in the conflict while remaining calm and at peace. The idea here is not one’s external conduct, but, rather, one’s inner sense, often found in the very confidence that would give opposing parties to a conflict the resolve to vigorously conflict.

In other words, while the field of conflict could be and almost always is occupied those who are not at peace, who are filled with hatred, vengeance, glee, or any of numerous different human emotions, spun up to overcome fear, and the innate internal desire for external peace; there could be others. There could be those who, calm inside, carry out their external conflict with a professional resolve such that, if two opposing parties of the same mind came together, they could not only remain peaceful on the inside, but they could discuss, peacefully, on the outside. Or they could combat vigorously and with resolve. Indeed, these people might be the most formidably on the field. In such a case, it would only be those who lacked peace on the inside who must be spoken to, and then spoken to in the language they understand. If they are intolerant, then we can be intolerant with them, but we do it with a peaceful, calm and confident resolve.

That is what I am thinking. But I don't necessarily believe everything I think, so I toss it out there under the stimulus of your question.

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

That's true, praxis. But you might need a bed for non-Covid reasons. I think some folks have already died being life-flighted to other hospitals because the one they went to was full of anti-vaxxer types who went in on bended knee, repenting their stupidity and getting a bed.

Hope you had a good sleep! — Cartuna

Try quoting me (like I just did you) so I receive notification that you are engaging me. Otherwise, I will assume you are trying to avoid your education.

Whý do the vaccinated care that I don't vax? — Cartuna

Because they are concerned, not just about themselves (like you), but about their loved ones, friends, acquaintances; and access to hospital beds if they might need them for some other reason. Guys like me just want to see who we can count on in a pinch. You know, like when the "big one" comes along.

The rest of your post is gibberish that has been repeatedly and logically trounced in this thread, ad nauseum. For that reason, and your apparent inability to properly engage, I'll leave you to go read it. Or not. Let us know how your horse de-wormer is working out for you. Have another shot of bleach.

Don't worry, I will not use your hospital bed when I get ill, nor that of your loved ones. — Cartuna

Other than keeping your filthy disease to yourself, that is all anyone asks. Thank you.

Awesome!

How many of us would expect the customer to stay there and keep forking out money? And how many would expect passers by to weigh in on the situation and call the customer names when they have had enough of the mechanic shop and want to leave?

So why is it different when It's public health that says "No, you can't leave yet. Now you need a booster..." — Book273

Your analogy can be distinguished with a panoply of relevant differences. But let's start with some of the most important ones:

1. Cars don't infect each other;
2. You have to have (and pay for) a license to drive that perfect car, even if you are objectively qualified;
3. You have to periodically prove yourself;
4. You have to have air quality control devices on your perfect vehicle, whether you think you have the god-given right to pump your shit into the air or not;
5. Government does not have to assume the burden of proving you are not polluting beyond standards they set, based upon criteria that you are incapable of understanding;
6. If you don't want to comply, then you can use your own roads on your own property;
7. If you don't like the way the shop is run, quit;
8. We apply different standards to human life than we do to cars;
9. If everyone would have attached an emission control device and stayed in their lane (like they were politely asked to do), that mechanic would never have opened shop in the first place; nor could he recommend a second, third, fourth repair, etc. But no, we want to drive all over the fuck and gone, bending fenders and pumping tons of shit into the air because 'Murica! Freedom! (without responsability).

I could go on (and on), but suffice it to say, your analogy doesn't pass muster. If you think our response to the pandemic is the equivalent of your huckster mechanic, then stay home and don't use him. A "strike" or a "boycott" if you will. But stay off our roads and out of our public rights-of-way. Guess, what? Then, if it's as you say it is, indeed the jerk will go out of business. But freedom isn't free and rights come with responsibilities. Pay the price and quit using our shit if you don't want to play ball or if you think the game is rigged. That'll teach 'em.

Standard response to living. Here Coronavirus has result in 30000 deaths, over 20 months. However, a regular month has 24000 deaths, so really, an increase of 6.25% from baseline. Hardly worth the pandemic response. — Book273

I want to ask "where is 'here'"? but like I said before, I don't want to get into the weeds. You'd answer, and then we'd be talking about the efficacy and relative draconian nature of the government response in this jurisdiction or that. But every fact presented will just result in a pivot and another complaint. So don't bother.

