So, what's the alternative? — James Riley

The alternative is to not impose one's views on others.

If one comes to the conclusion that is incompatible with politics, then don't partake in politics.

One's alternative is not to associate with, defend or support a system that is fundamentally flawed.

But if your question is, what alternative is there for man should he be hellbent on maintaining a system that is fundamentally flawed, then the entire state apparatus should be drenched in the awareness of the very thin moral line it is treading between being a necessary evil and a birthplace of tyranny. The United States was, and certain European countries were, but where there is power there is corruption, and even countries built upon the right principles will eventually fall, as the US and Europe have. Corruption - another fatal flaw of power structures.

You ask me for solutions, but I cannot fix something that is broken. I can only distance myself from it.

The biggest and most deadly being capitalism — Xtrix

I think that is demonstrably untrue, by a very large margin. But no system is perfect, and no system that relies on the use of force to obtain compliance ever will be.

Vehemently defended by Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman “free market” capitalists like you. — Xtrix

Me, a capitalist?

You must not know me very well. :chin:

Pretty much. Fascism, socialism, communism get thrown around all the time by those who don't have a clue about what they mean. — Xtrix

That's because they're all based on the same flaw: the use of government as a tool to impose subjective views on others. Whether they are views of ultranationailsm, egalitarianism, collectivism, philanthropy - it doesn't matter. It's all based on the same lack of awareness of the subjectiveness of one's views, which, if understood, would automatically disqualify those views as being suitable to be imposed on others.

"I have views and I want the rest of the world to act in accordance with them." It's simple will to power, sometimes with a pretense, like socialism, to soothe the conscience.

All of these systems rely on big governments, because they're all trying the same thing: to make the world act in accordance with their subjective views - something which can only be achieved through the copious use of force, until eventually reality catches up with it (not to mention the more powerful a government is, the quicker it shall fall prey to corruption).

Why do I think earth is actually hell?

For one simple reason: We can't seem to be able to do good in a way it's truly good or, on the flip side, things that are truly horrific in the moral sense seem to have a place in our lives e.g. torture is, on certain occasions, justifiable. — TheMadFool

That's an interesting supposition.

In my view, when an idea of what is Good is established, everything else is a matter of consistency. That's where most go wrong - consistency, or the lack of moral consistency: hypocrisy, as mentioned by .

Especially when an idea of what is Good conflicts with what is convenient in the present moment, one may try to bend their idea of Good to fit their current predicament, almost always to no avail.

I think what you describe as an inability to do Good, is rather an unwillingness to make the sacrifices required to be consistent.

How many people would have been labeled a "conspiracy theorist" for saying the Gulf of Tonkin incident never took place or was staged by the US? [1] Or what about the US government carrying out radiological experiments on US citizens for decades? [2]

If they're capable of sending US citizens to war under false pretenses, or carrying out Unit 731-esque experiments on their own citizens, do people really need any more incentive to mistrust their government every step of the way?

Many a young man I've seen who picks up a shovel and starts digging himself a hole and won't quit. — James Riley

I'm afraid that's you, though.

Ask Doc Fauci. Let me know what he says. Or is he some random person? — James Riley

You didn't quote Fauci. You quoted a random person in an article whose opinions you happened to agree with, without taking a look at the studies they were basing their claims on. If you had done that, you would have known that those studies did not support the claims the person was making, which means it's either politicized or they don't understand the fact that cherry-picking the studies that agree with one's views and ignoring the rest is not science - thus they are no expert.

But even if you did quote Fauci, it means nothing to me unless they come with evidence that backs up their claims - a substantiated body of scientific evidence, not half-truths, framing or pandering to a narrative. The science around this subject has become heavily politicized and everything that supports the government narrative is latched onto, while everything that doesn't is systematically ignored or even surpressed.

You won't be satisfied because it's not about the science. [...] No, this is about politics. — James Riley

Correct. I never made it a secret I wasn't interested in a scientific debate. I outright stated it.

