Apparently your psyche is untroubled - informed - by non-subjective (non-psychological) "content" like evidence or sound inference ... or prescribed meds. — 180 Proof

Finally you address me directly, I was starting to think you didn't love me.

Anyway, to address your lack of comprehension, psychological freedom at its maximum, is never troubled by external content of any kind, whether evidential or soundly inferential. Psychological freedom can appear quite apathetic in regard external content, regardless of how much you join others in believing some external content is objective fact.

... the retard rabble ...
— Merkwurdichliebe
Projection. :chin: Must be those pesky shadows (of strawmen) making you bark at them so. — 180 Proof

I just like to alliterate :worry:

Seriously, if you have the study, I want it. My health region doesn't have it, none of my peer reviewed platforms have it. I have access to one out of Vietnam that states non-medical masks (the blue ones) used as recommended, double the likelihood of catching whatever you are trying to avoid, if it's aerosolized, and that cloth masks increase it by a factor of 13. Scary. Latest data from my region is that "there is an associated increase in transmission from cloth masks due to poor storage and decreased rate of mask changing". Something I brought up 6 months ago, to no avail. — Book273

You know how the retard rabble is going to respond to this: "'derr, but 'derr...Da mask save da life, 'derrrr."

If you want the right to individual good health, then the social system has to be set up in a way that closes the loop and shapes your freedoms in a way that is conducive to that being a collective general outcome.

You are instead speaking of freedoms as if they could be contextless. And that is illogical. — apokrisis

Yes, I am disregarding context, but it is not illogical. That is because I am speaking of psychological freedom, not societal or physical. And since the psyche is determined by it's own content, the freedom I'm discussing here is absolutely noncontextual.

So what's the problem? If you want to discuss societal freedom or physical freedom, I can do that too.

What nation would vote to be ruled by a lack of logic. — apokrisis

The United States. Did you not see it? They just had a presidential election in which it was thoroughly demonstrated.

Once we have escaped, are we all in the same place, or infinitely different places? — Todd Martin

Now we aren't talking about a physical cage so I won't assume you are talking about a physical place, but using "place" in the royal sense.

Everyone that escapes is subject to a universal condition, freedom. But the universality of freedom qualitatively differs from the universality of incarceration. The universality of incarceration is reductive, in that it eliminates possibility, and ultimately, especially when brought to its extreme, it appears identical in relation to each individual. It might be correct to say that real equality only exists amongst the incarcerated.

In contrast, the universality of freedom is dialectical, in that it expands possibility, and in it's most radical mode, we will find the greatest diversity of individuals. So, in freedom, we are in infinitely different places, yet there is nothing to prevent one person's place from overlapping with another's, or even circumscribing many places simultaneously. The beauty of freedom is that it is an unconstrained state, and its expansiveness can be all consuming.

Indeed! Best of luck with the phone.

Like licking elevator buttons? By any means necessary, you know?

Btw, the predictive text on my phone goes straight to:

by any means necessary.

Hmm. — frank

:rofl:

Well, I am pretty serious about the cause. Plus elevator buttons look so delicious when they glow. :yum:

So there is one cage from which we might escape, but as many ways as there are individual human beings of escaping it? — Todd Martin

First of all, thanks for conducting this thought experiment with me. Let's continue...

Not exactly. There there are infinite cages. But they have the same essential effect on everyone: incarceration. So I just call it "the cage" since its incarcerating effect is universal, as it were.

However, each individual's incarceration is unique to the individual, that is, his relation to the cage is unique to him alone. For each individual, there is only one way of escaping, so there are infinite means of escaping (if there are infinite individuals). Nevertheless, each individual has access to only one means of escape, that is his own key (which is uniquely fit to him, and to the lock of the cage.)

Merkywurdy (if I may give you a pet name, but not in any derogatory sense, but just because I am prone to do so to those I feel some familiarity with) — Todd Martin

Absolutely, and I wouldn't mind if it were derogatory as long as it was clever.

some of the things you say seem to contradict themselves.

