Inform yourself better. They're actually perfectly ready to leave you behind.
— baker

A bodhisattva who leaves (samsara) is not a bodhisattva. — TheMadFool

A bodhisattva cannot leave samsara; a bodhisattva is a samsaric being. "Bodhisattva" literally means 'buddha to be', or 'future buddha'. Ie. not a buddha yet.

no child left behind

I fail to see the relevance.

You keep talking about how religious people have the obligation to help others, e.g.

If a certain group is under the impression that its belief system is the right one (orthodoxa = right belief), that group will also consider it a duty/responsibility to edify others of it. — TheMadFool

I'm saying that in Early Buddhism, there is no such obligation.

What do you mean? That the earth is sometimes flat, is always flat, is not flat, is flat if you "think" it is and not if you don't? It seems that according to you, whether the earth is flat depends on who is talking. Yes? No? — tim wood

It means that you are unwilling to put yourself into another's shoes; moreover, you find it redundant to do so in the first place.

By stupid I do not mean intellectually challenged but instead a person who without reason retreats from reason to some unreasonable position and maintains that position by recourse to irrationality against reason. . — tim wood

And who is the arbiter of rationality in all this?

After some thought, a modification. Some ignorance leads directly to stupidity because in a complex world there's an obligation to know at least some things. — tim wood

Such as to aim first and shoot later.

Also, how do you locate this continuum of rationality in the context of intersubjectivity and the potential shared interests of society/groups? — Tom Storm

Take this example, from another thread:

In some countries, a high-risk population that is reluctant to get vaccinated are young medical nurses, for fear that they will become infertile.

Now, at first glance, and esp. when seen from a male perspective, this seems an unwarranted fear.

But if I were in their shoes, my line of reasoning and concerns would be such: Taking hormonal contraceptives increases the risk of something going wrong when taking the vaccine. So in order to reduce those risks, stop taking hormonal contraceptives. But then it is almost certain that an unwanted pregnancy will occur (since men cannot be relied upon to use condoms or to wait), and this will need to be solved with an abortion. An abortion increases the risk of infertility. If a woman isn't able to have children this can result in the man abandoning her or otherwise reduce his affections for her.

So what are those young women supposed to do?

Statistically, it's probably safer to take their chances with covid than with a man. — baker

Why default to the belief that these young women are not being rational when they refuse to get vaccinated against covid?

My second point is that many conflicts involving blame are like the above , where it is not a master of the other being irrational, but instead their being in the thrawl of a way of thinking that you have moved beyond , but don’t understand why they can’t see things your way. So you assume they are being stubborn, lazy, irrational. Instead, they simply haven’t made the ‘shift’ that you have. — Joshs

This seems to assume that the blamers are objectively more advanced than the ones they blame.

You can easily find cases where it's evident that the blamer has at no point in their past thought about things the way that the person they blame does. So the blamer hasn't necessarily moved beyond the way the other person thinks, it's also possible that they never thought about things the way the other person does to begin with.

You can see this, for example, in the vaccination debate where there are vocal pro-vaccers who consider it blameworthy if a person doesn't show the same enthusiasm about vaccines as they do, and this goes to the point of accusing that person of being an anti-vaccer and feeling justified to go on a public crusade against them.

A poster who evidently isn't all that enthusiastic about vaccines and masks, clearly said that he has taken the vaccine and uses a mask as obligated. And yet even _after_ he said that, several posters had a go at him for being an anti-vaccer. They ignored an important piece of information an indulged in their crusade.

The whole edifice of the psychology of blame would crumble if the angry accuser were ever to come
to a realization that there’s is no such thing as irrationality, there are only different forms of rationality, and the blameful finger-pointer is unable to extricate themselves from their own worldview, or even recognize their rationality as a just one of a potentially infinite range of worldviews, each of which aims at the same moral end , but via an often profoundly different construal of empirical circumstance. So they have no choice but to see the one who violates their expectations as morally culpable , irrational, stupid. The irony here is that it would be the accuser who is being stupid here, but I would have to use that word in this context according to its innocent , non-moralistic sense. They don’t want to have to accuse anyone, but they lack the insight into how others think to avoid succumbing to hostility. — Joshs

But in sense-making creatures like ourselves , reason is guided by normative cogntive-affective aims. We aim to anticipate events in as orderly a fashion as possible. Our ‘reasons’ are our best predictions about events. We only view others’ reasons as irrational when we fail to recognize the nature of sense-making. We don’t necessarily have to be able to translate the others system of anticipations into terms that we can understand, we only have to recognize in principle that this is how cognizing beings organize experience. — Joshs

My original post was about the basis of blame, accusation and hostility. I argued that such an attitude requires that I reject the idea that there is an internal order behind the behavior of the other I accuse. I will not need to blame if I recognize that the other is operating out of a moral worldview , even if I don’t quite understand its details at the moment. — Joshs

Exactly.