Your politics can be discerned by the company you keep. — James Riley

I don't keep any political company. You're just desperate to put me into a box that you can easily attack. And of those boxes you picked the most cliché of all: fascism. It's such a joke - I am not going to defend myself against such an accusation. I can only laugh at it.

Who thinks like you? Fascist stooges for Putin and his bitch Trump, that's who. — James Riley

Those people don't think like me, unless I missed their appeals to human rights.

Are you sure you aren't just projecting? An authoritarian nationalist (you call it "patriotism") with a predisposition towards force and violence?

A few pages back I asked you on two seperate occassions whether you'd be in favor of treating unvaccinated people in a similar manner to how Israel treats Palestinians. Why didn't you answer that?

However, since an animal cannot advocate for itself, what can a person do to represent an animal? — Shawn

Our increasingly inhumane treatment of animals and indeed virtually every other life on Earth is a direct result of our evergrowing population that has to have its needs met. That's where I would start. The conclusion that 7,9 billion humans is quite enough.

Listen son, when you step on your pee pee, man up and admit it. Like you should have when I called your bluff about experts and you stood with egg on your face. You just keep digging. :roll: — James Riley

You think by repeating that it will make it true? Who are you trying to save face for? Me? Others? Yourself?

It's a bit embarrassing to see you latch onto the fact you were able to find a random person in an article proclaiming an opinion you liked (speaking of confirmation bias).

Your personal attacks convey only your inability to bring anything of substance to the table. I attacked your ideas, you attacked me, and in the end all you had was an inept "You're a fascist". What a joke.

Now you're just trying to give yourself an excuse for why you got personal. You got caught. Go reflect. — Tzeentch — James Riley

Fixed that for you. Don't steal my quotes.

That had nothing to do with vaccination or anyone's right to bodily autonomy. That had to do with your seeming love of authority, and I meant every word of it.

I never said that or even implied it.

Now you're just trying to give yourself an excuse for why you got personal. You got caught. Go reflect.

It's amusing how personal you get when you run out of ideas. It's a common theme in our conversations.

That "medical" in their job title is something you don't have and are not smart enough to have. — James Riley

Fair enough. I am also not smart enough to have "Dr" infront of my name, so I guess the following article must be true.

New research deflates current understanding of the shape of our world

The article even calls them "cutting edge". Seems legit if you ask me.

Those people I referenced that you fail to distance yourself from. You know, the same people who make the same arguments you are now making. — James Riley

Oh, who are they, and what arguments do they make?

That is proven by the fact that you called those authors "random person" without even looking at who they are. — James Riley

I did take a look at who they were, and the fact that there's "medical" in their job title does not make them an expert in whatever it is they're making claims about.

Besides, like me, you aren't a doctor and even if I cited actual scientific studies, you would have done the same thing. — James Riley

Likely I would've had to point out that whatever you believe that hypothetical study proves, does not correspond to the actual conclusion of the study. Which is what I would've had to do if you referred to the studies your articles referred to, which I did take a look at.

... others on this very thread have cited the actual scientific studies, ... — James Riley

So have I.

You made it yourself when you aligned more solidly with your leaders — James Riley

Now it gets interesting.

My leaders? And who might those be?

Doesn't matter if they are biased or not. You said I couldn't and I did. — James Riley

If by expert you thought I meant "a random person in a news article", then.. Oh well. Link an actual scientific study if you want me to take it serious.

But go you.

It's not a concession of defeat if it is true. — James Riley

So it is a concession of defeat. But it's one that was in the making for a long time.

Here, you stand corrected on both counts (30 seconds of google): — James Riley

Imagine thinking a Google search is going to produce unbiased results.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v1

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Here. Actual research papers, which you can interpret and glean conclusions from yourself. Will likely take you more than 30 seconds, though.

I could link a hundred more, but I am not interested in a science debate either.

You see, I embrace "guilt by association." — James Riley

Generalizations are by definition inaccurate, thus you're embracing ignorance.

But it's none of my business what your opinions of me are or who you associate me with. I'm interested in your ideas and argumentations only.

When they go low, I go down there with them and give them a taste of their own medicine. They, like you, don't like that. — James Riley

I am enjoying our conversation, heated as it may be. Why else would I be here still talking with you?

