Usually when I have a dispute with someone, there is some indication for it. — Tzeentch
If there is no indication, indeed not even communication or interaction between me and someone I supposedly have a dispute with, it seems like there isn't a dispute? — Tzeentch
Taxation is to force individuals to part with what they believe to be theirs under threat of violence. — Tzeentch
Using opinions to justify violence is to invite others to do the same. Who gets to impose their opinion on the other is then a matter of who has the greatest capacity for violence leading to a situation of might makes right. — Tzeentch
You consider his arguments and if you agree, you stop killing people. — Tzeentch
In my view states are a necessary evil, and the nature of states seems to be that they inherently rely on force, but what you describe seems like one of the more agreeable ways to go about it. Do you know an example of such a state? — Tzeentch
I'd wager less than a tenth of the people passionate about climate change actually understand climate change, likewise for vaccines, covid, 9/11,...whatever. — Isaac
Government make a decision favouring the arms manufacturers they're "so obviously in their pocket, it stinks". Government makes a decision in favour of the pharmaceutical industry they're "following the science". It's just roles in a story, evil arms trader, white-coated scientist-hero. — Isaac
Give me someone who goes with the overwhelming medical, scientific consensus, and with expertise, over someone who listens to a Facebook meme and YouTube influencer any day of the year. Both may lack real knowledge of the subjects, and both may hold lots of cynical or skeptical views about authority, but in the end only one has arrived at the right choice because of who they judged worthy enough to trust -- and that matters. — Xtrix
one happens to be right and the other wrong, regardless of how one arrives at that claim. So while I also think it's a shame people aren't more educated, I also am willing to credit them for have the instinct, intuition, or whatever else was required to end jump making the right choice in the end. — Xtrix
How could you possibly know? Any dispute you lacked indication of you wouldn't know about, so there might be thousands. — Isaac
Well, at the moment beneficiaries of your taxes are indeed getting what they believe is theirs, so they're unlikely to have anything to say. I'm asking how they would raise their complaint with you if you were instead to keep that money for yourself. — Isaac
I've just explained how it isn't. The government can take the money owed without exerting any force or violence at all. So this is just false. — Isaac
As I said, quite clearly I thought, so your ignoring it is quite disingenuous, no violence is necessary. I can just come and take all your stuff while you're out. — Isaac
So what's the alternative to government deciding who owns what? — Isaac
This is a flaw of state government, that seeks to connect people who aren't in any way connected. — Tzeentch
If they don't care enough to knock on my door, why should I? — Tzeentch
What if an individual refuses to part with their wealth? — Tzeentch
what if individuals continue to find ways of circumventing taxation through undeclared labor and bartering? — Tzeentch
people are very crafty when it comes to avoiding things they do not want to do. — Tzeentch
Your alternative is not to try to justify violence with opinions. — Tzeentch
Do you see those as the only two options? — Isaac
But you're neither climate scientist, not virologist, nor (whatever a 9/11 expert would be!), so you can't 'step outside' of this. — Isaac
Do we really only want people who trust the "overwhelming medical, scientific consensus"? — Isaac
What advantage to society does removing scientific dissent bring? — Isaac
As for others: it’s good to be questioning and challenging dogma and the status quo. But only if you put in the work— not simply because you’ve spent a few minutes on YouTube. — Xtrix
I can, and do. I know more about climate science than the average person — Xtrix
There is such a thing as correct and incorrect. The people who are anti-vaccine or climate deniers are simply wrong. The ones who “throw in” with mainstream science and medicine, but who are almost completely ignorant about science and medicine, is what the topic was. They happen to be right, and that matters. — Xtrix
Yes, when it comes to laypeople. People should trust scientists and doctors — Xtrix
it’s good to be questioning and challenging dogma and the status quo. But only if you put in the work— not simply because you’ve spent a few minutes on YouTube. — Xtrix
My sole claim, in this case, is that those who have the intuition, instinct, or judgment to put their money on — and trust — the opinions of most experts deserve some credit, despite their ignorance of the subject. — Xtrix
You'll occasionally see someone not having their mask cover their nose, or otherwise not used quite right. I guess effectiveness depends on a few things, on some scale, not just (y) or (n). — jorndoe
I can, and do. I know more about climate science than the average person
— Xtrix
Ha! We all think we're better than average drivers, have better than average senses of humour. — Isaac
your knowledge is still second hand, — Isaac
Neither are a sufficiently homogenous group to be either right nor wrong. — Isaac
That wasn't the question I asked. I asked if people should trust the consensus. — Isaac
If fifty fully qualified experts think one thing and five similarly qualified experts think another, what is it about choosing the fifty which deserves such praise over choosing the five when deciding who to trust? — Isaac
I simply know more about the topic than average people.
