"And it will begin anew"? Don't you really mean "It will be finished forever"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Nope. I mean it will begin anew. Not sure how that was unclear.

I think human life is no more special than any other life. Saying every human life has value is poorly thought out. Every mosquitos life also has value, just check with the mosquito. I still dislike mosquito bites and will kill them as needed without a second thought. I am not saying they don't value their life, nor that their life has no value, however, in the grand scheme of things, I take being not itchy over a happy healthy mosquito. Same approach applies to humans. We aren't exactly rare or anything, so saying every life has value...Meh.

I am not concerned with death. She is an old friend that will call on me as she chooses. When she does, I will hold her hand and walk through that door with her. And it will begin anew.

We intuitively feel that using a thermometer gives a higher probability that the weather outside will match your belief. — Curious Layman

But why do you believe that? I do not. The thermometer may corroborate something I already believe, as will seeing buddy walk by in, what I believe to be, appropriate clothes. I have experienced days that froze my ass, while the thermometer implied they should have been balmy. The thermometer doesn't consider wind, and humidity, and all the other little details that living bodies feel. Buddy in the coat likely does, even if his normals are different than mine. Neither the thermometer nor the other dude are the best choices to check the weather. Pop your head out the door and figure it out yourself.

Also...I am not insignificant. Just ask me.

Size is irrelevant. Consider: The coronavirus is tiny. Despite this, it has, through direct and indirect (plague and panic), effectively changed the actions of an entire race, and through that has also had an impact on the rest of the planet. Tiny virus; huge change. Size is a detail, influence is important.

It's all in the fucking paper, if you pardon my language — god must be atheist

it isn't actually. The "paper" as you call it isn't overly clear. It is also based on an assumed premise and once that premise is removed, the paper falls apart. I was hoping for more. Hopefully not your best work.

autonomous moral codes — god must be atheist

First problem: your autonomous moral code theory is still voluntary. Animals, including people, do not always save their young, neither do we necessarily feel any guilt over not saving them. So there is no actual autonomous moral code, although I can see why the idea has appeal. Without the concept of autonomous morality your premise is bankrupt.

Second problem: The previous ethicists' attempts to determine a moral pathway are generally universally applicable within the specific parameters of whatever culture someone is seeking ethical guidance in. Morality, as you pointed out (rather unclearly), is dependent on cultural perspective, therefore providing specific directions (only eat yellow beans) will not work, as cultures vary. However, providing general guidelines (always try for maximal Good) will be much more productive. The definition of Good may change in each culture, however, as each culture has a definition of Good, then seeking the maximal Good from each action will be recognized as the preferred moral option for each, and every, culture. Therefore seeking maximal Good is a basic and clear code for universal morality.

Third problem: Some of us feel no guilt. We approach life with eyes open and do, or do not, based on our own reasons and never look back again, except to learn from an outcome. Using guilt as an indicator of a poor moral decision excludes us guilt-free types.

Every human life has value — Lif3r

No, not really. Unless you mean as a bad example. Something you can point out to others as a "Something to strive to never be like", then....still going with no.

So you believe that mortal man can derive an ethic that is superior to God, (who happens to be all-everything)? That's reaching a bit, no? — synthesis

Not reaching at all. As men are interpreting their "version" of what God intends (the existence of God is irrelevant since there is no direct intervention or direction provided by God) any ethic is derived from man, not God. Therefore, all ethics are derived from man and are of equal stature. Horrific things have been done in the name of religion, I would put money that more have been done on behalf of "divinity" than simply "because". I can't be wrong if "God will it."

"kill them all. God will know his own."

you could do either. I suspect the results will be less than ideal, based on your understanding of physiology, but hey, don't let that stop you. Have fun with it eh.

All the same, I will carry on treating my patients based on my understanding of medicine, health, and physiological response to stress as I understand it and according to my training, not as you have presented it.

