Therefore, choose life; choose to be vulnerable, choose to be dependent on others for your happiness. Care about people and be sad at the pain and misery in the world. — unenlightened

Alternately, choose life and laugh at the pain and misery in the world. Care about whatever you choose, be dependent on nothing but yourself for happiness, otherwise you are choosing the pseudo-life of a parasite. Enjoy whatever you choose.

assume consciousness arises from matter while logically it cannot — leo

I would suggest that consciousness itself defies logic, therefore to assume it does, or does not, arise from matter is an assumption based on nothing. The concept of consciousness is, essentially, thought. However, thought without communication is not verifiable, therefore, does not exist. There is a pervasive assumption that rocks are not conscious, some postulate that lesser animals do not think (no idea how this is supported, but not relevant currently), etc. all of these that lack consciousness or thought also have the distinction that we are not able to communicate with them. Ergo, our lack of ability to communicate with something seemingly immediately relegates said thing to the realm of not conscious or unthinking. Which suggest more of a lack of ability on our part, rather than a deficiency in that which we are judging.

Our "laws" of the universe are attempts to explain that which we have observed and the universe doesn't care what we use to describe it. Our laws constrain nothing, except ourselves.

Your post assumes that you need salvation, which may be, you can judge that. Some of us are not seeking salvation, indeed have no interest in a deity who seeks to save us.

That the deity you mention seems so intent on having people only worship him, in order to save themselves, seems...weak and bankrupt. If I am all powerful, why do I need your worship? Worship whoever you like, makes no difference to me, I am all powerful anyway. Never really appreciated the sales pitch associated with Christianity, just generally unappealing.

The eastern philosophies seem much more thought out, something you can sink your teeth into.

try "that which is" I find it more comprehensive, however that might be me. I have also heard of "IT" being addressed as "the un-nameable"

the thing. John carpenter's with Kurt Russel. Go old school.

Have a genuine interest, have a true love for people, and they will like you; and if they don’t like it, then you’ll be sure they’re stupid. — Rafaella Leon

That may be the most amusing thing I have read in a while. Also the most judgmental. Just inspiring.

Shyness is not the same as being an introvert. Shyness is being nervous or timid in other people's company, usually based on a fear of other people's reactions to oneself. Shyness is an extremely expensive character trait and one that most people cannot afford.

Introverts tend to live in their own thoughts and do not require other people around to be comfortable or happy. Hence, less concerned with other people's company. In fact other people are often a distraction to the introvert's thought processes. "We don't talk our stuff out, and your talking is distracting so I will leave now to think."

Extroverts are more vocal, social and seemingly outgoing, requiring the company of others to feel comfortable. "We like to talk it out, explain out thoughts aloud and adjust them as we go".

Antisocial types have no use for your opinion, and while they might have a use for you, you might not like it, and that doesn't bother them either.

repsondus interruptus.

Pessimistic thinking is the opposite of optimistic thinking: things won't work out, despite evidence supporting that they will work out.

The old adage the glass is half full is optimistic, versus half empty, pessimistic. The true optimist however responds "Cool! I have a glass!"

Assuming what I said were the only possible outcomes is it optimistic the way I stated it? — TiredThinker

Not optimistic, unless your version of optimistic is Eeyore.

Optimistic thinking is electing to believe things will work out well despite evidence against it.

I don't have that kind of time on my hands. Mostly they are about self realization. That's a much assistance as I can provide, the rest is up to you.

Thanks. Go evolution!

Not even if they pay me. Thanks.

On the upside I finally figured out what my issue is with the response I have been seeing to this Covid bug. S.I.R.S!!! Only with the human population of the planet as the body. Totally makes sense now. And it has a high mortality rate left untreated, so...The whales are gonna win. I am ok with that.

S.I.R.S: Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome. For those who don't know. Look it up, apply it globally, and good luck.

you really do not understand his posts do you? Just not getting it. It's ok, intellectual diversity is everywhere.

I absolutely reject the notion that any person is equal. The only equality I acknowledge between individuals is that each one is equally unequal. — Merkwurdichliebe

Amen Brother. That captures it succinctly.

Just a stellar post in its entirety.

It certainly isn't based on reason. outside of that...funsies?