So some are not the independent, free thinkers, standing up to government authority. They are surrounded by, embraced by, and themselves embrace a large swath of people, outlined above. Loners they are not. They are summarized by the word "fascist." If they were to try and put some distance between themselves and those that agree with them, then I'd have to rethink. And individual members may say it is not their job to police their ranks. But you will be known by the company you keep, whether you like it or not. Science be damned, I'll stand with Dr. Fauci while you stand with Tucker Carlson. — James Riley

I'm not even going to defend myself against the intellectual concession of defeat that is calling someone else a fascist. Believe what you will about me, as I said, it's of no concern to me. Convincing you is of no concern to me. But if you're interested in fascism, you should know they love violence and authority, Travis.

It's a different mentality with these folks. Their shepherds have them believing they are good boys, rugged collectivist, standing up to the evil forces of ???. :roll: They are chicken hawks. Anti-intellectuals, afraid of reason, themselves, liberty; they are sheep who follow charlatans. Just make sure you never give them any power over others. — Tzeentch

Here are some ideas for filling in the ???:
- Individuals whose opinions their government doesn't like
- Individuals whose opinions they don't understand (important one)
- Individuals in general
- Whoever their stately overlords have appointed

Well, I did read your post, because I don't feel threatened by conflicting opinions, and thanks for sharing so many of those with me.

Opinions aren't selfish or inconsiderate - actions can be, and of my actions you know almost nothing. But of course it is very easy to create a mental image of someone whose opinions you don't like, and assume they must be terrible people. A simple trick of the mind to avoid having to deal with conflicting opinions.

I show everyone common courtesy. When I am shown the same, respect can be earned and reciprocated. None of these things sadly applied to our conversations, and when I am continuously insulted and belittled, I have no problems holding up a mirror. And apparently you did not enjoy having your own behavior mirrored to you. Food for thought, perhaps?

Our conversations can be as pleasant or as unpleasant as you make them, to me it makes no difference.

Bye, son. I hope you grow up some day. — James Riley

It is funny you should say that, because it shows the differences between our views.

You believe "to grow up" is to accept a subjugation of the mind to the demands of the state - and that is what states want: subjugated minds that march to the beat of its (war)drums at their beck and call.

I believe to grow up is to emancipate oneself completely from the mental impositions of the state and society. It is a vital part of self-actualization.

But I wish you much the same. Grow up, son!

Tell that to the individuals who, on the basis of literally nothing, are promoting a defacto apartheid between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

I understand things are a little less far along in the US (I don't know if you're American), , but in Europe we're starting to see an eerie repeat of the '30s.

You just don't want to be inconvenienced by your own choice. — James Riley

You are smart enough to know the difference between an inconvenience and Israeli practices. I asked you a straightforward question: would you be in favor of such practices in the case of unvaccinated people, or are you against it, Travis?

You'd have to do research that involved more than confirmation bias. But you be you, Dr. Tzeentch. — James Riley

Again, you won't find a medical expert that disputes any of those things, so the joke's on you. I understand that your us versus them narrative makes little sense when that is a given, so perhaps it is you who needs to worry about their biases?

Well, for me, it's based on the civics and patriotism I was taught in school. It's part of community and selflessness, gratitude, grace, and giving. But that's an old school thing. — James Riley

You trust your government based on your love for it (patriotism) and your noble character?

That's not a basis of trust, that's called being naive and gullible.

I will grant you this, though, if I was black or Indian some other group that the U.S. had experimented on, I might think twice — James Riley

What does ethnicity have to do with it? The US experimented on all types of people. Do a Google search on "American Nuclear Guineau Pigs: Three Decades of Radiation Experiments on U.S. Citizens".

And yes, you read that correctly, three decades. It's only one of many examples.

How about you, Tzeentch? Were your people experimented on by government? Or are you from a privileged class? — James Riley

I don't belong to 'a people' or a class.

