Government funded trial eh. Is that like the hospital that is offering an additional $500.00 to staff that get both vaccinations? Nothing seems wrong with that...:rofl:

Wouldn't that be nice eh! Recognize another's opinion as as valid as one's own and try to find commonality to work together toward general improvement. I could handle seeing more of that.

Do we really need to give people promoting violence the ability to reach thousands of likeminded idiots? — Benkei

Which violence promoting group are we speaking of? radical left, radical right, radically angry?

BLM never called for violence. They did their best to quell it — frank

Except for the violence at the marches, and the rioting, and the arson, etc. I suppose those instances of violence were "politically relevant" and therefore...not violent somehow? I will not say I am deeply versed in the Black Lives Matter movement (All lives matter equally. Which means someone will say I am racist because I believe in equality of people.) however, from a distance, a movement which espouses the injustices done against it, protests those injustices, in the form of social justice, media response, marches and rioting...is it BLM or Trump VS the election? Because from the outside....pretty similar responses by those "wronged".

Sorry, I still don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that violence is the answer. — NOS4A2

Violence is rarely THE answer. However violence is frequently a symptom of a greater underlying problem. People like to think that their perspective is the correct one, therefore, if I vote for "Bob" because Bob is awesome and has all the answers, it seems shocking when not Bob wins the election. It suggests that: A) I am wrong, and Bob isn't that great (which makes people uncomfortable, because they don't want to be wrong) B) That everyone that didn't vote for Bob is either confused or part of some secret agenda to keep me down, or C) Bob actually won (because I really, really wanted him to) and there is a conspiracy afoot to keep Bob down.

People like to pick a winner. If people knew that the person they voted for would not get in, would they still cast their vote for them, or would they vote in the winner, since the outcome is already known? I vote for whoever most closely reflects my values, knowing that they won't get in, but I don't know many people who will knowingly give their vote to a lost cause.

Violence is used as strong demand for attention. Those who feel unheard, or overlooked, or worse, mandated by social pressure to be silent, despite their valid concerns, can always turn to violence as a form of self, and political, expression. My voice may be silenced on social media thanks to censors, my voice may be silenced by those around me who, rather than listen with an open ear, instantly relegate my opinion to some "ist" or other, simply because I present an alternate view point. However, eventually, I will get tired of trying to use my voice to be heard and will elect to use the fist, or club, or whatever, to get the point across.

I am not supporting violence, I am understanding of how it comes about. I support listening to people, I find I learn a lot that way. The best way to raise people to violence: overlook them and trivialize them.

Trump should have gracefully accepted defeat, however, as he has done nothing grace related that I can recall, perhaps that was beyond his capability.

If donating to your candidate means that that candidate is now beholden to you, your candidate can be bought. Why are you donating to them? Someone with more money can buy them away from your interests. Seems like a very bankrupt system. I would support electoral reform that would limit, and equalize, the amount each party could spend on advertising. Included in that limit would be third party advertising. Make the candidate win votes, not brainwash the electors. May the best candidate win, not the one willing to drop the most cash. That would also greatly reduce the influence, perceived or real, that contributors had on a candidate.

Granted, it will likely never happen, but imagine if each party only had a million dollar limit for an election. Any election. The candidate would have to actually inspire people to have themselves be remembered at the polls. Those candidates might actually make a great government.

Is a possible penalty for insurrection still hanging? I am not up to date on my American law.

Rape. Just plain wrong.

Maybe read the story again. viral reduction of the ability to procreate.

Respect, kindness, and consideration form the basis of good manners and good citizen-ship. Etiquette becomes the language of manners. Rules of etiquette cover behavior in talking, acting, living, and moving; in other words, every type of interaction and every situation.

Manners and Etiquette | Encyclopedia.com — encylopedia.com

I agree completely. I find this is increasingly lacking, which is unfortunate.

They're critters. They have no self to save. — Wayfarer

And this effectively describes a great deal of people. Point of fact, I would move more to save the beavers. People should save themselves.

My thought experiment is to point out that the interpretation of a framework is based on the individual doing the interpretation: values, perspectives, experiences. All of which will be used to determine the appropriate course of action (appropriate as the Actor determines, not as the Audience determines). This effectively defines the underlying difficulty in determining both freedom and duty (among a great many other things) as each of these are values based on primarily personal values. The framework provided by Kant is helpful as a guide, however the application is dependent on the actor's interpretation of it.

Actually my story has no one killing anyone, simply reducing the ability to procreate. No suffering for anyone existing. Indeed even the knowledge of the reduction would not be a factor as the change would take place over a number of generations.