Anecdotal study:

12 people wore masks everywhere and after 2 weeks were found to not have T.B
Conclusion: generalized mask wearing prevents T.B

Not mentioned information: there were no cases of T.B in the region of the study group, ergo, there was no chance to catch T.B regardless of what they wore or did.

Do a real study, send me results. I want to be given actual data supporting your position. Then I will shut the hell up and wear a mask. Until then, unless you have data, you have an opinion, as do I. I know what mine is based on but can not speak to yours.

observation: my boss is a woman, my friend's boss is a woman. Conclusion: all bosses are women.

I see a problem with observational studies. Too much bias. I want to see result "A". Shockingly, my observational study reveals result "A". I am a hero. Yay me. Of course, as I disregarding everything that did not support "A" as a result...the outcome was predetermined. So not a hero, but full of shit. However if no one looks at my process...Yay, I am a hero.

any act done under compulsion is not free — tim wood

Agreed.

makes sense, since we are being asked to wear undies on our face...I see the connection.

Not really. But I am not saying I live in a "free society", It is however, the common rhetoric and is inaccurate, which is what I am saying, in a nutshell.

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. — jorndoe

Which is it; Wide spread or in labs?
Wide spread masking does not make a difference. If you have an actual study, Not a health organization reference, but an actual study, I would love to read it. Again, not an observational or anecdotal study, something peer reviewed and robust, that I could use in my practice.

Lab use of masks is not wide spread use. I use mask when suctioning patients, and they work under those circumstances. Of course I use an N95, not the crap on my face right now. And a face mask, because who wants that splashing on your face or your eye, or anywhere else? So, yes specific, procedurally appropriate PPE is valid, functional and totally supported by me. However, I do not use my hazmat suit to go shopping, only for hazmat appropriate events.

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.

You assume I am concerned about catching this. Interesting assumption.

It's quite simple. Don't tell me I am free to make my choices and then give me a list of things that are not allowed. Skip the bullshit and just tell me what is allowed. Be clear, be honest about it. If something is not permitted do not wait until someone has decided to do it and then say "no". Open with "not this". Clarity.

There are rules in games, which we follow, or we elect no to play. Once alive one is obligated to play, unless on elects to self remove, so we play by certain rules. Saying those rules do not exist is simply false. I am not saying right or wrong, just denying them is inaccurate.

I don't want to wear any mask at all, end of story. I am no less safe now without a mask than I was 18 months ago. This bug has a name, untold numbers of undiscovered ones don't, and I am unconcerned about all of them. I am not saying they aren't real, I am saying that I am not more worried about them than I was before all this started. I wasn't wearing masks 18 months ago and when I am not at work (because I like my job) I still don't wear a mask.

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

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.

Except masks don't actually work eh. WHO acknowledges this, my local health region's scientific advisory committee acknowledges this on the bottom of page one of their most recent report,...I haven't seen any actual studies that support generalized masking anywhere, and I have been looking. I would love to see some numbers from non-bias studies. So skip the anecdotal and observational studies, those result in whatever the observer wants them to.

Also the math is wrong: My mask ( that work makes me wear) is designed to stop over 95% of bacteria and pollen. Great. Bacteria are, on average 20 times greater diameter than the Coronavirus, so, mathematically, this is like using a volley ball net, set up appropriately for volley balls, to stop paint balls. To me this seems ridiculously ineffective. I am thinking the pain balls are gonna hit me anyway, so why bother with the net?

Society has rules, I get that. My opinion of these rules is irrelevant. The issue that I take is with the description "free", it is on par with the annoyance I have with the description of "voluntary" traffic fines. Neither appellation is accurate. Society has rules, therefore is not free. Anarchy is free, might not be what most people want, but the description is accurate. And yes, in a free society, you could kill someone you don't like, and someone could then exact revenge upon you, etc. Since we have rules to prevent that...Not Free. Just saying.

If I elect to not pay my "voluntary" fine I will lose my license and eventually end up in jail. Again, not voluntary, as refusing results in punitive measures. So not voluntary. If this version of voluntary can not be used universally without resulting in jail time it is not actually voluntary.

I support accurate word use. Say what you mean, mean what you say.

Also, next time someone feels they have been discriminated against, should I use your language and dismiss their experiences as unverifiable, anecdotal, and then ask them if they have any REAL discrimination to speak of? Betcha that starts a fist fight.