Well, I think going to all those third-world countries to provide them with vaccines, not bombs, is the order of the day. — James Riley

Haha, America, spreader of democracy, freedom and now vaccines, through subversion, revolution and at the end of a gun barrel!

God bless the USA.

No, it is not. Your so-called principle is based on your desire to continue availing yourself of the privileges and benefits of society while not having to face a scary needle. — James Riley

You're just repeating nonsense on both accounts.

And there we have it. You find it impossible to stay home with your filthy disease. You want the choice to hurt others. — James Riley

Again, untrue. If life is made impossible, in a similar fashion as life is made impossible for Palestinians by Israel, for example, are you against that, or are you for that in the case of unvaccinated?

Okay, Doctor Tzeentch, if you say so. The experts disagree with you. — James Riley

No they don't. You won't find an expert that will tell you an unvaccinated person is more contagious than a vaccinated one, nor will you find one that tells you a vaccine is more effective than natural immunity.

Well, to be honest, when I joined the Marine Corps I felt like a fucking pin cushion! LOL! They wanted us immune to the panoply of viruses running wild in the third and fourth world shit holes that we went to. However, it turns out, I'd already been stuck several times before that, just to go to school and protect my family, school, community and country. I still get stuck for flu and tetanus every now and then. So, I seriously can't answer your question. Let's just say "a lot." — James Riley

You do as you're told and expect others to do the same, but not everyone has this slavish disposition and unwavering faith in government. Maybe I have asked this before, but what exactly is that trust in government based on, considering the US government has a history of unethical medical experimentation?

Also, do you ever wonder what the point is of going to all those third-world countries to drop bombs on poor people? Or is not asking questions about that also a part of being a "real American"?

An unvaccinated person is more likely to spread the disease than a vaccinated one. — Athena

Completely untrue, which is why this argument has long since been abandoned and replaced for the "unvaccinated put more pressure on health services"-argument, which seems to be just as baseless, since in my country about 80% of the people on the IC are vaccinated, in a country where about 80% of the people are vaccinated (Implying there is little to no correlation).

It is not a human right to spread disease. — Athena

An unvaccinated person isn't really more infectious than a vaccinated person. In fact, natural immunity is more effective and effective longer than a vaccine. — Tzeentch

... your principle is not based on right to bodily autonomy. — James Riley

It most certainly is.

There is little a government can take from me that I put any value in, but it can make life impossible to the degree where I have no choice. If you are against that, then we are, roughly speaking, on the same page.

You have not right to interfere with the bodily autonomy of others by injecting them with your virus. — James Riley

Take your virus home and play with it all you want. But don't come out and interfere with the bodily autonomy of everyone else. — James Riley

An unvaccinated person isn't really more infectious than a vaccinated person. In fact, natural immunity is more effective and effective longer than a vaccine. This is more "us versus them" narrative; baseless and inflammatory.

Serious question; how many shots will you take before you object? Five? Ten? At what point will you understand that people do draw a line and say "I will take no more"? Or will you follow authority without question, and expect everyone else to do the same?

That may be true when it comes to exercising rights. But rights must be distinguished from privilege. The courts long ago drew that distinction with driving. — James Riley

The right of autonomy over one's own body is not a priviledge, it is a human right.

Right to Integrity of the Person

From the United Nations website:

Not only is bodily autonomy a human right, it is the foundation upon which other human rights are built.

It is included, implicitly or explicitly, in many international rights agreements, such as the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Human rights are the bottomline to which we hold states, and indeed all that seperates us from chimpanzees - the sole achievement of mankind over its animal nature over the course of thousands of years.

The two cannot even remotely be compared. A bit stunning people need to be told the importance of human rights on a philosophy forum.

However, Covid only killed 700+k in the U.S. and some millions world wide; largely people that the anti-vaxxers don't care about. — James Riley

But you care, of course, for every single one of those people I'm sure. Because you tell yourself you're a 'good guy', and I'm a 'bad guy'. Quit the framing already, it's predictable and boring.

You are afraid of a vaccine. — James Riley

Not really. I refuse to take the vaccine out of principle.

