This is an interesting point from Military.com:

Soldiers who have pending decisions on medical or religious exemptions will not face any adverse action.

So medical conditions are ok to refuse vaccine and also religious reasons. Not sure exactly how someone 'proves' a religious inclination though. In terms of jobs outside the military the ability to sue for such reasons would be implemented too I imagine.

The atheist with no underlying medical conditions who refuses though has no way to 'opt out' and retain their job.

The whole world has become one big scam, and the crazies (really thugs) have taken over. I works advise you only trust your mother, assuming that she is not invested in Pharmaceuticals. — MondoR

I can understand from a US perspective. Having literal inside info into companies like Astra Zeneca I'm not convinced in any particular danger there when it comes to vaccine production.

That this virus was created by mad scientists that are running loose is almost incontrovertible. — MondoR

Almost isn't certainty. I wouldn't judge it as 'almost incontrovertible' though. I looked into it a while back and didn't see much other than speculation for or against. Suspicious? Yeah, but again, there is the political manipulation of governments and the sensationalism of mass media to create revenue. I'm more concerned about the later tbh

Riiiiight, the evil Dr. Fauci. Is it because his name is not Anglo Saxon? — tim wood

Actually, forget it. Comments like this repulse me.\

bye bye until next month. you're in the sin bin :)

I stated that the line isn't clear. What 'reprehensible claim' did I make? I did state that I don't believe people should be forced/coerced/bullied into taking medication. I'm not quite sure how I am to 'support' that remark? Of course there are situations where I'd argue for or against someone taking medication - ie. for taking Covid vaccine. I cannot think of a realistic situation off of the top of my head where I would make someone take something (other than as a parent).

I'm not convinced by such reports yet as there is - as always - a lot of political nonsense going on between different states trying to gain an upper hand in some way. The whole issue with vaccine supply and Brexit in Europe showed some quite extraordinary political wrangling and silliness between France, The UK and the EU in general.

Playing to absolutist arguments doesn't help. I was pointing out - see above - that the line is not distinct. If you think it is distinct go ahead and point out where the line is.

My case is that I don't see the current threat of Covid as justifying companies/governments to prevent people from working. I understand that you may disagree. I don't have a big problem with you disagreeing, but I would still ask where the line is and to what extent such ideas are best implemented?

I can sharpen the other sedge of the blade too if I wished. I don't really see the 'point' then though

Note: Calling people whackadoodle helps how? I see you follow this up with 'crazy'. What is the point of doing this (genuinely curious to know if you've actually put any thought into this or you have to invent a reason on the fly when I ask?)

That's fine. I don't see it like that in this case myself. I'd be more or less likely to agree with you if the dangers were greater ... again this is down to personal judgement because there is no definitive line here. Just like with the more common debate on abortion we do need to draw a line somewhere, but the discussion around where that line is or should be is a difficult but necessary discussion to have (even more so the messier and more uncomfortable it is).

In any social group some people will carry the weight more than others, and in other situations the roles may very well be reversed. I can judge people on how they act but I don't particularly agree to coerce, manipulate or force them to act differently (especially if it is clearly against their own 'better judgement').

The situation is not as extreme largely on account of vaccination. — Janus

Agreed. That isn't my point though.

Again, this isn't about merely 'opting out'. We're talking about people who 'opt out' being marginalised based on their own personal position. We're taking about people being coerced (if 'effectively forced' is to strong for you) to take medication they don't wish to take.

Maybe so, but I think you've been equally brainwashed - or you're just not thinking clearly - because the situation is not as extreme as when the virus first arose (I know this due to what I stated before and showing that I have done research into how vaccines are created and why it took so long for this one compared to flu vaccines which are pumped out every year with relative ease).

There are places people with a vaccine can go that others without cannot. This is at different levels in different countries.

And that is fair to you? It is the same as 'wear a green hat or get sacked'? To repeat, this is medication not clothing.

@Janus If you believed the same as MondoR then you wouldn't take it. It would be 'dangerous' for you and you certainly would fight to stop your children being forced to too.

Get it?

This is untrue. See article above that I quoted. Member in the US army are being told they must get vaccinated. Others may not be allowed to shop or exist as others because they haven't taken a vaccine.

No, this is a philosophy forum. We're effectively talking about changing the social contract.

If I am wrong about how the difficulties of creating a vaccine show me how?

I see no one else doing so either?