My story was not to disparage the teaching of Kant, but to point out that the perspective and values of the individual determine the interpretation and application of Kant's framework.

The something in the question, if that something is claimed to be more than ONE in number, has to be made up of distinct individuals. — TheMadFool

Why are we claiming that there is more than one something? We have one ocean. It has different names for different areas but it is all the same salty piece of water. Why should not the same apply to "something"? If everything is the same something, and simply the counterbalance to nothing, then everything would, in effect, be something and nothing at the same time.

Alternately we could all be part of nothing and dreaming of being something...

Nicely explained. Too bad you don't work for public health, the messages might be clear then.

We are the only animal that can imagine things differently than they are and then manifest the reality we imagine. — Athena

Except for beavers eh. They see a creek, they imagine a home, they build a dam, then a home...

Come to think of it, lots of things change their surroundings to suit their needs, so...

...I guess the prevalent theory is that if we can't communicate with them (let's ignore that maybe they don't want to talk to us) then they can't communicate, and so also cannot have an imagination, or anything else that we don't assign them. (sigh) I find people's inherent arrogance a constant annoyance, continually operating on a jumped up assumption of superiority.

With respect to what happens to our consciousness after death; I adhere to the "energy cannot be destroyed, only transformed" theory. My consciousness will transform, or transmigrate, to an alternate location or energy level. Perhaps some fundamental memories, or memories of memories, will remain for me to build upon in the next go round.

. You would not be you, as you are, alive, without the society that you claim to "choose to play nice" in. — Outlander

Exactly, I am a product of society. Apparently that causes you distress. Tell me again about this society that I am to find solace in, the one that created me.

I find the level of education, and seemingly unwillingness of people to seek self improvement, disheartening. Perhaps, as this current virus fiasco plays out, people will choose to do their own research and come to their own conclusions about what matters to them. What appears to be a culture of lazy thinking is most disheartening of all.

Lots of words, little answer provided. So I should respect society because...?

Freedom of speech does not mean a freedom to occupy whatever platform you choose. You do not have the freedom to take over university spaces, take over media platforms, or put up pro-Nazi posters on other people's or public property. Nor does it mean that others must be silent so that your speech must be heard: you do not have a right to be heard in a vacuum! — Kenosha Kid

Exactly. Only Antifa can do that, because they are more equal than every other voice.

Gophers also have managed an admirable state of Zen.

And no, as a species we are far from achieving a Zen state.

How can a man that wishes for evil and does good, therefore doing good by error, be a good man? — Matei

I do good, not because I wish to do good, but because the few I care about would suffer were I to do the evils I desire, therefore, due to self imposed restrictions of not wanting to cause my loved ones suffering, I restrain my true desires and continue to follow "Socially acceptable actions", despite knowing I am, in truth, living an exceedingly long winded lie.

The fundamental difference is that I am not doing good through error, I am doing good by choice, not because I prefer good, but because I am aware of the results my true desires would have on my few valued people, were I to indulge in these desires. Were these factors to be suddenly and irrevocably removed from my life, my choices would be very different. No longer would I choose to play nice.

Does that make me a good man thinking he is evil, or an evil man playing at being good?

we don't see beavers building the pyramids. We don't see them arranging a dam so beautiful that they hope it will be remembered forever by all the beavers to come — five G

Beavers are not pretentious. They have accepted that they are fundamentally cool and so are comfortable remaining at that level, therefore, as they have found true balance in themselves, feel no urge to seek a radically different world.

We could do worse than to aspire to the Zen state of the beaver.

Duty, for the moment, is just what reason tells us ought to done — tim wood

Let us call this parameter one.

Duty itself informed by good will. — tim wood

Let us call this parameter two.

Therefore, applying the above two parameters, I postulate the following:

Mark realizes that, due to pollution, over harvesting, habitat destruction, over population, and the lack of meaningful change to rectify these problems, the earth will no longer be able to sustain life, human or otherwise, within the next three hundred years. Mark, being an exceedingly talented geneticist, has the ability to create a virus which will eliminate 75% of the human population over the next hundred years. There is no suffering to speak of, simply a massive reduction in the ability to reproduce and the resulting population decline. This action will result in the betterment of future generations as well as restoring global balance and harmony.

Duty suggests that Mark release his virus, despite his personal feelings on the issue. He is aware of both outcomes, elimination of everyone (no action on his part) or elimination of 75% of humanity (action on his part). Good will (ensuring that life goes on) informs Mark's Duty to Act, which is supported by reason (Continuation of life over the cessation of life), and therefore, the act that Ought to be done.

And there is a rationalized justification for an act that most would consider genocidal. Lovely frame work. Thanks Kant.

