Quite a large portion of the "equality debate" at least in the internet seems to be about the scientific questions of how genes affect us, our performance and how different are we because of genetics. — Qmeri

In the rare case one compares population genetics such as the outcomes of a cultural tendency toward inter-family marriages the term "equality" still doesn't come up. There's no legitimate reason to compare the perceived value of people for equality.

It seems that in our current culture, you are only allowed to be on one side of that scientific debate: "Genetics do not affect peoples performance or potential. And there absolutely are not even slight differences in the average capabilities of any human populations." Which would simply be an extraordinary and rare observation about a biological species, since evolution pretty much needs variation in capability to work and for many other reasons. — Qmeri

Name two different human genetic populations.

Exactly the point. — tim wood

Glad to be of service then.

I think the false dilemma of people being either completely good or completely bad, with no degrees of goodness in between, should be avoided. — Amalac

I agree, but does "mainstream" vegan doctrine?

Honestly, I need to give the matter more thought, but I have a few first impressions.

If I tell a thief that I think he should stop stealing, am I “imposing” my life style or ethical philosophy to him? (And no, I'm not saying that one person buying a burger is just as bad as one person stealing someone's car, I just want to understand what you mean by “imposing”). — Amalac

Imposing or labeling other people's moral choices with your judgement. A person buying a burger has zero effect on your life and the choices you make. You wouldn't want someone telling you right and wrong would you? I agree, bringing up different examples of moral and immoral actions isn't helpful.

It's taking the position of a false authority over when animal pain is permissible that seems so vexing. It creates of subtext of needing to guilt trip people as if they can't make a decision without your approval. Then, assuming they owe you justification for how they live; it's an unpleasant implicit superiority or simply lacking the willingness to respect others right to make their own mistakes. Oddly, none of my objections are about the idea of being vegan; like others have said it's the attitude; like a dietary fascism where there's an ingroup and outgroup. What if I decide to eat simply less meat? Am I good or bad or a torturing-murderous-guiltless thief. Most people don't want to hurt animals. Not a novel idea.

Or this way. Consider the proposition, "All men are created equal." What do you make of it? Is it true? Does science support it? Do you understand it? Does science even understand it? — tim wood

It's not a scientific statement. It's an a priori for a legal framework. It has an implication that all people are owed a reasonable degree of fairness as a result or implication of personhood. Which is in line with the concept of equitable.

There is no legitimate "equality" movement. It is a sideways attempt to justify ignoring the endemic racism in the society and its effects.

I took those definitions from a dictionary, I didn't make them up. Anyhow, think specifically about physically torturing humans for amusement. I don't think it's unreasonable to be opposed to that in all circumstances. That's an absolutist position, and also a perfectly reasonable one.

But like I said, I think purchasing animal products is not bad in all circumstances, so I don't take an absolutist view there. — Amalac

I commend the reasonableness of your discourse. Some people choose to "double down" on an emotional argument and I can see you're willing to consider both sides, so you have my respect in that regard.

The above represents a couple different directions. To be vegan is to reject animal products as an ideal or a reality. If we're honoring the ideal, then yes you will need prove it's as bad as torturing people for fun. But, that seems untenable. So, the alternative you have presented is the realistic belief that it's 'not bad' in all circumstances. I'd suggest a duality where the ideal moral life is one where nothing is harmed, but understand the reality is one of varying levels of immoral but yet permissible actions. The question remains whether you have the right to judge another person's actions. I think that's the core issue at hand; when a vegan imposes their judgement on others knowing full well they did (and probably still do on occasion) use animals as means to an end.

To oppose to all torture — Amalac

Is "torture" a less loaded word or do you have a novel definition of this as well. Best I can tell is you don't believe you.

Maybe it's just unreasonable to take an absolutist position and then hold everyone else to it. The idea of not using animal products is fine with me. I don't think it is morally necessary, so I reject your judgement of my lack of participation in a largely ceremonial act of not buying meat. If it were a more reasonable position there wouldn't be a need to emotionalize it with "cruelty" and compare the general public to thieves and murders. People can simply understand rational arguments. I wouldn't trust me if I were trying to add shock value.