The 'subject' is forcing people to take medication in the terms I am arguing.

Other people can still get infected and although their risk of hospitalization or dying is greatly reduced there is still a risk. Also if they have a breakthrough infection and then infect others who are vaccinated the chances that someone will be hospitalized or die increase. Being vaccinated is such a minor thing to do for the sake of those you are close to and the community as a whole that there is no good argument for refusing vaccination. Given that, any reduction of risk to others is a good argument for being vaccinated. Not to be vaccinated is simply a selfish act. — Janus

Read my previous post. It isn't a 'minor thing' for everyone. You don't need to educate me about Covid trust me on that ;)

The good argument is that it is demanding people do something with their bodies (medical) without a say in the matter. Do you not see how this is dangerous?

Emotional reactions are not going to get us far in a discussion here. I see the need to attack anyone saying anything sensible by ignoring the sensible points and blowing others out of proportion.

It isn't all that terrible in terms of the cost of life - it will be in terms of the knock-on effects for the poorest people but that is more about how the problem has been handled in a highly politicised environment globally under the shadow of sensationalist media.

The far deadlier repercussions are the manner in which it has been handled and the winding down of the urgency to deal with the problem. I wholeheartedly disagree with anyone backing a mandatory vaccination (even if this hasn't been made 'law' in an absolute sense we're talking about effectively FORCING people to take medication).

Is it really 'effing stupid' when I put those words in this context:

Covid isn't particularly terrible and we've got a much better understanding of it now so it makes no sense not to get back to normal asap ... and perhaps deal with things that actually kill far more people globally like heart disease (due to greed in the food production industry) and basic poverty (which has been intensified due to lockdowns). — I like sushi

The 'terrible' part comes slowly drip by drip over the next decade. We've already seen several problems start to rise due to prolonged lockdowns (backlog of untreated/undiagnosed medical conditions), isolation likely to lead to spike in colds and flus, and the glaringly obvious economic costs that are not immediately being felt (on top of those that are).

As I said, it isn't that terrible as we now have a better understanding of it and vaccines produced. The difficultly was producing the initial vaccine for a new virus now it is basically a job of updating vaccines every year with new strains (NOT completely unique viruses) much like the flu jab in winter.

NOTE: I can already hear the reactionary wheels whirling in people's heads as they read this because they'll say "he just said it's the same as the flu!" NO I DIDN'T! And it is seriously tiring having to point this out.

To repeat, my point here is this ... People shouldn't be effectively forced to put something into their bodies. This is the law for all vaccinations. I may not agree with people's choices for not taking a polio vaccine but it is their choice for their children and if we wanted to protect our children at all costs we'd break the law to do so, but we shouldn't be forced to break the law when it comes to these decisions (that is authoritarian).

Is that clear enough?

@kudos Sometimes a trait can be perceived as a strength in one particular environment whereas in another it will be perceived as a weakness. A marathon runner needs stamina whilst a sprinter needs raw power.

So yes, in many circumstances what is ‘weak’ for x can be ‘strong’ for y.

I’m talking about bullying/forcing people into taking the vaccine. If people cannot work when they want to that is bad. People can be tested to see if they have the virus so employers should do that instead rather than have the right to basically force people to take medication they don’t feel safe taking.

You have a right to refuse a vaccine, you don't have a right to infect others. — Xtrix

I think that’s a pretty poor argument anyway. If other people have taken the vaccine then the chances of the, getting infected and dying are very very small. If the chances are not very very small then those refusing to take it have an even better reason not to take it as it wouldn’t be effective.

All I’m trying to do here is a make what I thought was a reasonable and common sense argument against effectively forcing people to have injections they fear and/or don’t believe in. A large number of people who have no problem with taking the vaccine have voiced exactly the same concerns here - including nurses threatening to go on strike at the suggestion of this.

That is all. My point about the army is that if a huge proportion refuse then I doubt they’ll kick thousands of people out fo the army. If they cannot the next step might be to fine them for refusing? That would be pretty horrific but many horrific things happen.

Sounds like pan psychism … which I think you’ll find interesting. Personally I think it’s blind speculation.

? I guess mature discussions aren’t for you. Bye bye.

I think it’s a strange idea not to allow people to choose what to do with their own bodies. Of course you can say people can do what they want (but they just cannot go to work).

Wearing hats (as someone mentioned above) is not really equivalent to medication.