For example, you reject the notion that all men are created equal, yet you assert that they indeed are, insofar as you also say that each is born into a cage the key to which he possesses, subverting the Platonic cave, into which everyone is born, but the ability to exit only a few possess by their natural but unequal ability. Is this a fair characterization? — Todd Martin

That is a great question. The fact that we are all born into the cage does not necessarily mean that each is beset with the same circumstances within the cage. Some may be closer to the gate, and see the way out more clearly. Amongst them some will be daunted by the idea of passing through, while other will see the merit in doing so. We literally can draw from infinite factors in order to demonstrate how each individual, although perhaps nearly identical on face value, is ultimately and irrevocably unique in his own right.
That is, each individual has the innate ability in proportion to the particular task set before him, that of using his own key (which is uniquely fit to him) to escape his own incarceration (which is uniquely fit to him).

No, it's treated as unknown, because that's what it is in the population at large, unknown. — jorndoe

Extend your logic to everything. If everything unknown is approached with the same mass cowardice that covid is, we are totally fucked as a civilization.

Surprise — widespread use of masks is known to make a statistical difference.
(At close-up, in labs, masks have been shown to make a difference.)
And so, that's where it's at — make a difference. Common sense, too. — jorndoe

That is the delusion that has always plagued modern man: make a difference. The truth is, you can't make a difference, not when it come to sickness, age, or death. That people actually think they have such measures of control...it would be the funniest thing ever of it wasn't the saddest.

As Ricky Roma said: I subscribe to the law of contrary public opinion: "if everyone thinks one thing, then I say, bet the other way." That is my common sense. For other people, common sense is "to believe what everyone else does", if that is you, I say "go for it".

Should someone pin an info-post on the pandemic or something...?
Or not. There are a few available out there anyway. Some will remain challenged apparently. — jorndoe

You don't need to go that far, I have access to all the same propaganda you base your opinion on.

Hyperbole. Bad analogy. Take the virus to court. — jorndoe

Terrible analysis, it wasn't an analogy.

But have you really been trying? You know there's more to protesting than just typing stupid stuff on your phone. — frank

Of course. My method of protest in my daily life is persistent and inconspicuous.

What does this even mean? Do you mean getting sick proves we're alive so hurray?

Yep, pretty much. Means we aren't dead yet. Which is where we all end up eh, no matter what anyone does. It's the defining feature of life, it ends. — Book273

Right on.

I love it when two people argue from their own perceived moral superiority. Makes for an entertaining read devoid of any arguments. — Benkei

To clarify, I have no desire to recruit others into my morality. All that my morality requires is that I stay true to my principles, regardless of consequence. It only requires that of me, not anyone else. So when I express my ethical opinion, please do yourself the favor of understanding that I am not trying to convince you of anything, rather, I am just expressing my opinion, it's a terrible tragedy.

Others, however, require me, and you, and everyone else, to conform to the morality to which they have subscribed and conformed themselves. To anyone like that, I say "fuck off", and I will mock them until they actually do "fuck off".

Everything you say is very reasonable. If somebody knows they are sick, then they should have the courtesy to avoid infecting others as far as possible.

But with covid, everyone is treated as infected before the fact. This ethic contradicts one of the most essential and important principles that free societies are built upon: innocent before proven guilty. It seems that everyone has forgotten this in the covid hysteria, and now we are setting up a very dangerous precedent for the future. What happens when we begin to assume other bad things are the case before the fact and respond with more pervasive countermeasures? How far are we willing to go?

I believe all the covid nonsense and hysteria directly correlates to a historically unprecedented degree of cowardice in the current generation.

Dr. Strangelove (if I may translate your name into my native tongue), I assume that your independence of thought from the “rabble” extends to less physical issues than the current pandemic, to questions like, for example, whether it is is true, as Aristotle asserts in the Politics, that some men are born slaves, or whether the dictum that all men are created equal, as a certain famous late professor of political philosophy suggested, is a democratic prejudice...

... may I ask what your opinion on these topics is, and whether you think human beings ought to be free express dissent with regard to them? — Todd Martin

I absolutely reject the notion that any person is equal. The only equality I acknowledge between individuals is that each one is equally unequal. It is indeed a democratic prejudice as described by Nietzsche's slave revolt.