Your version of shock is amusing, astoundingly inaccurate, but entertaining. The digestion system will slow to crawl, the peripheral circulatory system will shutdown next, hence cold fingers and hands, as the body shunts blood to the more critical systems in the core (central nervous system, heart, lungs etc). Then the kidneys will shutdown, liver, etc. So pretty much exactly the opposite of what you said. Thanks for coming out.

Nicely put Jack.

Can't say that I need the luck, but thanks anyway. The end of your discussion was, unfortunately, predictable. I would like to debate with a "pro-lifer" whose position is based on more sound ground than "because it is wrong", however, perhaps that is the only ground they have?

A profound propensity to postulate poorly? Nice alliteration.

The developing embryo has no autonomy. You are transferring your desire onto it; an action that is morally wrong, despite how you may feel about it.

I am for personal autonomy. You make your decisions based on your values; I can respect that. I make mine based on mine. As we are not each other, your values have, and should have, no influence over me, or my actions, as my values should not influence you.

So, yes, to answer your question directly, I am supporter of the individual's choice. If Bob wants to live, great. Let's see if we can help him live well. If he wants to die, let's help him do that well also. If Mary wants to bear her child, or not, same thing. I am not interested in checking with anyone except the primary individual involved.

Respect all life equally; not just the human.

For those faced with those decisions there is a very real difference between stopping machines you set up and shooting the person in the head. This is not an "on paper" issue. It's life and blood reality — Gregory

I completely agree: huge difference between a head shot and turning off the machines. The headshot is relatively instant and as such, much more humane. Turning off the machines means the body lingers, gasps if it can, and if there is brain function remaining, is acutely aware of the impending death, which, depending on the resilience and strength of the organism, can take quite awhile. Gasping, struggling, choking, and slowly fading away.

Personally I will take the bullet option, ideally while I am sleeping.

Go turn off a machine and start counting...it lasts much longer than a gunshot.

I think they do pick up on the "take it or leave it" attitude. Once they realize you are not vested in their belief, they believe you as you having nothing to gain either way.

Did you know it was a lie when you wrote it? or did your understanding increase over time such that, in hindsight, that which you wrote in good conscience as truth, became a lie with additional knowledge and experience? Little difference in practicality, however, a substantial moral difference between the two.

I used to lie like a sidewalk. Looking back I am not sure why, but there it is. Now I can't be bothered. Either I respect you, in which case you deserve the truth, or I don't give a damn, in which case I cannot be bothered to create a lie, so you get the truth. Also, it is much easier to remember.

I will take the 100 million. Easy choice.

Notice the scenario: Buddy is tied to the tracks, not lying across them unconscious; presumably he has been tied there because someone, more familiar with him than I, felt that being runover by a train was a fitting end for his behaviour. Who am I to gainsay that and undo their efforts?

Also, those who say "that is murder"...clearly have never killed anything. Killing isn't a passive act, neither is rescuing. Either way involves getting in there and engaging. Both require taking a stand. I am not for, or against the guy on the tracks, I haven't enough information to be anything but ambivalent to his fate. I am not ambivalent about the money, I could use it.

Argument: conception is the result of the sexual act, therefore, abortion is morally wrong, despite the intentions of those who engaged in said act.

Counter: I enjoy swimming. Sometimes I swim in non-sterile environments (lakes, rivers, ponds, the ocean. etc.) Prior to swimming in these environments I am aware that I could potentially end up with some sort of unwanted result: swimmer's ear, a leech or two, etc. I swim anyway, knowing the possible result. Should any of these unwanted results occur I take the appropriate steps to resolve the problem. More applicable to the abortion comparison: If after a pond swim I should happen to find a leech or two on me I do not consider it my moral duty to allow it to continue to drink my blood, despite my knowing that I could end up with a leech on me. I remove it with a knife. I do not, generally, kill it; there is no need. An unwanted life form living off of another is called a parasite. I do not advocate for the continued existence of a parasite on moral grounds, regardless of the parasite.

male demographic of contributors on this forum are like me: youngish, humanities-educated, and nerdy. — BigThoughtDropper

Not sure about the youngish. Not humanities educated, not nerdy in the traditional sense. Think delinquent.