(PS: I am not an "anti-vaxxer" - I respect people's right to make a decision as much as I expect them to respect mine)

Yep. That's right. When Covid is suffocating you to death and you're tearing at your throat with your fingernails because you cannot breathe, you can relax because it's really just about safety v. "freedom," free press, academic independence, and corporate power. — tim wood

You may choose to live in fear. I do not. That is why I am reasonable, and you are not.

"Unalienable right?" And what right would that be that you're referring to? — tim wood

Human Rights Principles :roll:


Not sure what your whole spiel is supposed to convey. :chin:

You think your tirades and personal attacks will convince me of anything other than your deplorable character?

And that is the problem, you a few million others do not think they are responsible. — Athena

And they aren't. If you believe the "unvaccinated" are responsible for the covid pandemic, you have simply fallen for the government's "us versus them" narrative hook, line and sinker.

Moreover, If people exercising an unalienable right is a problem to a society, then the society is the problem. Those rights were instated as the absolute lowest standard of what can be considered humane and legitimate statescraft.

I remember page after page of condemnation of Israeli actions towards Palestinians, and the double standard is remarkable. How did we enjoy Israeli framing of Palestinians as a threat to safety, potentially being infected with the virus (terrorism)? The indignation knew no end.

But sprinkle a little fear in people's minds, or tickle their desire for control over others and now we're here.

"Creating and Destroying a Civilization" — Athena

And what is this, if not an attempt at more framing of "the enemy"?

"The unvaccinated" are now a threat to civilization?

The types that use this sort of language either have their rational minds paralyzed with fear, or are drunk on power.

The dilemma is about safety versus liberty, the boundaries we put on those in power; it is about the free press, the independence of academia and the growing power of multinationals.

It hardly gets more political than this, and science provides no answers to any of these dilemmas.

Maybe you believe the narrative that there is no moral dilemma, that safety provides a limitless mandate for the use of power and the breaching of human rights, and that the power of science in the hand of our omnibenevolent and incorruptable governments ran by philantropists will lead us to the promised land. A road to hell, to be sure.

People who refuse to get vaccinated are holding us all hostage. — Athena

No. Your government is keeping you hostage with the way it frames and deals with the issue. This line of argumentation is dependent on whether all the measures taken to combat the virus are effective, and there are plenty of indicators that they aren't. (A report made by the Dutch government itself estimated that the Covid measures taken had saved around 100,000 QALY's, and cost a whopping 620,000 QALYs for a net loss of 520,000 QALYs in the Netherlands alone. This report was, predictably, ignored.)

People who are vaccinated still contract and transmit the virus, and to think things would go back to normal if everyone were vaccinated is an illusion. This is all about control.

... people think their liberty comes first and all of us are paying a price for that. — Athena

Certain liberties, unalienable human rights of which the right to autonomy over one's own body is the most fundamental, are the only thing that seperates us from the era of Sun Kings and Mao Zedongs, and indeed all that stops human society from being a thinly veneered group of apes.

If history has taught us one thing, it is that humans are incapable of wielding certain types of power, and that those who tend to wield power are in fact least fit to wield it. That's why human rights exist, and this understanding should form the basis of any mandate given to states to wield power over individuals.

How do you take responsibility for the skyrocketing infection rate that has returned us to the worst of times? — Athena

I don't need to take responsibility, because I am not responsible.

If you got covid and had to be hospitalized... — Athena

But I do not.

Driving is a serious responsibility, especially when I have passengers. I make every effort to do so responsibly and that is equal to getting vaccinated. — Athena

Well, I don't think that is enough. I think you should drive a bike instead of being so reckless to drive a car and take a risk with other people's lives. Would be better for the environment too.

We took our democracy for granted and this was a mistake. — Athena

We took our military superiority for granted and this may have been a mistake? — Athena

And now you are taking your liberties and human rights for granted, and in fact squandering them for the promise of safety. That is most certainly a mistake; a Trojan horse.

But as our soldiers risk their lives for the rest of us, we must take that individual risk for the good of all. — Athena

That might be your view, but I disagree that one can simply decide for another what individual risks they should or shouldn't take, moreso because it concerns their most valuable human right: that of autonomy over their own body.