You present an interesting dilemma: choosing which identity issue is more valid and therefore more supportable. Narcists and megalomaniacs are apparently not to be supported but gender confused individuals are ok to support. Should I also be supportive of those who believe their capabilities are greater than they are? What about those who believe they are far less capable than they are? What if I identify as being of another race, is that supportable, or should someone simply tell me to look in the mirror and move on?
I am very much supportive of people seeking to improve themselves and have never told anyone that they are incapable of attaining their goals. I have said that they might have to work harder than others, but not to let that stop them. I did have a friend that, for all purposes, identified as being of a different race. He was exceedingly annoying for about 8 months, at which point I showed him a mirror and told him to let it go, he was not of the race he identified with. That was the last time he brought it up or behaved in that manner. I did not think my behaviour was wrong then, nor do I now.

I take issue with the idea that I am expected to address people by the gender identity that they claim to relate to, rather than the gender they appear to be biologically assigned. I say appear to be assigned because I am not confirming this assignment. My reason for this is simple: if you wish to be addressed as a woman, appear as a woman. If as a man, appear as such. People are visual creatures, our survival has been based on the ability to see something, relegate it a position (food, threat, mate, etc) in an instant, and move forward on that judgement. However, if I am required, or expected, to ignore my evolutionary prerogatives in order to better accommodate someone's feelings, I find that I respond in a dismissive manner. In short, I can't be bothered because I don't care enough to be. Also, as I am unconcerned about other's opinions of me (for the vast majority of the time) I find it ridiculous that someone who does not know me should place any worth on my opinion of them. I find the expectation that anyone should be expected to make that kind of accommodation for anyone else an exceedingly selfish concept.

If I identified with being a divine power, is it reasonable of me to expect everyone to address me as "Oh most Holy Divine One."? I think not, nor should I ever expect it.

Gender is the descriptor of an idea which supports a generalized pattern of behaviours that allows for a rapid, albeit non-specific, understanding of whatever that descriptor is being applied to by an outside observer. For example, I say "Male" and the reader has an almost instant general understanding of what I mean. The same is true for "Female", Masculine and Feminine, etc.

Gender identity is only of importance to those who are trying to shape the perspective of others. My dog doesn't care if I call him a male, female, or a turnip. He will, however, respond as a male dog when she smells a female in heat. She is also unconcerned about what I call her. Neither are concerned with societal labels. That is a people thing.

Where are you getting your basics from? I am surrounded by those who have more than "the basics" physically and economically at least, and who are solidly within your unflattering description of Americans.

Then I’m free. Not just free in the superficial, narrow American way: free to have stuff. I’m free in an existential, social, emotional, cultural, human way. I’m free to cultivate, develop, nurture higher values and virtues. I can be trusting, kind, generous, empathic. I can be thoughtful, critical, reflective. I can be humble and warm and appreciate beauty and truth. I am free to be a genuinely good person. Human goodness has been freed in me. — StreetlightX

I could say that I have seen this type of freedom in action. In truth I have, in very isolated instances, and unrelated to nationality. I have seen it in those who are able to look past themselves and seek a greater understanding of the world around them, seeking to find the balance and harmony within the chaos of the everyday. It is there, and once one know what to look for, easy enough to find. However, I have not identified any substantial increase in enlightened types based on geographic region ( granted I have not spent much time in monasteries. Too bad really). I have also found the enlightened in mean regions and exceedingly poor neighbourhoods, where the basics are not so common. I would suggest that those with the least to share are often the most generous and understanding towards others.

Your version of Canadians is flattering. Mostly wrong in my experience, but flattering all the same. Thanks eh!

if you exclude everyone that disagrees with you as having a personal issue, and then use an assumed perspective that everyone that does not have what you have must, for an unknown reason, want everything you have, then your position; that this is the best of possible worlds, needs the simple qualifier "according to me". As for that, I cannot gainsay you: clearly you believe it is.

It is unfortunate that you seem to look down on those who would do manual labour for the value of it. With respect to freedom from need...where exactly is that? I have never lived there. Freedom from want? Same question. Freedom from early death...define early. Also, where is that again? Incessant labour? North Americans work 2000 hours a year. Feudal serfs worked approximately 1600. So once more, where are you referring to? As for being governed by available sunlight; thanks to the electric bulb we can get in another 400 hours of labour a year. YEAH! of course that shoots your "reduced need for incessant labour" theory to crap eh.

Swing and Miss!

The cause of any substantial population decline, in any population, will not be pleasant to observe, let alone partake of. It is an interesting study of global panic and the sociological responses to massive information, accurate or not, overload. Certainly popcorn worthy while watching.