My understanding of the current political narrative is that men are merely a broken version of woman. Which has no logic to it, but that is not an apparent requisite for a political climate, so no worries there.

I accept that people have very little use for me until they suddenly do. Like many things, value is only assigned based on necessity, and until the shit storm hits, some of us have very little value; our presence makes people nervous. My phone rings when something has gone wrong and needs to be fixed, the pager goes off when something has gone very wrong. Otherwise, my life is relaxed and quiet.

The modern man is an oddity to me; I have no use for him, or the modern woman for that matter. I will judge based on actions, words, and integrity. Gender is not part of that equation, nor is anything else immediately visible.

the "current state" the world is in! It shouldn't have been. — counterpunch

Again, I see what is. We are not worth saving, period. If things had been different...blah, blah, blah, pointless discussion. If I weren't me and if we weren't us has no value, we are what we are, and I don't think we are worth saving.

Your approach suggests that we are somehow "all wrong" due to the influence of the church, however, I suggest that far before the church intervened in anything, we were already "wrong". Welcome to humanity, we kinda suck.

I am going to a full dementia comparison on this one.

So the fully involved dementia patient is solidly in their own created reality; they see the little people dancing, they hear the music playing, they smell the food at the buffet. They are immersed in this reality. To them it is not created, it is fact. It disturbs us, not because the patient is distressed, or in pain, but because it is a reality that has nothing to do with us and the only way we can influence it is to destroy it through the application of drugs, enough to reduce the patient to a quasi-nonfunctioning state. We can't even confirm that the state no longer exists, however, as the patient can no longer communicate with us due to the amount of drugs we have given them, we feel better as our reality is not challenged.

Comforting eh?

We could be completely involved in an illusion; the last fleeting ideas of a dying mind. Really, since we are all in it, who would know?

I understand what you are proposing. The feasibility of it has yet to be determined, clearly you have looked into it far more than I have so I cannot gainsay any of your statements, I simply lack the information required to do so. My position is simple: Humanity, as a species, is not something I consider worth saving in it's current state. Feasibility doesn't play into it.

The coronavirus likely wants to carry on in perpetuity as well. Doesn't mean it should.

'What the hell is wrong with you?' — counterpunch

my main problem is that I see what is. Not what could be, what was, what might be, etc. All the possibilities are grand, and very easy to get caught up in, so...don't do that. Look at what is:

Our climate has gone to shit. Maybe it was going there anyway, geologically we know it heats up and then cools down in a cycle, and yes, it was on a heat up cycle, although the scientific consensus is that humans increased the rate of heating substantially. Not a selling feature for our intelligence; smart enough to do it, too stupid to realize we shouldn't.

Our population continues to increase, despite the number of starving people out there. Argue as you like about having enough food to feed them; they are starving anyway. Smart enough to make the food, too stupid to deliver it. Again, doesn't speak well for species intelligence.

Death is unavoidable to the individual. Doesn't matter who you are, where you live, or what you choose to do; you are going to die. Yet, we call most deaths "preventable". Um, NO. End of story. Delayable, maybe. So... Smart enough to create language; too stupid to use it correctly. Just pathetic.

The list is nearly endless and I will not bore anyone further by providing further examples.

Can humanity ensure its future through technology and intelligence? I sincerely doubt it. However, as I watch some asshole swerve to rundown a porcupine that is walking along the side of the highway I hope with everything I have that we can't. We don't deserve to.