So it's ok, as per you, to let the white kid (assumption on your part that I am white eh) have to travel 3000km from home to take the same program that is offered locally, because he is white, and, what? he deserves the extra costs because he has so much extra money from apparently stealing it from all the minorities around him? Horseshit. I am saying everyone should get treated equally, no preference for anyone, any race, any gender.

Your point is?

This article supports my thesis nicely. It attempts to explain why we need these programs, and why/how the resentment is somehow wrong, and at no point interviews anyone who has actually been turned away as a result of these programs, thereby allowing the writer to use expressions like "allegedly" or the title "Myth of reverse racism", rather than acknowledging it is even a reality. Denial is not a helpful starting point for any valuable conversation.

If I deny what others say, and they refuse to accept my experiences as valid, there is a minimal chance that we make any progress forward.

I did answer the question. You may not like my answer, however, that does not alter the fact that it is an answer.

Systemic discrimination (race, gender, etc) exists in the US (and Canada) in the form of affirmative action initiatives set forth by the government in the form of polices and mandatory hiring requirements.

I have been turned away from local education options as a result of my colour, I was refused to even be allowed to apply to the program: "No. Only ------ people can apply. you can go to school 3000km away instead." I have not been allowed to apply to jobs; wrong gender.

I am not frustrated with the people who were allowed to apply for these programs or jobs, not at all. Good for them for getting in, or landing the job. But how exactly does denying me, or anyone else, the option to apply somehow diminish someone else? I would suspect that the reverse would be more accurate. I do not want an education program to accept me simply because of my gender or ancestry. Nor would I want a job awarded to me based on my gender. I have had classmates who were awarded the same certificates I have achieved, classmates that did not achieve the required grades to obtain said certificates, and yet were awarded them anyway, to enhance the diversity of the graduating class. This demeans all of the achievements of everyone that earned their certifications. This is the systemic racism and sexism that is pervasive in government and institutions.
Yes, individuals can, and frequently, make discriminatory comments, or actions that effect others, however to have a truly divisive effect on society we can look to the government as the source of deep seeded frustration based on perceived inequalities of treatment and opportunities. That is the fundamental source of discrimination.

A free society always has some restrictions and some unavoidable duties. — Michael

Ergo: Not a free society.

Just own it.

For example my home runs as a benevolent dictatorship. There is nothing democratic about it. I make the rules, people can make requests, or state their position, but ultimately, everything is on me anyway so I make the final call. Freedoms in this dictatorship have been awarded by me and are based on meeting expectations. If expectations are not met, freedoms are removed. I have no illusions about it, neither does my family. However none of us are delusional enough to say the house runs via democratic process.

I work in acute psychiatry. We force needles and medications into people fairly regularly. Hold them down, poke and inject. We are already doing it to violent patients, so doing it with a vaccine isn't exactly a huge leap.

I appreciate the options. However, the end result is the same.
Unless X is that which destroys anything added to it while remaining unchanged. THAT would result in a true statement of x=x+1 (or x+ anything frankly) otherwise...the math is non-functional.

The value of X is not relevant. Whatever the value of it is determined to be, dynamic or static, adding one to it will not make it equal to what it was prior to the adding of one.

Try solving the equation x = x + 1 — TheMadFool

Math issue there. X=X+1 can never be true. It doesn't matter what you substitute in for x. Just saying...

Nothing is a term applied to a concept, therefore, label-wise, Nothing exists. Conceptually nothing also exists, as a concept. However, as a reality, you are correct, nothing is a paradox as one is unable to see or determine "nothing"; as anything that is determined to exist becomes something, thereby no longer remaining as nothing.

He he he. Fun post!

As long as, by accepting that the government can, legally, force a vaccine into you, you no longer live in a free society, then I guess that's that. The state could always do whatever it wanted to citizens, but end the "free country" bit and pursue a "greater good" theme. Accuracy matters.

A life well lived is far more beautiful than one preserved and untarnished; for spoons and people.

Consider "nothing" as the vocabulary equivalent of the numerical value 0. Functional as a descriptor to identify a lack of something, which, theoretically should be there, but isn't. However, once context is removed, is worth...itself.