An increased death rate of 6.25% is indeed tolerable, and should be higher, IF it's limited to political Darwinism. But I'm afraid otherwise good people, some with comorbidities, or unrelated disease or injury are dying or suffering that should not. Is that part of life? Yes, so what? Let it be the lives of those who don't give a shit; not the lives of those who do. But from what I hear, you aren't parsing that distinction. You let anyone in and treat anyone, while some innocent non-combatant who did everything that was asked of him, dies in the waiting room, or on the chopper to some other hospital that might have a bed.

No. The alcoholics get a great deal of the blood transfusions however, and ICU time. 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. That would effectively close the hospital doors to everyone, because it isn't that hard to find fault in decisions that lead to poor health outcomes, therefore, everyone has contributed to their health situation, and so should get no treatment for it. I guess I will hang a closed sign at the hospital doors, power down the Emergency sign and go home eh!

Don't worry, the coffee is on, the machines are ready to go, and we have your back. I couldn't care less about your vaccination status; not before the emergency, during or after. Have a great night. — Book273

I think that may be part of your failure to understand pandemic. You are not some Trapper John or Hawkeye Pierce. And I am not Major Burns. You are not in the comfort of some MASH hospital, where you get to step up when the wounded come in, and protest the war in your free time. No. You are now on the front lines, doing the actual fighting. You are the bullet catchers this time around and now you know what it's like. You don't get the luxury of questioning authority when the mission is to assault the hill, where you have leaders, whether you like them or agree with them or not, who are telling you which hill to take, how to execute the mission, and they provide you with the weapons.

If you want to stand around and argue with a seasoned sergeant about a better way to do something, guess what: You're not only endangering your own life, but you are endangering the lives of your fellow troops. You might as well, and actually are, a traitor, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

If you wanted to be a general, then you should have put the time in and earned your stars. But right now, you need to be fighting. You can write your book after the war, win or lose. Right now we are losing because too many people are with the enemy and, unfortunately we have enemy in the ranks.

I talked to my old Corpsman and asked him how they handled the wounded enemy. He said his charge was first to get our (his) own troops back in the fight. If a person was a lost cause, they moved on to the next troop. If and when there was time, he would go with Hippocrates and take care of the enemy.

But no, we have enemy helping the virus, not only in the rear with the gear, but on the front lines, in our own ranks. If we lose this war (which we are) it will be squarely on their shoulders. All the dead, all the wounded, all the non-combatants. Want to write a book and tell me why the war sucked, why the generals sucked, why the weapons sucked? Fine, do it after the shooting stops.

I've never seen a single General on TPF. At best, it's a bunch of disgruntled solders, whining to the public about the chow and how hard life is as a grunt, and how they would fight the war if they were in charge.

Maybe there should be no war. Maybe we should capitulate to a virus. Maybe it's a virus of our own making (a military industrial complex scheme to get money). But yeah, lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way, or, if you decide to actively resist, risk getting shot. In this case, fired. I'm all for that.

A little off-topic, but on this pandemic/war thing, I find myself eager to tell the Republicans to GFTs next time they pretend there is some existential threat from some tin-horn POS dictator overseas. The run-up to Iraq was all "you don't support the troops" and "you question a POTUS in a time of war" and other shaming which worked. Even the so-called "liberal press" was cowed and gave a pass. Well, I will remember. While I'm already against the next war, no matter which side tries to gin it up, I'm going to remember who was with us and who was against us in this war against a virus. Will I cut off my nose to spite my face? It won't be my nose and it won't be my face. I'll be a selfish little shit. I'm learning how Republicans and conservative play the game. I'll play by their rules and fuck them coming and going.

Very well stated. Thanks.

So how do we "witness" a difference? — Antony Nickles

I think we have to go sit in the woods and listen.

An argument I've made in the past is that, rather that saying grace before we eat, we should try living in grace with what we eat. There is nothing wrong with felling a tree and using it's wood, or killing an animal and eating it's meat. It's the grace involved in how we go about it. It's what is in our hearts when we do it which matters. We should participate, lest we lose sight (or sound) of where our wood and our meat come from. To the extent we have any remaining gratitude left in our souls, we might end up thanking the wrong person or God for what we receive. We might be takers, rather than receivers. We are. And that is the noise.