As far as freedom of the individual, each individual is born into slavery, but not one is born inherently a slave. Each individual has the capacity to extricate himself immediately at any moment. It is like we are all born in a cage with the key in our hand, and the longer we spend in the cage, the more comfortable we become, and less likely we are to use the key. And imagine if someone decided that the cage was unsatisfactory and wanted to use the key to escape, or had escaped the cage and come back to testify, they would definitely meet with persecution and ridicule from those who have come to love the cage. This differs from Plato's cave in that each individual innately possesses the ability to escape their confinement and is not dependent on another "free individual" to escape.

I think individual dissention is a self-evident, God-given right for everybody. One of the most noble things an individual can do is to defer from the generational quaff and stand alone.

I think you need to find a person who's covid-19 positive and give them a big smoochy kiss right on the lips with lots of tongue. — frank

I've been looking for that special person. And that is the only way I kiss, wish I could show you personally.

Assholery, all the way through, The mantra of people like you is that you don't want to have your "freedom" limited, meaning your pleasure, comfort, or desires, being not old enough or mature enough to understand the concept of responsibility - and present in all degrees at all levels in all places. — tim wood

Your morality is old and lame. It is played and has run its course. You can keep believing everything your told by your media masters, but my morality necessarily rejects that garbage. I dont simply conform to the rabble to whom you belong, I prefer to think for myself and come to my own conclusions. If that makes me free, so be it. And as we all know, the self incarcerated are scared of free individuals, and that makes them dangerous (easy rider).

What underlies your assholery is the idea that "I'll do whatever I want and you will pay!" What you in your assholery do not understand is that the world these days is knitted a little too tight for your immaturity. As such, you're not a joke but an enemy. Grow a real pair; grow up! — tim wood

I'll make you a deal, I'll grow up, if you pull your head out of your ass...you first

I hope you don't belong to the privileged class in this case.

Should be getting a vaccine soon. Thank you Pfizer!!!!!!! — frank

The privilege of getting sick belongs to all living humans. Let's all be grateful.

If I should refuse to get the vaccine, would that count as a demonstration for my right to get sick?

That explains your actions then, you've found yourself a loophole. Go ahead, continue acting like a newborn, maybe you'll avoid the fines. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've done it so far, and it has worked out great for me.

And what about cats and dogs? It's reported that they can get Covid-19 too. And the CDC doesn't want the animals to use masks either. Or not that I've heard.

Yet that isn't at all a reason why not to wear a mask. — ssu

:rofl:

It not a reason at all. But it highlights how ridiculous all this covid hysteria is, and that is a reasonable reason. Wouldn't it be hilarious if it turned out that pets were the biggest transmitters of the disease?

Masks are (mainly) for others' protection. So you want to wear the annoying thing around newborns. Right? — jorndoe

I've got better things to do than hang around newborns.

This virus could not have been engineered in a lab as precisely as it has been by nature to divide ppl. — Todd Martin

Nature and labs do what they do, it is people that divide themselves. Like guns, they do what they do, it is people that pull the trigger.

yo' can friggin' live with the minor inconvenience ya' cry-baby :) — jorndoe

Did you know the CDC restricts the use of masks on newborn babies? They don't seem to be doing too bad, eh?

How would you feel if you knew you had infected someone and they died? — Janus

I'm certain I would feel the same as if I got the flu and knew I had infected somebody and they died. But I've never really contemplated what feelings it would invoke. Bear in mind this is all speculation, but I imagine I would definitely not feel like a killer in the sense of a public shooter. I would probably feel like a junk food salesman when they know of a person that died from diabetes, or like a cigarette salesman when they know of a person that died of lung cancer, or an auto salesman when they know of a person that died in a traffic accident. To quote Airplane : "they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash".

Im alright with reasonable regulations to prevent obscenely powerful human organizations from gratuituosly overstepping the line. But I'm totally opposed to babyproofing the world against the course of nature because it allows unthinking humans to feel a false sense of security (just another lie to live under), and it provokes generational cowardice and a Nietzschean mob morality.

wearing a mask is being respectful to others, yep, there are morals somewhere here — jorndoe

Definitely mob morality, I'll pass

Have you thought of staging a protest for your right to get sick as crap? — frank

Getting sick is not a right, it is a privilege.

I thought masks are supposed to be quite effective. Where do you get your information from? — Metaphysician Undercover

No not "quite". They have some percentile of effectiveness in case studies. But how it plays out in the real world is something else.