Is unnecessarily poisoning the well a legitimate argument tactic? — schopenhauer1

I agree with your position completely. Although, admittedly, I also agree with your second statement. I have responded on occasion with what would be considered an insult. Not as an opener, but mostly from exasperation when dealing with someone who refuses to consider an alternate perspective, despite numerous attempts to reframe it in various ways. I find insults always detract from the discussion. In my mind the one that first falls to insults has, in effect, admitted defeat: I can't out think you, so I will simply hurl insults as a cover.

The medical community, model, corporation (whatever name you want to call it) is not trying to harm you, it is also not overly interested in helping you much either. It is very interested in appearing like it is trying very hard to help you, and everyone else, as that creates a positive image for it, increases faith in the system and ensures the system lives on. The system cares very much about the system, individuals...not so much. So yes, educating oneself is logical, having faith in your healthcare provider is good. Having blind faith in them is foolish.

I remember working hospitals that were at 115% of bed capacity 10 years ago. Treating patients in the halls, or large janitor closets. Moving furniture out of the common area and using sheets to create a makeshift tent city to accommodate an extra 6 patients for a week. Nothing made the news. I recall reporting to work and being told by the nursing supervisor that we had to shutdown all elective surgeries and clinics that day because a full third of the hospital nursing staff called in sick that day. Not a strike, just a reminder of what happens when a policy change is not appreciated by staff. Again, not news worthy. The bed shortages are nothing new. Running over capacity and under staffed is nothing new. The incessant news coverage of the potential to operate this way is certainly new, but otherwise...business as usual. Now our unit is down staff due to Covid. This year it's Covid, last year was Covid. The year before was Norovirus (nasty little thing). Norovirus usually runs staffing numbers down for a month or so. Nothing new there. Outside of the constant news storm, not really certain about what the fuss is about...It's just another day.

We can't both be correct. — Bartricks

Absolutely we both can be correct. We are voicing opinions, you can only be wrong if you voice an opinion you don't believe, and really, why do that?

You are not wrong, however, neither am I. Comforting eh?

Not real clear how my carrying a knife is relevant to my ability to discern questionable directives based on cloudy science, but ok, clearly you have an issue with knives...likely guns too.

I don't want to do my own study. That is ridiculous. However, I did research the methodology used to determine the efficacy of the first three vaccines. Questionable is the kindest term I am willing to use. I have spent approximately 100 hours doing lit research on coronavirus vaccines, recent and more distant, nothing really reassuring came up. I have researched mask usage, again, nothing reassuring came up. Physical distancing as well, that one has actual value and real data to support it, so yay, 1 out of three so far. Lockdowns, nothing to support. Border closure, still nothing. So 1 out of 5 with real data to support it. No way could I run my practice with that poor of a track record.

Few people want to hear what I have to say. Most react on par with you. Which is fine, we all have our own positions and thoughts. Interestingly though, I am not name calling anyone on the other side, or calling them down. Hell I am not even saying I am right. I am presenting an alternative, and pointing out why, potentially, it could be the correct version of events. The emotional level of the responses to my theory, frankly, adds strength to it. If I said the response to Covid was brought about by beagles I would be ignored, that I have not been is highly suggestive that people believe me, and that makes them nervous.

"there are none so blind as those who will not see"

sure, but science changing in 4 days? on multiple points, all aligning to secure an otherwise tenuous position? Highly suspect.

why are all these medical professionals in support of the dominant narrative and dismissive of more balanced approaches? — dazed

There are multiple reasons why it seems that most medical professional are supporting the dominant narrative, rather than balanced approaches: Firstly, the threat of losing our employment is real if we speak out against the current sales pitch. (Notice the my name is not featured on my posts). Secondly, not that many are willing to look too hard at the "facts". (We get nervous too, and many, many people will cling to false hope, rather than admit reality). Lastly, which ties into the second point, about false hope, if I tell you the vaccine won't work (I am not saying that, I have no idea) do you want to believe me, or would you rather that I am wrong, that I must be wrong, so you feel better, more secure.