Our refusal to take the risk to protect others means we can be the carrier who infects others, leading to their suffering, their possible long-term poor health, and possibly their death. — Athena

The chance of me infecting someone and them undergoing serious health problems as a result of it is no bigger than the risk of stepping into a car and causing a collision: very, very small. I am healthy, and wise enough to take caution around vulnerable people.

You may say something like: but if everyone thinks that way, it will pose a risk to people, etc.
To that I say, I accept responsibility only for my voluntary actions, and no one else's.

Point me to the person I hurt by refusing this vaccine, and I will take responsibility. But you cannot, because likely there are none, and I won't accept your claim to my body on the basis of empty accusations.

Does a valuable member of society put everyone else at risk? — Athena

What I assume you consider valuable members of society put everyone else at risk every day. They step in cars, they don't get their flu shots, they procreate, they smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, etc.
To cherry pick one particular risk and assign it so much weight is completely inconsistent and unconvincing.

Besides, what "society" considers valuable is of no concern of mine. I think "society" in a general sense is terribly dysfunctional.

What is the honor of behaving as a soldier who flees to save his own life? — Athena

War is a pointless, tragic thing. Honor is the carrot "society" has used for centuries to lure its young men into an untimely death for the benefit of the few. The individual shouldn't accept to be sacrificed on the altar of the collective; not in war, not in a pandemic.

Seems like you're intent on spinning the "religion bad" yarn which I am not interested in and also isn't particularly relevant to the topic at hand.

If your point is that individuals have used religion as an excuse to do terrible things, I wouldn't disagree. However, I believe that says more about the nature of man than it does about the nature of religion.

At the "heart" of religion (esoterica) is "the mystery"; the rest (exoterica) is public-facing, dumbed down, ritual reenactments via mneumonic narratives of aspects (metaphors?) of "the mystery". Philosophy is the rational exorcism of self-abegnating, stupifying, infantalizing, reality-denying/escapist "mysteries" of which religion (i.e. cultic (conspiratorial) thinking) consists. — 180 Proof

The same can be said for any human field of thought. At the heart of our reality lies a mystery, and philosophy is there to expose our ignorance first and foremost, and if we're lucky offer some wisdom and understanding along the way.

Both a theist and an atheist can philosophize about the existence of God til the cows come home and in the end, their positions are unlikely to change. One difference is that the theist relies on authority and has faith in that authority. Has any theist alive today come up with the idea of God, and a whole belief system that surrounds it, themselves? — praxis

No one alive today has created their concept of reality all by themselves.

I'm saying that religion requires hidden ultimate "truths" and it's that inaccessibility that gives the religious authority their power. — praxis

The philosophical and spiritual concepts underlying religions are well-documented and accessible to all who would put in the time and effort, so I don't see how this is true.

I'm also not sure how this relates to the topic at hand.

Theology seems to float somewhere in between religion and philosophy. In the end, it seems inquisitive minds are drawn towards the same questions (and answers?), whether their roots be religious or secular.

In the context of your original question, it might be worth making a distinction between religion and spiritual teachings or wisdom tradition.

Religion, I think, is essentially the practice of a certain spiritual teaching or wisdom tradition by a large group of individuals. By this distinction, if you were to ask me whether religion and philosophy are complementary, I am not so sure. However, if you were to ask me whether spiritual teachings or wisdom traditions are complementary with philosophy then there'd be no doubt in my mind that they are!

Sounds reasonable except for the fact that no one understands religious philosophy. — praxis

Countless books have been written on the subject. I don't know why you would say this.

No one can answer questions at the "heart" of any religion. — praxis

Perhaps not, but no one can answer the questions at the heart of philosophy either.

That is a necessary condition because religion requires faith, and ultimate authority to have faith in. You cannot have an exoteric religion because it would not require faith and religious authority. — praxis

It's the exoteric part that requires faith, however the esoteric part focuses, like any philosophy, on understanding.