I get my information from life, and from research. Where do you get yours?

It is completely clear that you know better than everybody. Yours the the tyranny of the ignorant stupid - far the most lethal of all. — tim wood

Yes, perhaps I do know better than everybody: I know better than to believe something because everybody says its true.

And I disagree. The tyranny from an individual dissentor, whether ignorant and stupid or not, is most definitely NOT the most lethal kind of tyranny. After all, I've never killed anyone, and I know I'm most definitely a stupid ignorant individual. Without a doubt, the ignorance and stupidity of the group is the greatest source of the most lethal and unjust tyranny ever witnessed in history: mob tyranny. And you can be damn well sure, when someone gets as angry over an individual's individual opinion as you appear to be, they sure as hell belong to the mob.

The right way to think of this virus, if you cannot wrap your head around the simple arithmetic, is like a man with a gun who's shooting people, but with this addition. If he shoots you, then you become a man with a gun who goes home and shoots his family and neighbors, and they then become people with guns shooting people too. — tim wood

Terrible anology. Guns are actually lethal, they kill shooting victims at vastly higher rate than patients die of covid. My entire family got covid and no one died. I guarantee that if everyone in my family was shot, a number of them would die. Speculation speculation.

With this in mind, why don't we start cutting off everyone's index fingers as a precautionary measure to prevent gun deaths. If we do it before the fact, no one will be able to pull a trigger, and no one will ever be shot. After all there is no way of telling who might acquire a gun and begin shooting into crowds.

How retardedly tyrannical!!!

You wear a mask not just for yourself, but everyone else. You have to be extremely stupid not to get this. — tim wood

That would be great and all if masks actually prevented the spread of covid, but we all know they do NOT. You have to be insanely retarded to buy into all this hysteria.

The tyranny, oh the tyranny!

Right on. Lol

Not a very good one apparently, seeing as you're still here. — Baden

Right, you have been waiting for the chance to ban me for a while now. But don't feel bad, most tyrants aren't very good in the first place.

Jesus, just wait a few months for the vaccine and then you can go and get pissed in the pub again. Tyranny, my cock. — Baden

Yes, total tyranny. Tyranny is tyranny, no matter how you justify it. And if you are trying to justify it, it likely you are a tyrant yourself.

And, how effective is a vaccine gonna be with a virus that the body does not develop a natural immune response to and can be contracted multiple times?

Heart disease and traffic accidents are, in a general sense, brought on by lifestyle and personal choices. I do not necessarily agree, however, there are usually factors that come into play with those events. The implication is that Covid cannot be blamed on the person getting Covid and therefore we all have to save each other from covid exposure. I find the commonly used statement of "No more deaths need to occur." very poorly thought out, and exactly wrong. All the deaths that occur need to. It is the only certainty that we have. All of us will end, just a fact. How and when are the question, but the result is absolute. Perhaps Corona is the earth ridding itself of us, and if so, we have it coming, but likely not. I suspect more of a light thinning will be the end result. — Book273

The factors involved in traffic death and coronary failure are easily as random and accidental as any covid death, and society has much more accurate information concerning the former two. Where are the laws to prevent such horrors? It is obvious that there is a major inconsistency in the way society is coping with all these potentially fatal threats.

And at this point, considering the alleged fatality rate of covid, it does not kill fast enough to put a minor or significant dent in the thinning of the global population. Bearing that in mind, the retarded tyrannical measures being imposed on everyone feels more like some type of fast food social experiment than an actual concern for people's health.

the biosphere is responding by sending it's antibody soldiers to the site of the infection — Hippyhead

It's not doing a very good job, and if it were actual medicine, it would be nothing more than a useless placebo. If we assume the official death toll is accurate (which anyone with 2 shits for brains knows has been grossly inflated), covid barely ranks in the top 10 causes of death worldwide. It needs to start killing more efficiently and more indiscriminately if it hopes to effectively cure the disease of mankind.

The question is: why has society implemented such draconian measures with covid, but not with the other more prevalent causes of death? I guess we don't mind if people die from heart disease and traffic accidents, but god forbid anyone die from covid. Very suspicious.