To react how you did is typical, I suppose, because it sounds ego driven. But it’s a statement of fact, and there’s no reason not to say it simply because it applies to myself — Xtrix
It doesn’t deserve much praise. It’s just a much better bet, as a layman. — Xtrix
My sole claim, in this case, is that those who have the intuition, instinct, or judgment to put their money on — and trust — the opinions of most experts deserve some credit, despite their ignorance of the subject. — Xtrix
the more experts draw the same conclusion, the greater the probability that it’s true. This can be checked— it’s an empirical claim. — Xtrix
98 out of 100 nutritionists say you should almost never eat McDonalds. Does following their advice deserve much praise? No. But it certainly deserves more than those laypeople who go with the 2% because they like Big Macs. — Xtrix
You benefit from their unemployment. — Isaac
What, all four thousand of them? — Isaac
We've just been through this, the government just take it from their bank account or from their house while they're out. — Isaac
If they avoid detection, how does a law help? — Isaac
You are equating taxation with justifying violence and you're wrong to. Taxation is just about reaching an agreement over who owns what. — Isaac
You singled out, for credit, those who put their money on most experts. — Isaac
The fact that they happened to be right doesn't say much -- they're ultimately just as ignorant as the anti-vaxxers and climate deniers, they just are lucky enough to have "good taste" in who they trust. They at least deserve credit for that, however. — Xtrix
Give me someone who goes with the overwhelming medical, scientific consensus, and with expertise, over someone who listens to a Facebook meme and YouTube influencer any day of the year. Both may lack real knowledge of the subjects, and both may hold lots of cynical or skeptical views about authority, but in the end only one has arrived at the right choice because of who they judged worthy enough to trust -- and that matters. — Xtrix
And what does the greater probability of it being true have to do with ethics? — Isaac
You've not explained why a society in which everyone follows the highest probabilities is a better one than one in which most people follow the highest probabilities and some follow the second highest, the third highest and so forth — Isaac
To you castigate people — Isaac
ore risky one is to be reprimanded? — Isaac
98 out of 100 nutritionists say you should almost never eat McDonalds. Does following their advice deserve much praise? No. But it certainly deserves more than those laypeople who go with the 2% because they like Big Macs.
— Xtrix
Really? — Isaac
You think you could find a qualified, nutritionist who says you can eat at McDonalds as often as you like (one who isn't obviously paid, or influenced by the fast food industry). — Isaac
The reason why your example sounds so convincing to you is because you've made up a deliberately convincing (and unfortunately completely fantastical) one. — Isaac
There are scores of properly qualified, unaffiliated experts in the appropriate field who raise a variety of objections to the consensus response to covid, climate change, (possibly 9/11 too - I've never looked). — Isaac
Again, states creating situations and problems I never asked for and am only a part of as a product of the impositions of the state itself. — Tzeentch
We've just been through this, the government just take it from their bank account or from their house while they're out. — Isaac
Bank account is empty, and person refuses to leave their house. — Tzeentch
If they avoid detection, how does a law help? — Isaac
Because the threat of reprisals often works in a deterring fashion. In fact, many would argue deterrence rather than punishment is the primary function of the justice system. — Tzeentch
Taxation is to redistribute wealth according to one's perception of what belongs to who under threat of violence (which is what the law is - impositions under threat of violence). — Tzeentch
And taxation is not an agreement. Not one that involves me at any rate. This situation is simply imposed. I've never been presented with any terms, asked for a signature or given an opportunity to opt out. I never agreed to anything. — Tzeentch
And what does the greater probability of it being true have to do with ethics? — Isaac
Nothing. — Xtrix
I never once mentioned "everyone." I'm talking about laymen, the average citizen, and have been from the beginning, as quoted above. — Xtrix
Is it better to be on the right side of the truth or not? — Xtrix
You'll find most nutritionists say you should outright never eat McDonalds. Others will say it's OK a few times a year -- in other words, in moderation. Do any suggest you should eat fast food "as often as you like"? I'm sure very few, but you could probably find them — Xtrix
the vast majority of doctors and scientists are encouraging vaccinations. Around 96% of doctors have gotten the vaccine themselves. — Xtrix
There are almost no experts who question the use of vaccines — Xtrix
the available evidence indicates that the individual health benefits from COVID-19 vaccination are small in those aged 12 to 15 years who do not have underlying health conditions which put them at risk of severe COVID-19
The potential risks from vaccination are also small, with reports of post-vaccination myocarditis being very rare, but potentially serious and still in the process of being described.