Also, the leaders (?) of the world felt compelled to act last spring, and act fast. So, regardless of the initial science against it, the world went into some version of lockdown, (which was advised against by WHO and a multitude of other advisors) then the world went to general masking, (Which was also advised against by the WHO and a multitude of advisors) and the leaders of the world were clearly seen to be doing something (the fact that there was no actual science to support these decisions was glossed over). Then in April, suddenly the science changed. In Canada this change took place over the weekend: Thursday the Chief medical officer of Canada said essentially "there is no scientific support for lockdowns, border closures, or generalized masking. None of these interventions will help stop the virus, however they will cause severe harm to the economy and the mental health of the populations affected." Our prime minister had a "weekend emergency meeting" with the provincial leaders and Chief medical officers...Tuesday the same chief medical officer said "Lockdowns, border closures, and general masking will provide an effective control of the virus; the science is there." I call bullshit. Science doesn't change that fast. Political pressure moves that fast though. The WHO changed it's tune as well, doing a complete 180 on it's previous stance; thereby backing all the governments that had already made these changes based on needing to be seen to do something.

So I put it out there: Does anyone think that, if the lockdowns and border closures and masking were a mistake, any government would admit that mistake? Not a chance in hell. Way easier to motivate the leaders of a few key areas to support the changes than to own the catastrophe.

I would suggest that we already follow the idea of miller's Law, or at least, the majority of us do. We, generally, do not read an op and instantly assume it is a lie, or seek only to disprove it as false, although I do recognize that frequently we do point out flaws, or disagree with a posted opinion, not out of an assumption that the other is based on an untruth, but that we may have found a flaw in the logic. This, to me, is healthy and appropriate debate and discussion of a topic. Most of us do this. A few respond with insults rather than healthy debate, but that is true for all discussions, sometimes you just have to write off a response.

I feel basically the same about it. I am not supported in doing my own research on it, I am advised to promote it based only on propaganda. Makes me nervous.

Other people are absolutely for entertainment, as is pretty much everything else.

Not to rain on your Anti-kid parade, because it's a decent rant, but kids are cool. Show me a screwed up kid and I will show you a bad parent.

Depends on your life experience. I would rather have a gun, or knife, and not need than need and not have. I am not allowed to carry a gun in Canada so I pack a knife. I am able, and willing, to use it as needed, when needed. Most people would not believe how often I have needed it. They have had a sheltered, soft life, and good for them. I only have a problem when those who have lived that life attempt to dictate the terms I live mine by.

I don't care if pharma makes money on the vaccine. Good for them; people need jobs, pharma creates jobs. I get that. I simply want the right to decline the vaccine. I have done the research and there are tons of red flags popping up. Likely the vaccine won't cause much nasty long term effects, I admit that. However, since we don't know, I can't recommend it to any of my patients. I won't take it myself. The sales pitch math doesn't add up, and the efficacy of the vaccine is highly questionable, again due to methodology of testing and the premise used to determine said efficacy. Lastly, it has been a professional expectation and requirement that I do my own information and research gathering with respect to medication administration prior to administering said medication, for any and all medications I am expected to administer. Know what, know why, know how, know what can go wrong, from sources other than the manufacturer. Peer reviewed articles, etc. Standard operating practice really, and it makes sense; my patient expects me to know something about whatever treatment, medication or otherwise, that I recommend.
Enter the Coronavirus vaccine: Never before has the registering college made it a registration requirement to promote a public health policy. I used to be required to advocate for my patient, each patient, based on their individual needs. Now apparently my patient is...the public health agency. And their position is so weak that it cannot bear scrutiny, and so must mandate the support of registered healthcare workers, rather than simply be robust and allow us to determine that supporting the policy is sound. I have said to my superiors, "rather than tell me how to tell my patients this is a good idea, convince ME that it is a good idea. I will have no difficulty speaking with my patients after that." The collective response amounted to "because". That is a full stop in my book.