As for how “appropriate” it is, tell me: is it appropriate to tell a murderer that they should stop murdering other people? Is it appropriate to tell a slave owner that you think what they are doing is wrong and that they should stop doing it? They may not feel like it is, but I think you'll agree with me that that is irrelevant in those cases. So why should it be any different in the case of cruelty to animals? — Amalac

It's dishonest to label every pain felt by animal for the production of food as "cruelty". It merely serves as shock value to gain a false moral position. People have balanced the notion of using animals and respecting their lifeforce for 10s of thousands of years. It wasn't discovered by vegans.

To be precise it’s not eating meat which I think is wrong, it’s purchasing meat, because when many people purchase animal products, they cause more animals to be treated cruelly. I have no problem if someone wants to eat some dead animal struck by lightning which they found on the street, since that doesn’t increase the demand nor cause any cruelty. — Amalac

In our natural state we hunted animals. Pretty sure that process wasn't very pleasant. I do agree that consumer activism has a part to play in society and that part is growing. Do you ensure the fair pay and working conditions of the people picking your vegetables?

Whose equivocation? I already told some other user that the amount of suffering should be significant, which is obviously true in the case of cows, pigs and the like. — Amalac

Right, you have yet to differentiate between pain, significant pain, and animal cruelty. We can't eat them alive and according to you eating them isn't wrong. So, a minimal amount of pain is inflicted. Calling this cruelty ignores the horror that is true animal cruelty. Putting a lobster in the freezer till it falls asleep is not the same as beating an animal for fun. Confusing the two is dishonest and that should be troubling if veganism is truly morally transcendent.

I do not deny that there are some people (a small percentage) who at present need to consume animal products in order to stay healthy, and I don't object to them doing that, but those of us who can stay healthy without consuming them should simply stop purchasing them. — Amalac

I think it's the part where you tell other adults what they should and shouldn't eat that gives veganism a cringe twitch. The constant equivocation between minimal pain and outright cruelty. Which is wrapped in this subtext of all or nothing when it comes to the subject matter. I do make moral assessments when deciding what's acceptable and I do acknowledge veganism as legit moral stance. I question whether it's modified form of OCD; in the way it's practiced.

Or put another way for illustration. Do people constantly hound you for moral guidance in general? Aside from sandwich construction? If they don't need your assistance in making moral decisions most of the time, then why suppose it's appropriate or invited in this regard.

I wouldn't say "hate" vegans. It's just that what one consumes is inescapably ego-centric. So, involving others in a self-important or judgemental way into one's dietary "life-style" is the foundation for a holographic conversation unless someone actually inquires. You don't care what I eat and I'm happy with that situation.

I mean no disrespect, but could you americans (I assume), for once not hijack a thread and make it about america? — Qmeri

Fair enough. We didn't make hate speech laws is that what you referenced in the Op? Our right is convinced being kicked off twitter is a violation of freedom of speech.

Equality movement was racist white people offering to pretend other people weren't different. The present equity movement acknowledges and values differences. Pushing for "equality" now is closer to a racist dog whistle than legitimate sociological activism.

Try harder. That's a cheap shot. — L'éléphant

Thinking a lower interest rate on a marked up vehicle is advantageous exhibits a misunderstanding of the auto market. I'd rather buy a depreciated car for 8k at 6% interest then one that's getting ready to lose 80% of it's value at 2%.

It wasn't intended as a "cheap shot" we've all been under valued at one time or another. But, the chronically underpaid have more to worry about and appreciate a different spectrum of life as to suggest longing for a michelin rated dinner isn't on the radar. It sounds like a poor rich person. Correct me as needed.

1. You can refinance a loan on a used car and get the interest rate pretty close to what you'd see on a new car. If you're paying high interest now I'd look into it.
2. Produce is subsidized in the US, so all the veggies you can eat so long as you don't shop for them in high markup stores.
3. A shirts a shirt. If it's clean and not damaged it's sort of hard to gauge low versus mid income levels.
4. You learn how to make genuine connections with people and overtime they'll look out for you if you look out for them.
5. If this is your number 5 then you ain't been broke.
6. Life does require more planning when you can't just throw money at problems.
7. What? Generally, you don't call them that when you are the one living there.
8. Again, haughty acting isn't really what I'd say defines the struggle. Get one with a solid personality disorder and let me know how that goes.

