I have an old tweed jacket or two, several sizes too small by now, at the back of the wardrobe. I can't bring myself to pass them on. SO comfortable. But now I go for Turkish coffee and flannelette shirts.

Woah. Hipster grunge combo?

My insomnia was caused by the ABSENCE of drugs. — Prishon

I would argue that an issue caused by the absence of drugs is indeed the result of drugs.

It's next to the BOLD button.

Woah. Hipster grunge combo? — Isaac

I don't follow fashion; I am fashion.

I would argue that an issue caused by the absence of drugs is indeed the result of drugs. — Banno

Yes, thats a good point indeed! Thanks

I don't follow fashion; I am fashion. — Banno

I'm ordering the flannelette as we speak...

and to think Banno was suggesting a lack of erudition... — Isaac

Indeed! He hangs up erudition very high in the tree of trviality. Triviality tree stands high and powerful. Waving its leaves in the wind of ignorance.

Triviality has function; in this case, the social role of easing indignation.

Triviality has function; in this case, the social role of easing indignation. — Banno

Sounds pretty trivial...

indignation. — Banno

What indignation? That of me?

What indignation? That of me? — Prishon

Banno's come to be a peacemaker where there was no war. :chin:

Banno's come to be a peacemaker where there was no war. :chin: — frank

Sometimes war is for the best of all..

Sometimes war is for the best of all — Prishon

It makes interesting art. Do you like Anselm Kiefer?

Now we're talking! I like that piece where something is coming out. To attack you. A big painting.

The most philosophical painter is Magritte though.

Now we're talking! I like that piece where something is coming out. To attack you. A big painting. — Prishon

Magritte was a weird guy.

That's the one! I dont know Magritte personally but that minds eye I like. I did a simiiar one. A copy in fact. But the blue sky with clouds replaced by thunder and lightning. He was a bit too optimistc ..

"Magritte as artist was critical of the desire in people to capture a thing, own it, and then get rid of it, thus making reality smaller and more “manageable.”"

I like that.

Beautiful paint! :flower:

Beautiful paint! :flower: — javi2541997

I'd like to see his paintings in person. A lot of them are huge. He grew up in Germany after the war, playing in the rubble of blown up buildings. The beauty of desolation and decay became part of him.

what I'm arguing is an opposition to the moral case for vaccination in all cases (the idea that a moral finger can be wagged simply because someone says "I'm not getting vaccinated" (outside of any medical reason). — Isaac

Then I was on the right track before...

I think I'm starting to get a sense of what's going on here, so I'm going to throw this out there before it's entirely clear to me:

Suppose you see someone fall into the river you're walking along, and your moral code says if you can save them you should, what do you do?

I'm going to halt the proceedings here, because we need to backtrack already.

"Save" is a success verb; you cannot choose to save someone, or not; you can only choose to make the attempt, or not. So what's a useful version of our moral rule here? Is it "If you can save them, you should try to"?

But "save" is still in there causing trouble. How do you know whether you can save them?

How about "If you think you could save them, you should try to"? That's not bad, but "could" masks a pretty big range of likely outcomes, from "I stand a damn good chance of saving them to" to "it's just barely possible for me to save them", so we have to consider your confidence in success, right?

Even leaving out considerations of risk to yourself, we've already noticeably complicated our rule, and it's not quite clear where we're headed. Here's why: this is just typical decision theory nonsense, making choices under uncertainty, blah blah blah, but we're trying to construct a normative rule.

If we end up with something like "If you're pretty sure you can save them, you should try", that's not so bad, I guess. But if we shift things around a little, we might end up saying, "If you're pretty sure you can save them, you should probably try", and that doesn't sound like the kind of rule we wanted. It's more a description than a rule.

As it happens, the situation we've been discussing here comes with a bunch of probabilities already on display, and some known gaps where we don't have probabilities we want, all of which can readily be made to add up to a summary description like, "If you can get vaccinated, you probably should." But "probably" doesn't mean everyone always, so the "should" just doesn't carry the force we expect it to. That's a descriptive summary, not a moral imperative.

Here's what I'm thinking: once you've gotten to "you probably should get vaccinated", you still haven't actually touched the moral question. It looks kinda like you have, but this is still just description. What we need to look at is statements like, "If you're pretty sure you can help stop the pandemic, you should try to" and its close relatives.

22 year old lady, 6 days on a ventilator, her numbers were turning and then she crashed. They could not restart her heart.
Not vaccinated. Dad works at a hospital, where she took her final breath.
Dad got it, Mom got it and had to be hospitalized with no ventilator, brother got it and is handling it at home.
Devestation is happening all around us my friends.
I keep looking for the "best of times" seeing as we are surviving "the worst of times".

Well at least you don't live in Afghanistan.

curious, are you aware when the last time was they had to set up triage because of a "serious" flu?

I'm not saying legal reasoning should control here, but, to the extent it tracks logic, it might throw some light. We generally have burden's of proof and scope's of review. Someone comes forward with evidence in support of an argument, which shifts the burden to those in opposition. Those in opposition reply, and then there is a rebuttal to the reply. When counter-actions are filed, then the simultaneous exchange occurs in the opposite direction.

But all of that is for naught if the parties are not talking to each other, and there is no central clearing house (finder of fact).

You then not only have the moral case for vaccination in all cases, with a moral finger wagging simply because someone says "I'm not getting vaccinated" (outside of any medical reason) on one side, but you also have people trying to make a moral case against that case simply for what reason? To the extent they have assumed their burden of proof to explain why "I'm not getting vaccinated", they have not rebutted the reply. In such a case, they appear to be obstinate little babies who do not accept jurisdiction of the finder of fact. They are like the sovereign citizen who appears before the court claiming that he is answerable only to his particular interpretation of the common law and is not subject to any government statutes or proceedings.

In this light, they are not peers subject to peer review.

It's sad, really. But that is the way it is.

On the other hand, if I implied too much too soon, then I'd beg, again, for the exchange. So far, crickets.

The jury doesn't have to spend 20 years in school and 20 years in practice. Nor should they. All they need is to listen to the arguments exchanged and summarized. What did Bob say about what John said, and what did John say about what Bob said about what John said? Then, to the extent Bob said anything, what did John say about that, and what did Bod say about what John said? Again, crickets.

If it's out there, then you'd think one versed in research could find it. Maybe it's not out there. In which case I'll take a risk and ride with the "peers." I will wag my finger and morally and rightously so.

Well at least you don't live in Afghanistan. — Benkei

Or Australia. We can pretty accurately predict how many Australians are going to die when they come off lockdown. Jeese

We've two goals. 1. vaccinate 70%, and 2. minimize inequality in vaccine distribution. — Isaac

The Australian government based on its medical advice advocates 80%. I agree with you that resources should be shared equitably, but if supply is not adequate and the vaccine was shared equally across the world then perhaps no communities would reach an adequate level of vaccination fast enough.

That is an Anselm Kiefer painting, no?

yep

I love his work!

me too.