Given the rarity of these events and the limited follow-up time of children and young people with post-vaccination myocarditis, substantial uncertainty remains regarding the health risks associated with these adverse events.
Overall, the committee is of the opinion that the benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms, but acknowledges that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms.
The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time.
the vast majority of doctors and scientists are encouraging vaccinations. Around 96% of doctors have gotten the vaccine themselves. — Xtrix
Again, in what way can a doctor be an expert in which values are most important, such that they can give an expert opinion on what one ought to do? — Isaac
the doctors and scientists and public health officials who have gotten vaccinated at very high rates, are all citizens of the same country I am. Suppose we treat each citizen as an expert on citizenship in just the same sense that everyone counts as an expert in their native language. It doesn't mean we all agree on everything, but there's tremendous overlap driven by a shared goal of preserving a working solution to a cooperation problem. You are not without exception required to speak your native language exactly as everyone else does -- they're not all uniform anyway -- but their aggregate opinion, made manifest in the way they use words, does indeed count as a rule you ought to follow — Srap Tasmaner
The problem I have with extending it to vaccines is the extent to which we can use these others as proxies. — Isaac
There are clearly factors determining this particular ought. That means that the factors (not the normative) are the relevant variable. — Isaac
The state didn't create the problem... — Isaac
Then tough luck on the state. — Isaac
Any group of people could threaten you to get you to do something. — Isaac
If this is true, then it's true whether states exist or not. Any group of people could threaten you to get you to do something. It's just a fact of the world, nothing to do with states. We could prevent it, if we thought it was unethical. But it would require organisations - ie a state. Still has nothing to do with taxes because the state needn't use this method. — Isaac
There's no naturally occurring distribution of wealth with which taxation interferes. — Isaac
Yes you did. You were given the opportunity to vote, campaign, make a party, seek election. You chose not to. That is what constitutes your agreement in a democracy. — Isaac
suppose I could get my hands on a comprehensive cross-tabbed survey of medical and medical research professionals, and I could actually pull out very close comps: "Look, here's 19,815 experts all about your age with extremely similar risk-factor profiles and all but 11 of them have gotten vaccinated." If that wouldn't convince you I'd have to assume you're not just not interested in the social norm at all. — Srap Tasmaner
Children -- look, we can ignore children. They aren't being asked to choose whether to get vaccinated. — Srap Tasmaner
Because you are not competent to judge these factors, you want to know what the norm is among people who are — Srap Tasmaner
The only reason I am connected to unemployed Bob who lives hundreds of kilometers away from me of whom I supposedly benefit, is because at one point a state decided an area of land was theirs. — Tzeentch
In that case there is indeed no threat of violence, but how long would such a system of taxation last when untaxed alternatives are available without a threat of punishment? — Tzeentch
the question of alternatives is not all that relevant when discussing the nature of taxation. — Tzeentch
There's no naturally occurring distribution of wealth with which taxation interferes. — Isaac
Of course there is. Are you suggesting people cannot exchange goods and services unless they're being taxed? — Tzeentch
a situation where I'd be completely reliant on being able to sway others to my cause in order to disagree makes no sense at all. — Tzeentch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.