It comes across as someone offended at making entry level pay and wanting to identify as being oppressed. I'm just stating my impression of how it reads. Been wrong before.

I think mental "muscles" are indeed exercised in addressing such questions, and such muscles may be beneficial. But also, perhaps, it sometimes distances itself too greatly from life and the world and becomes pretense. — Ciceronianus

I think a fair number of people argue for sport and enjoy the ego boost of imposing an argument they have learned to make; similar to studying a chess opening for traps and variations.

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" — Ciceronianus

Something was possible and time passed. Next question.

There's something between determinism and randomness. — Agent Smith

I go a step further and argue "randomness" is a strawman that disposes of the concept of 'will' for the sake of argument. Fundamentally, the world is probabilistic and negatively determined by what's impossible. If I saw a person acting randomonly I doubt my first impression would be an individual exercising free will.

1. Some things don't have an effect (e.g. me pushing the Eiffel tower won't do jack shit to it!).
Ergo,
2. Some things have no causes. — Agent Smith

I think that's a fair summation that points to a break down in the imaginary casual chain.

Really, there's only to 2 conditions for a cause under my argument. The event was not impossible and enough time passed for it to occur. Negative determination.

This doesn't make sense to me. What's a no choice scenario then? — Agent Smith

The basis for determinism; such as the planets going around sun. The physical forces are overwhelming enough to rule out alternate paths and the subjects(planets) lack the capacity for agency. It's a deterministic or 'no choice' model.

Magnifique! Being able to, in a sense, predict the future only makes sense if the predictor means to make adjustments for it. Free will!? — Agent Smith

Thanks, I just thought of this one. It is compelling if you accept evolutionary selection as influential enough to demand an explanation. In order to be an advantage the predictor has to 'successfully' make adjustments and not just believe they are making adjustments.

That's right! "I don't know" is an acceptable response to a query. Me either! However, it would be better if we knew. — Agent Smith

On occasion we do make choices which are rationalized after the fact. I don't think the whole of determinism is without some rational basis. But, extending the observation to suggest every decision is made and then rationalized over extends the evidence.

↪Cheshire Good responses! — Agent Smith

Well, thanks. Arguing for secular free will has never been easy. The belief that freedom implies randomness shuts down the discussion more than often. Or the notion that free will should always be realized as to explain every aspect of one's condition. I acknowledge there are many influences and contextual pressures that drive outcomes, but if they can be understood and accounted for; then these are not proper illusions.

...that worked well. — Banno

Never hear people mention the under reaction happens on an exponential curve and the over reaction on a logistic curve. When something fails to contain the virus and there is no virus the result is minimal, but the opposite means one step the other direction results in a greater negative result.

1. If not determinism, then what? Randomness, an easy answer, but we don't want that, do we? A between-Scylla-and-Charybdis situation. Is being capable of randomness freedom? — Agent Smith

People aren't billiard balls. An influenced or compelled choice is still a choice.

2. Causality-wise, we want not to be effects but we don't mind being causes. In other words, we wish to be outside the casual web but we also want to be able to influence the course of the future. Is this possible? — Agent Smith

Certainly, being able to imagine a future seems like a useless adaptation for a choiceless creature.

3. Why would the mind create an illusion of freedom if, in fact, we aren't free? — Agent Smith

It does have to explain what we have done and sometimes we honestly don't know. We have the illusion of an illusion in some sense in order for reality to remain stable.
Probably, true.

5. How appealing is being semi-autonomous? We have free will but only in a limited sense. — Agent Smith

It's free will in a normal sense. Do you want to decide to breath every ten seconds?

6. Do we really want free will? Daoism for example, from a certain angle, seems to be averse to the idea of doing what(ever) we want. Go with the flow is not exactly a call to claim one's freedom. — Agent Smith

Who other than yourself could make you write the above?

A reasonable definition of freedom dissolves the debate entirely. Just as an unreasonable one settles it in favor of determinism. The physical world appears probabilistic where determination is actually negative. In other words only the possible things happen, but not happening and not possible aren't the same thing. Come at me bro.