Can you say electricity, washing machine, microwave, supermarket, vaccinations? — tim wood

You effectively capture a great deal that I dislike about people in one short sentence. 4 out of five items enhance laziness, the other, while beneficial, has also been used as a bludgeon on those who oppose it. Many people, intelligent people, with different values than, presumably, yours, would suggest that nothing you mentioned has a great deal of value to them. Certainly not enough value to be added to the list of things that make this "the best of all possible worlds."
There are more things under heaven than are considered in your philosophy.

I elected a "work before school" model. Graduate High school (terrible education and I cared not at all). I chose to get trade certification (red sealed Journeyman), and proceeded to fund my way through an additional diploma, a degree, and other specialized training. Along the way I developed an addiction for further education and now I take programs for funsies. All in I have invested, roughly, $250,000.00 (Canadian) in my education and will likely just keep throwing money at it as I amuse myself with knowledge. Starting in the trades was the best move I ever made (thanks Dad for suggesting it) as while everyone else in my college courses were making minimum wage I was pulling in three times that. Made a huge difference and allowed me to save more money as I don't have to pay for tradesmen for repairs. I would recommend to anyone to get the trade first, then "higher" education, whatever that is supposed to be now.

Indeed. It is the requiring of it that I would avoid. Thanks for the suggestion though.

Nope, not disappointed. Sometimes a decent debate ensues, which is always enjoyable. It is unfortunate when it descends into name calling. That reflects poorly on the name caller and does nothing for the debate.

Funny how a little perspective changes so much eh! Thank god I am not 20 anymore...YEECH!!

Pretty much, I am not here to change minds. Maybe there is an off chance I say something that makes someone take a moment to think about the topic. Their conclusions are their own. My only goal is to promote active consideration of the topic. Hopefully people understand why they have taken the stand they have. Many I have spoken to respond as if programmed, which is too bad. What's the point of free will if we won't even look around?

Flawed, certainly. Beautiful...it has it's moments, but they are far between and I am starting to not look for them anymore. I appreciate the world and all it's wonders, but people...not so much. That's been burnt out of me.

Not as frustrating as you might think, although my opinion of the race is in decline. Which is saying something as I did not have a high opinion of it prior to this.

it would be all right for me to carry a rifle into your neighborhood and just start shooting wherever? After all, probably won't kill too many, and we all know there are more where they came from. And the odds for any individual are pretty good. Not worth closing down the neighborhood just for that, right — tim wood

You could try, but make no mistake, someone will put you down hard within a minute or two, and likely into a field shortly thereafter. Your comparison is idiotic.

But the war isn't over, and while subject to the vaccine's efficacy, may not yet even have properly begun. Business-as-usual, then, is head-in-the-sand. — tim wood

There is no war. There is panic, and world class media bullshit, but basically, just panic. As far as head in the sand goes, WHO released a fairly well buried study a few months back about the effects of the lockdowns on TB related deaths: an additional 1.18 million deaths for every 3 months of lockdown, due to non-diagnosis and non-treatment. So from a life for a life, using TB only, for every life lost by Covid we can add another 3.6 due to the life saving lockdown. I feel safer already. Forget the overdose death increases and suicides, and future starvation due to destroyed supply lines. Those don't matter eh.

risk-aversion, stability seeking. That pretty much sums it up. Little risk, little payoff. I know it sounds cliche, but it is also accurate.

I grew up in relative poverty, parents grew up in orphanages, but the home life was mostly stable. Left home at 18. High school grades were crap, because I didn't care about school. I got a trade certification, lived in a shed for 10 months while paying down bills, went back to school. Worked at a strip club as a "hotdog guy" (yeah, THAT hotdog guy) to pay bills. It paid well and gave me time to study. Got a decent job. Things went sideways, went bankrupt, went back to school, another degree, a few more specialties. Now I pull in six figures, have an affordable home and vehicle, and a modest lifestyle. Totally stable. You know, until it isn't and I have to regroup and do it again.

Funny part is, all my buddies that elected the "safe route", with solid jobs early on, and secure investments, still, mostly have their jobs, and their investments, and should be mortgage free in five more years or so, they have less education than I do, less mobility, and are less secure, as if they lose their jobs they have problem. If/when I lose mine I will shrug, and get another. No worries.

I guess the point of it is: for those who want to work hard, get educated, are flexible and willing to take a risk, success is possible. For the "safe" route types, success is still possible, but perhaps less grand. However, success is in one's perspective, and I am certain that, despite how I may feel about my choices, others would be much less enthusiastic about taking my path, as I would would be with theirs. That captures the concept of equal opportunity of success to me.