What's the dire situation in this case? — Cartuna

It's called a pandemic. Millions have died. Millions more have long hauler problems.

They only care about their beds being occupied in the hospital by the non-vaxed. — Cartuna

True that. I don't think smokers go to the front of the line for a lung transplant, or alcoholics for a liver. Why should an anti-vaxxer take up a bed when they get Covid, to the exclusion of someone who needs it from a car accident or whatever?

And it's not all about me, me, me. I might want that bed for a loved one. If you don't want to vax, then don't go to the fucking hospital when you get Covid. Stay home and die. If you are afraid of a needle, that's on you.

Any claim to moral responsibility is false and misleading. — Cartuna

I know the virus is winning this war. I think that is pretty clear. I just find it disingenuous for your side to refuse to take any credit for the win.

You act as if you’ve been neutral, watching from the sidelines; non-combatant, innocent victims, suffering from the oppressive, draconian efforts of my side. That is simply not the case. My side lost the war because too large a percentage of the population actively fought on the side of the virus, spreading it, creating variants, throwing temper tantrums, and otherwise failing to support the troops. Had you all, or at least most of you, joined us in our fight against the virus, we would have won long ago. But, politics.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. You continue to rage against the machine. :roll:

We can be fired and lose our license to practice if we are caught "spreading anti-vaccine information" or going against the public health mandate. — Book273

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :strong:

I am thinking armchair theorist. — Book273

Yeah, pretty much, but with friends and family (and acquaintances) who have died or suffered from the effects. But let's not get into that, because Doctor Book will just say it's fake news or the evil conspiracy is blaming all death on Covid and it's not real.

But better than armchair theorist, my real motivation is strictly political. I view people on your side as Trump supporting, anti-intellectual, conservative, Republicans. So even if you were right on the merits, I'd be like you and resist "just because." You know, "your own medicine." :grin:

I am not responsible for this. I would have made something far more lethal. If you are going to do something, do it right eh! — Book273

You are responsible for supporting the enemy. Like I said, you don't have the skill set to know how to respond, much less creating something more lethal. You couldn't even do it wrong, much less right.

Depends on who you consider the enemy. On this side, that is exactly who you are supporting. — Book273

I consider the virus and those who conspire with it to be the enemy.

Sure, other than being wrong, you are spot on. Well done. — Book273

:grin: I'm not the one supporting the enemy and then blaming the loss on our side. Good job, virus man.

why does anyone that has been vaccinated give two shits about Covid? — Book273

"I Don’t Know How to Explain to You That You Should Care for Other People." Anon.

What a job they’ve done already. Their systems failed at each and every step, yet they still present themselves as the solution. We’re coming up on year three of their tinkering and it’s been a racket. — NOS4A2

What a job you've done already. Your obstruction failed at each and every step, yet you still present yourself as the solution. We’re coming up on year three of your tinkering and it’s been a racket.

The deaths are on the hands of those who knew they didn't know better.

That does happen sometimes. I think it's a software glitch, mods can't do anything about that. — Wayfarer

Roger that. Thanks.

That's right, blame something other than the virus — Book273

It's not blaming something "other than" the virus. It's blaming something aiding, abetting and providing comfort to the virus.

Actual science and vectors and viral spread can eat it; — Book273

You must have done your "research". :lol:

the powers that be yelled out the wrong answer first, louder, and more often than any other response — Book273

You lack the skill set required to determine the answer they yelled was wrong. But "Notice the lack of compliance with all the restrictions, vaccines, masks, etc. It's no wonder Covid is still roaming around eh."

any other response based on logic, — Book273

Logic was the restrictions, vaccines, masks, etc. You know, science.

Here's the mentality of the opposition. Present company excepted :wink: :

Notice how despite all the restrictions, vaccines, masks, etc Covid is still roaming around eh. — Book273

Notice the widespread lack of compliance with all the restrictions, vaccines, masks, etc. It's no wonder Covid is still roaming around eh.