Sorry, don’t see anything relevant to what I said above.

This is basically a philosophical zombie.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/

Yes, but there is more genetic diversity within a group than between them. When it comes to political use of the term 'race' it is more or less about appearance and assumption (not based on genetics).

Someone can look 'white' and have predominantly African or Asian heritage. 'Race' is a bit like nationality. It says something about your cultural upbringing bit certainly doesn't completely determine how you were brought up or how you view the world.

From Washington Post:

Overall, the military’s vaccination rate has climbed since August, when Defense Department leaders, acting on a directive from President Biden, informed the nation’s 2.1 million troops that immunization would become mandatory, exemptions would be rare and those who refuse would be punished. Yet troops’ response has been scattershot, according to data assessed by The Washington Post.

For instance, 90 percent of the active-duty Navy is fully vaccinated, whereas just 72 percent of the Marine Corps is, the data shows, even though both services share a Nov. 28 deadline. In the Air Force, more than 60,000 personnel have just three weeks to meet the Defense Department’s most ambitious deadline.

I hope people in the military in the US don't get vaccinated because it will weaken the position of the government in effectively forcing people to take medication.

'Anti-vaxxers' - where I'm from - are generally people who refuse to give their children immunization against horrible diseases. Protesting for the right NOT to take a vaccine is fine by me. I guess if I agree with the rights of people not to take vaccines then I'm an 'Anti-vaxxer'?

This is clearly sensationalism at its worst caused by mass media. Covid isn't particularly terrible and we've got a much better understanding of it now so it makes no sense not to get back to normal asap ... and perhaps deal with things that actually kill far more people globally like heart disease (due to greed in the food production industry) and basic poverty (which has been intensified due to lockdowns).

I'm glad people are sensible enough to protest against governments backing employers and actively encouraging them to refuse work to those who cannot, or will not, take a vaccine.

Of course. I was asking more or less about how other issues (like intelligence) is accounted for within this scheme.

It looks to me like a rehashing of the dated concept of 'nature vs nurture'. Clearly there is no dividing line between what is and isn't 'nature' or 'nurture' it is a mishmash.

Sorry, but I can imagine that even without humans around, the chemical elements what we call "hydrogen" or "gold" will exist and have their peculiar characters. — ssu

And this is where I see some making the leap that you CANNOT imagine because you're human, so if there were no humans they'd be no science nor any 'Periodic Table' (trust me I've seen this kind of argument used).

Also,

That we describe the differences between the elements by using the atomic model and have a periodic table doesn't change their existence. — ssu

That we can describe observe and measure intelligence (albeit poorly) doesn't deny its existence. 'g' is about as objective as anything else, but we don't fully grasp what it is.

I am playing devil's advocate a little here :)

There are some telling genetic differences between certain groups. Some medicines are tailor made to help such groups. Sadly the historical scientific beliefs/ideas surrounding 'race' and the advent of Darwin led to a whole lot of uninformed speculation that was considered 'objective' at the time.

Of course with that definition the word is utterly useless. — ssu

I guess you don't care to offer up any definition? Are there hazy areas for any definition you offer? Does any definition serve to reveal something of importance for the social sciences or is it mainly based on assumptions and opinion? ;)

In short I would define philosophy as the investigation of human thought, reason, interaction, understanding and experience.

'Investigation' here could mean a variety of things including inner thought, logical analysis and/or scholarly/historical work on philosophers/philosophies.

What makes something 'philosophical' depends upon the context the term is used in. Colloquially we use this to mean something like an ethic or moral code, or a practical way of dealing with day-to-day problems (as in 'My philosophy of life is ...').

In other respects I think it is better to view something philosophical as being more about the 'what' question whereas something scientific would look more at the 'how' question. This is not to say these don't sometimes overlap and feed off of each other.

Decartes Error - Damasio (a look at rationality and emotions)

Also, maybe these:
- The Scientist in The Crib - Gopnik, Meltzoff & Kuhl (ref. to various studies in here that you might find useful - easy reading pop-science book)
- The Archetypes of The Collective Unconscious - Carl Jung
- The Language and Thought of the Child - Jean Piaget

One thing is for sure. We have emotions about every conscious item. We cannot experience without emotion. Emotion is 'experiencing' and often thought of as tied hard to subjectivity.