Personally, I find it easier to believe in karma than reincarnation, because I can watch it occur. I think I must have a heavy karmic debt because I sometimes encounter all kinds of misfortunes, but they do often feel like lessons the universe, or some higher power, is giving me. Of course, it may all be my imagination.

I would like to believe in reincarnation too. At times I do and at other times I don't. Having one life and one body is limiting. — Jack Cummins

I see you like Nietzsche. What about eternal return? How might it relate to reincarnation? You mentioned theosophy I think, so you know what's up with reincarnation (kamarupa and shit...).

Also, I would argue that having one body and life is the most decisive form of life, and such a mode holds the utmost importance for an individuals existence.

Karma as retribution is relevent here. Karma is just as relevant to the single life as it is to the reincarnated, since the dread of existence cannot be measured subjectively. And since karma relates directly to the subject, no measure of worldy diversion can deter the karmic fate of any subject.

You forgot to make popcorn while you watch the show. Of course humanity will consume itself, it consumes everything else and is nondiscriminatory that way. — Book273

You're right, popcorn will make it better.



That is a good point you bring up. How is it that people are guilty of the most heinous discrimination in every matter of life, but are completely nondiscriminatory when it comes to the question of how best to live? Maybe the best way to live is to set up the subsequent generation for failure. Why not?

Do you have strong evidence that women are "immediate" and men are "speculative".. These sound like really stereotypical tropes more than reasoned or empirical claims. — schopenhauer1

I do have evidence, but nothing statistical if that is what you require. But you can find out yourself by simply talking to men and women. Just ask them about babies, and you will see a contrast. Show them a baby and you will really understand what I mean.

No, life is about suffering and then coping with it. — schopenhauer1

Right on!

That in itself should be examined as to whether this is good in the first place, not gaslighted and then robotically overlooked for the next generation, and the next, etc. as if this answer is then an excuse to keep perpetuating the situation.. oh see. I can create life with suffering, because you see if they don't like it, it will be their fault.. You see what is happening here?

It is a dire situation. Generation after generation passing on a gradually declining ethos. Do you really think such a monumental thing can be overcome, and in a single generation? I don't know, kinda seems like wishful thinking. I think it's better to accept that humanity will ultimately consume itself, then mock it all for its incorrigible stupity.

you could have saved space and simply blamed women for everything. Heavy stereotyping in your perspective. — Book273

Ok fine. I blame women for everything, responsible for Hitler and sunsets alike.

What's wrong with stereotyping, it helps to weed out the hypersensitives (ironically, the most stereotypical people that exist, fuck em).

I have known many women, young and old, who do not, and have not, desired children. I know many men that have. — Book273

Yeah I've known men that have too. And any women that I've ever met that were hardlined about not having children ever, I can't remember. Though I'm quite certain, they were probably either ugly, or fucked in the head, or old and expired.

Yep, I suspect in a lot of cases you are right. Cultural habits and expectations instilled, without much reflection for why they hold these expectations, why society might be perpetuating them, how they are being influenced by them and perhaps manipulated by it. — schopenhauer1

Totally the case.

I can and have met some. It's not an instinct as much as a cultural expectation and a personal feeling of losing out on the "caregiving of my genetic offspring" experience. I don't equate that with other animals that procreate more because "It's that time of the season" and then go into immediate caregiving mode, literally without reflection due to inability to do so and deliberate on the matter like a human can. — schopenhauer1

I would imagine that such women would be quite undesirable from the superficial man's perspective, but that is not important.

Perhaps you are right, that it is a part of aquired conditioning from an historically embedded culture, but I don't see women giving off that impression. But I cannot ignore that women are tightly engaged with their immediacy, and being that every normal young woman possesses the capacity to procreate, the right to bear progeny is immediately justified for each woman, justified apriori and without reason. The idea of caregiving is merely antecedent to having the baby, it is built into the charm of child bearing for the woman.

Bitch away, bitch away, bitch away.. Just don't blow smoke up my ass by accepting the situation. Everyone has their own sufferings and death by a thousand cuts... — schopenhauer1

Right! Remember Fightclub:

You are not special. You're not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else. We're all part of the same compost heap. We're all singing, all dancing crap of the world. — Tyler Durden