It’s not looking good. I suspect that they’ll widen the goal posts, determine that those who are fully vaccinated are in fact not, and exclude the vaccinated from various aspects of normal life until they get the next Pfizer wonder drug. — NOS4A2

What for?

I can see why they would have minimum time requirements however if a scout has met the minimum time requirements and has fulfilled all the other requirements for becoming an Eagle Scout there is no reason to hold him back from the rank of Eagle Scout especially if holding him back will take him past his 18th birthday at which point he will not be eligible for the rank of Eagle Scout. Scoutmasters should be banned from doing that. — HardWorker

It sounds a bit weird. Why disincentivize the troop? Part of the achievement occuring is to encourage others. They may think there's an outside chance they will be denied in the end by no fault of their own. And it doesn't teach patience when the outcome is unchanging. It teaches an expectation of unfair treatment; which might be helpful; but not fun.

Yes. Your image of me. — baker

Poster convinced vaccines don't correlate well with disease outcomes. Freely equivocates as needed.

Alright, what would you prefer.

The only problem is that with covid in particular, the "effectiveness" of the vaccine would be about the same as the course of the disease without the vaccine, and then the government could take the credit and make vaccination mandatory indefinitely. — baker

This part is false

↪Cheshire What are you talking about?? — baker

Generally, comments are directed toward the quoted bit at the top. Can I confuse anything else for you?

At this forum, not once have I seen that a pro-vaccer said that people should get vaccinated for their own sake.
Not once has anyone who has told me to get vaccinated said that I should do it to protect my health.
Not once. Not a single time. — baker

The obvious remains obvious. Covid was pretty unpleasant even after be vaxxed. Like, keeping your brain on a light simmer for 2 weeks. I never had any respiratory effects, so antidotally I think it was worth the trouble in my experience. If you'd like respiratory distress then definitely don't get it.

In relation to this pandemic, compulsory vaccinations, and vaccine passports. — NOS4A2

Oh ok, but in principle the government can do these things and under the proper conditions you think they are reasonable. Just for clarification. There's a big difference between arguing the case in general and whether or not Covid should qualify.

Did you answer the question or no?

The point is it is morally wrong for a government to coerce people by threatening to take their rights away, and if they do not abide, to take their rights away. — NOS4A2

Do you mean to say in this particular case or during all or most outbreaks of disease?

One can show prejudice against any category of people, of whatever status. This category of people in particular, for whatever reason, do not want these chemicals injected into their body, as is their right. — NOS4A2

No one wants chemicals injected into their body. They aren't special in this regard.

Other categories of people are required to prove their medical history, which is no one else’s business. — NOS4A2

The subtext this carries is what puts me off. The sentiment of a civil rights struggle mixed with protection of ones core privacy is the definition of overkill. It seems like the subtle manipulation of emotion rather than sound reason. Which is suspect in any case I've found it employed.

But because of their status the unvaccinated are being denied access to many components of ordinary life, even if they are at relatively no risk of illness, or have antibodies, and have zero coronavirus on their person. — NOS4A2

Again, "ordinary life" could mean a lot of things when in reality we are mostly talking about dining and entertainment venues.

None of it stops the spread of coronavirus. — NOS4A2

Alright well we have a vaccine and generally the strategy with that tool has been to give it to people. Do you suppose vaccine uptake will increase by eliminating the mandates?

I acknowledge it's unfair and manipulative. Give people enough of a tax credit and they'll take any shot you give them. And it compensates them for the benefit to society it provides. In the US we already killed off the most vulnerable. 1 in every 100 over 65 I think was the summation. So, personally I think my sentiment is actually closer to your argument than mine. But, I stand by the objections to it's being over sensationalized.

What twisting of truth? — baker

You keep pretending that the holes in the system are the system for the sake of an argument. There is no provision for an exception granted to infected persons who happen to be vaccinated. Can infected persons be allowed unintended admission? Yes, it isn't a perfectly exclusionary distinction. The "twist" is seeing this as hypocrisy instead of a statistical limitation.

An extreme example would be arguing that not everyone is required to wear a parachute because they don't open on occasion.