Faith replaces understanding for the exoteric, because understanding simply isn't a reasonable goal for most people. Most people aren't philosophers, and most can't understand complicated philosphical concepts or simply lack the interest to put in the effort required to understand them.

So why is philosophy not vulnerable, or less vulnerable, to abuse and religion is vulnerable? — praxis

Philosophy and religion are very different in nature. A dependency on authority and faith applies in a general sense to religion. It does not apply to philosophy. Philosophy is about truth and understanding, and concepts like faith and authority should be dirty words in philosophical circles!

Esoteric knowledge requires faith in authority, and because they are final answers it requires ultimate authority. Ultimate authority = power. — praxis

This is not necessarily true. If the esoteric teachings are of a philosophical nature, as I said, authority and faith would not be a part of them. Esoteric means nothing other than "hidden" (from the common eye). There is no element of faith or authority, or even religion in there.

Go to the heart of any religion and you will find philosophy. What we have come to know as religion is simply an exoteric representation of a philosophy, because the nature of philosophy is such that it cannot necessarily understood by everyone. The issue is that religion is thereby also vulnerable to being tainted by the less luminous, being used as a tool of power, etc. Perhaps this is the reason that spiritual teachings have a tendency to split into an eso- and exoteric part.

Designer babies - perfect humans, even mentally and physically "enhanced" - become a possibility but what are costs? — TheMadFool

Projecting our (generally ignorant?) ideas of perfection onto individuals even before they are born, I fear it will be destructive beyond imagination.

Aside from potentially being able to avoid/cure genetic defects, I think this idea is very perverse.

Definition of "Unspeakable"

1. not able to be expressed in words.

"I felt an unspeakable tenderness towards her"

Similar: indescribable; beyond words; beyond description; inexpressible; unutterable; indefinable; beggaring description; ineffable; unimaginable; inconceivable; unthinkable; unheard of; marvellous; wonderful

2. too bad or horrific to express in words.

"a piece of unspeakable abuse"

Similar: dreadful; awful; appalling; horrific; horrifying; horrible; terrible; horrendous; atrocious; insufferable; abominable; abhorrent; repellent; repulsive; repugnant; revolting; sickening; frightful; fearful; shocking; hideous; ghastly; grim; dire; hateful; odious; loathsome; gruesome; monstrous; outrageous; heinous; deplorable; despicable; contemptible


Gnosticism is heresy! — TheMadFool

A more fitting word would perhaps be unintelligible.

Ergo, cannot be understood through the intellect.

Plato and the (Neo)Platonics said things very similar. Lao-Tze wrote: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."

The vaccines are safe and effective, as has been demonstrated over and over again. That’s science. That’s mathematics. — Xtrix

The science is pretty unanimous about the fact that for healthy, young people below 35, the chance of getting seriously ill from a covid infection is much smaller than the chance of experiencing serious adverse effects from a vaccination. This is why countries still governed with a shred of sense, like Denmark and Norway, have stopped advertising vaccination for these demographics.

So why do you so readily wish to expose others to these risks? Is it a blind trust in authority? A subconscious urge to power perhaps?

Can't help but see parallels between the arguments put forward by you and those of anti-abortionists.

For a certain type of ideas (usually socio-political ones), it could be said that they become a substitute for an individual's identity. Therefore, when these ideas are challenged, the individual treats it like an attack on their very being.

"Identification with the cause becomes so central and primary [in profilicity] that, strangely enough, one prefers news that the problem is really as bad as one fears it is - since this affirms the value of the cause, and thereby of one's identification with it. If climate change or civil rights should turn out no longer to be an issue, the identity of those identifying with these with these causes would be undermined and deflated. One's profile - built and maintained with sometimes a lifetime of effort, and in which one is thus deeply invested - would lose its social validity and become obsolete. The stronger the identification with a cause, the more the care for the cause also becomes the care for oneself." - Hans-Georg Moeller and Paul D'Ambrosio, You and Your Profile.

I have all the facts and therefore your rights now belong to me!

Evil could be understood as belief in that which isn't. Lies, (self-)deceit, illusions, ignorance, etc.