The idea of 'the rational' and 'the emotional' as separate is a dead idea that sadly still lingers in the public sphere from what I've seen.

So, the changes in child care needs are a side effect of a decision to run the economy for the benefit of the rich and to screw everybody else. — Bitter Crank

Replace 'rich' for 'financially stable' and I think that sums it up fairly well. Except I think the ignorance of the middling population are not intentionally 'screwing' everyone else, they're just too busy trying to be super rich or believe they deserve a little reward for floating above the rest.

I think it might be reasonable to consider that middling incomes are more likely to look down on poor people than rich people because they are one step away from them and think why can't they do what I did? Why should they get help and I not? It is petty and childish, but humanity isn't exactly paragon of its possible self just yet.

Living somewhere where there is not exactly a great deal of help handed out to people I can see your point. That said I don't think things are much different now than before. Reading articles by persons such as George Orwell from the late 40's I could easily have mistaken them for a modern piece. I think times change but some conflicts in society are necessarily eternal. I am curious to see how/if our current means of mis/communication impacts upon the common repeating trends of so-called left or right political stances.

As ever (no apologies for repeating myself) the issue seems more about mass global media and the advent of the internet age we've just started coming into. I put a lot of the current sociopolitical turmoil/upheaval down to greater awareness and exchanges between peoples/cultures than in any period in human history.

I think this account for a seemingly growing polarity between different political attributes, but the reality is more or less that we just have more contrast (and extremist views) thrown around in social media circles leading to the appearance of (and perhaps creation of due to belief in?) a greater problem than the reality of the situation has to offer.

I think there is too much emphasis on the extremes of both ends of the argument and that hyperbole doesn't help much. I would like to see free healthcare and education on a global scale. When I saw a woman on UK news interview complaining about funding to help with her children out of school I laughed! It is people like her that are the main problem and usually the most vocal too (note: She did her interview with fine bone china clearly on display in her cabinet behind her and she wasn't particularly concerned about how others were struggling and just wanted her piece of the payout).

I would prefer to see people at the LOWEST end of the spectrum receive a larger chunk and cut out people who simply feel that they 'deserve' something because they 'work so hard'.

Neither conservatism nor socialism are dirty words. They are both perfectly legitimate policies but either as a stand alone scheme to fix all problems are pretty terrible.

Have we made this social change with much thought? — Athena

No. We never will because we cannot see what happens until it happens. Conservatism will hold us back from finding a 'better' way or making a terrible make, and Liberalism will open us up to more more mistakes yet allow us to search beyond the norm for a 'better' way.

Too much thought will lead to stagnation, and too little will just lead us back to where we begun with no step forwards. We have to learn (in group thought and/or individually) through our mistakes. Sometimes the cost will be brutal but there is always tomorrow - until there isn't! :D

In terms of technical jargon regarding the cognitive neurosciences there is a difference. In fact, what is coined as 'consciousness' and 'conscious' varies depending on the context too.

Like the OP. If you parse 'economics' alongside 'work' the meaning is exactly how I framed it.

The cost of 'enjoying yourself' exists and it isn't in a matter of monetary value.

These are the basic building blocks of what economics is about. I'm not making it up. A look at any basic introduction to economics and what economics covers will reveal this.

The OP is about EMPLOYMENT/JOBS. You don't have to get a job but you'll have to work no matter what if you wish to keep breathing. The person posting this has made clear elsewhere they don't much care for breathing in the first place and that on balanced life=suffering and that that is 'bad'/'wrong'.

Recreation takes work too. ALL activity is 'work'.

To quote:

Realism (as I have defined it), requires the objective independent existence of common-sense physical entities.

- Devitt

I saw the same trick with Witty 'defining' language as X then restating the same definition (under words) to dispute the existence of a Private Language.

Of course, if you define something from the get go as X it cannot be anything other than X.

Without ‘work’ we learn nothing and do nothing. So @schopenhauer1 I’m just going to say you have a rather strange way of viewing life that I strongly oppose and move on.

The big deal is what you said here:
I think this says it all. We don't enter it, we're in it from the get go.
— I like sushi — schopenhauer1

I think we're talking cross purposes here. I don't mean just 'Work' as in 'having a job'. I'm talking about having to work to get food/water etc.,. The 'cost' may be time, money, sleep and numerous other items. Within we trade off one possible future for another. That is economics and it is basically human life.

If you're just talking about employment not interested. My mistake.