The mandates I speak of are official orders from governments. These orders require private establishments to enforce discriminatory government policy, or risk fine and other punishments. These policies have been implemented around the globe, if you weren’t aware. — NOS4A2

Generally "discriminatory" is considered an unjustified distinction, like race, age, or sex. Refusal to participate in a public health matter is a justified distinction even if considered disagreeable. The threshold for keeping an endemic wave from spiking is pretty sensitive and the R value of the mutations seems to be increasing. Lastly, people just aren't used to having to manage outbreaks of infection. Power granted to the government regarding matters of public health have been understood to be necessary for centuries. If a man wants to live as an island then he ought not complain when finding himself on one.

In the hands of a stupid government the principle gives us a stupid policy. When a fully vaccinated but infected man shows up at a establishment with a vaccine passport, he gets let in, increasing the likelihood of spread and illness. A vaccine passport does not indicate health or antibodies, and it is terribly discriminatory. — NOS4A2

A private establishment chooses to statistically reduce the risk to it's staff and patrons. Discriminatory? If one's identity is dependant on resisting public health measures, then it's probably a good time to take a little inventory about what really matters.

800th time, a vaccine doesn't have to be perfect to be relevant. These arguments aren't compelling unless you've already made your mind up.

They do. All you need is a covid pass, and then you can do anything you want. You can be a superspreader. — baker

Being able to circumvent public safety is not the same as the rules encouraging it. Full stop, there's no counter argument. Does twisting the truth achieve anything?

Yes. The problem now is what to believe, for everyone. Our military (Canada) admitted that in the early stages of the pandemic (spring 2020) they saw, and acted upon, an opportunity to use Covid as a propaganda experiment. They admitted this, it is not theoretical. — Book273

They admitted to a counter disinformation operation that targeted a few domestic social media users. Considering disinformation was crippling to the initial hopes of preventing an endemic phase; getting out in front of it does seem like a good idea and within the scope of national security. It just backfired pretty bad , based on what a 5 min google search turns up.

This is our government and for some reason, I am supposed believe the shit they shovel my way? — Book273

They tried to subvert the public conversation and couldn't manage it for more than 3 months? Doesn't sound like much of a threat in general and nearly irrelevant a year later. There's plenty of work that has been done by epidemiologist, so I don't really have any issue finding reliable sources of information.

I'm more concerned with conservative media needing some way to frighten people so they don't rationally question their leadership. They seem to want to frame the whole world into good and evil like a bible story and then sell the emotional relief of being on the side of the "good guys". It's been shocking to see how many people never grow out of this childlike view of the world. The level of fear, anger, and hatred they seem to be forced to maintain has to be devastating to their quality of life. Personally, I don't trust anyone that tells me who to hate.

↪Cheshire Covid would be considered a plague. The response created a new world order. Just because I am unconcerned about Covid does not mean everyone is. The fear out there is real, as are the steps taken to remain safe from the perceived threat. The world has changed based on these perceptions. The validity of the base is no longer relevant, it is the reality now. — Book273

It's only recently we have had the luxury of not living during some disease outbreaks. In large part due to the long-term proven efficacy of vaccination. Arguably, Covid was things getting back to normal; except used as a political football because lying outright is no longer disqualifying apparently.

The context in which this makes sense is the assumption of an unknown tangential argument that regards the "single mind" you periodically reference. If "change is a sensation" is an end in itself then I'm lost. And very much ok with that;

No, it is a substantial conclusion. It is not an imprecise way of speaking. Some things are not made of sensations - minds, for instance. And some things are. And change, I have shown, is one of them. — Bartricks

Fantastic. What absurd implication is all this intended to support?

How is this not a new world order? — Book273

Because that's not what that phrase refers to; Bretton Woods was a new world order; the fall of the Soviet Union etc; we make children take a couple dozen vaccinations before starting school. Been doing it for years. And I thought you said a plague was a "laughable" concern? Now it's the already here? People have some Protestant-entertainment wrestling concept of reality. Global dynamics aren't simple.

The federal and state vaccine mandates prohibit the unvaccinated from working or entering certain establishments. Is there such a mandate for the infected? — NOS4A2

The health code?