Think about this:

I think it's actually a very ordinary problem with a very ordinary solution; but there are so many distractions. The trick is that you have to want a solution; if you don't then you won't. That's not a problem either; unless it is. — Janus

I don't think we are far from agreement. Word choice problems are indeed ordinary, and one ordinary solution is for one party to stipulate the word choice of the other, which I happily do. We are also in agreement on the abundant distractions. And we agree that not wanting a solution is no problem, unless it is. Which brings us to wanting a solution. That in itself can present an obstacle. Unless it doesn't. :smile:

P.S. If any moderators are reading: Why, when Janus replied to me, did it not register or notify me of such like it usually does? I find that sometimes people respond or otherwise properly use my name, highlighted as a link, yet I don't get a notice like I do most of the time.

It makes me wonder if I'm missing anything specifically citing my name as a link? Just curious.

It would have taken less time to say why it is right. — NOS4A2

That time was taken several times in previous engagements.

Once again you’ve taught me nothing. — NOS4A2

I have taught, but you have not learned.

false analogies — NOS4A2

I taught you long ago how to demonstrate an analogy is false, and yet you fail to do it. Thus, it stands unimpeached.

I am saying why it is wrong to threaten people with fines if they don’t comply with what I consider a stupid mandate, so maybe you can tell me why it is right. Until then… — NOS4A2

Just because you say it is wrong does not make it so. You need an argument as to why it is wrong. It's kind of like your "should" contention. "Should" is meaningless in the real world. Just because you say it is stupid, does not make it so. Same as "wrong".

I've already taught you why it is right, long ago. And those lessons, again, stand unimpeached, even if unlearned. You need to make arguments for your case, not declarative statements. We all agree with what "should" be. DOH! That says nothing about what is, or what, if anything, should be done about it. I noticed you have not argued that nothing should be done in response to one who does what you and I both agree they shouldn't do. (That would include both the individual and the state.)

Anyway, as has been noted by others, all we are seeing is rainbows and unicorns. Fantasy. Say, how did you get internet service up there in the arctic circle? Satellite? Who put those up? How did you get the solar panels and who made them? Or is it a generator you made by hand and fuel with gas you refined from the oil you dug? Did you kill your meat with your hand-made knife? Just wondering if you need a care package.

The government is forcing businesses with the threat of fine. The edict is the imposition. There is no “allowing” involved here. — NOS4A2

The government is not "forcing." Perhaps you have never experienced forcing? A cloistered life?

There is not only the option of paying the fine, but there is considerable leeway in how to comply. Considerable "allowing", as I laid out for you in my previous post.

You can't exceed 70 mph in a 70 mph zone without paying a fine (if caught) but, so long as you don't exceed 70 mph, there are 70 options and all the fractions thereof.

That’s not the case. Where I live, if the business doesn’t enforce the government edicts, it is subject to fine. No individual gets to decide on any of this. This is just another example of the government skirting its duties, working around human rights, and forcing the burden on citizens. — NOS4A2

So, the government mandates that you post an imposing asshole at the door, acting like a total jerk, ordering compliance under threat of a beating or getting 86'd? Or does the government allow the business to do what the government does, and respectfully and politely request compliance in order to maintain the privilege of operating a business without fines? I suppose the the government could assume the burden, post troops at the door and demand compliance at the point of a gun. That way the business owner would not be put-upon and subject to the impositions you complain of. Hmmm. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Tortious interference with the efforts will have the latter coming to a store near you. Then we will really hear the hew and cry, the moaning and complaining.

The problems aren’t the radical or extremist views, but the acts committed in their name. So it isn’t clear to me why we would mitigate the view and not the act. — NOS4A2

The problems aren’t the radical or extremist views, but the acts committed in their name. So it isn’t clear to me why we would mitigate the view and not the act. — NOS4A2

:100: :up:

When it comes to mitigating the act, what is permitted? Prophylactic? After-the-fact only?

Regarding the view, it's rather innocuous in itself. But can it ever rise to the level of an incitement that warrants mitigation? And if so, then again, prophylactic or after-the-fact only?

What is mitigation? When I think of mitigation I think of reduction, not elimination. So, can we just reduce the impacts of the act while allowing some negative consequences to still be born by innocent third parties?