Ignorance of our true nature, rather, and what is our true nature you ask? Emptiness. — praxis

If your true nature is to be a Mahayani, yes.

Stupid is not only an absence of understanding or skill, it is an active principle that seeks ways to circumvent attempts to contain its effects.

If one puts stupid in a corral, it will keep a constant eye on the gate. If the gate is left open for too long, stupid will get out. To counter this agency, a concentric ring of other corrals are built so the results of failures to restrain stupid are minimized.

In times when many gates are open simultaneously, that is when the destructive capacity of the agency is greatest.

Stupid wants to be free. — Valentinus

Why do you conceptualize this as "stupid", and not as confident?

- - -

Point! Assume ignorance and educate! — tim wood

What several posters here describe as stupidity, I would describe as confidence.

Scammers were mentioned earlier in the thread. A percentage of people who fall for scammers indeed may be stupid, naive; but I think they are very few. Some fall prey because of their own greed and demand for easy gain. But it seems that the biggest group of those who fall prey to scammers are people who are confident in themselves, who believe that they are such wonderful persons that nothing bad can ever happen to them; and that if it does, it's never their own fault in any way. People who believe that the universe is a safe and welcoming place for them.

There's that saying -- "He that has been bitten by a snake is afraid of a rope." But this misses the point. People tend to get bitten when they confuse a snake (a dangerous being) for a harmless one (a piece of rope). They are so eager to think highly of themselves and to believe that the universe is a safe and welcoming place for them that they don't see danger, but misinterpret it as something harmless -- and then behave as if all was well. And get bitten.

American politics, in particular, seems characterised recently by large outbreaks of stupidity. I mean, Texas Governor Greg Abbott is a living breathing example of stupid, making it possible for anyone to carry a gun without a license but litigating against schools that want to get their students to wear masks. If that’s not a definition of ‘stupid’, then I don’t know what is. — Wayfarer

I see it not as stupidity, but as post-truth politics in practice. It's a symptom of the mentality that winning is all that matters. And so arguments are only a means to an end: they don't have to be true, they just need to help one win a case, whatever the case and with whomever it may be.

I always thought Peterson's support of Trump was the stupidest thing he ever did. Also note that he confidently predicted that Trump would win in 2020. — Wayfarer

So did I. Americans choosing Trump is only logical, given American mentality.

I had the pig down for greed - thought that figured - snake for hatred - check - and roster for stupid. — Wayfarer

I guess the causal connection is like this: Ignorance (root cause) -> Vanity -> Hatred -> Ignorance (root cause). I'm not quite clear how hatred leads to ignorance. — TheMadFool

In Early Buddhism, ignorance, avijja, refers specifically to being ignorant of the Four Noble Truths.
Being ignorant of the Four Noble Truths makes worldly standards seem acceptable, correct (so hatred seems acceptable, normal, or even desirable to a person ignorant of the FNT).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_poisons

It’s important to remember that getting vaccinated is not just about protecting yourself; it’s also about protecting those around you. In the long run, we will all benefit from herd immunity. The question that remains is whether we can actually get there.

http://www.williamsonherald.com/opinion/commentary-why-should-i-care-if-others-get-vaccinated/article_96e737c2-b369-11eb-90ce-c79d7571ff9a.html — Xtrix

But Americans don't want to be a herd, do they?

A part -- perhaps a major part -- of the problem with low vaccination rates is that the US has a private health care system. People are taught, from early on, that each person's health is their own problem, their own responsibility. This is further strenghtened by the American belief in personal freedom and in refusing to live in a "nanny state". It's un-American to think "we're all in this together". (American nationalism seems to come down to "We, the Americans, are better than other people".)

This mentality cannot be overcome with education or with telling people the facts about covid (or climate change, etc.). This is a much more fundamental problem.

Worth repeating for those genuinely curious — and interested in the facts (upon which we base our ethical decisions). — Xtrix

In some countries, a high-risk population that is reluctant to get vaccinated are young medical nurses, for fear that they will become infertile.

Now, at first glance, and esp. when seen from a male perspective, this seems an unwarranted fear.

But if I were in their shoes, my line of reasoning and concerns would be such: Taking hormonal contraceptives increases the risk of something going wrong when taking the vaccine. So in order to reduce those risks, stop taking hormonal contraceptives. But then it is almost certain that an unwanted pregnancy will occur (since men cannot be relied upon to use condoms or to wait), and this will need to be solved with an abortion. An abortion increases the risk of infertility. If a woman isn't able to have children this can result in the man abandoning her or otherwise reduce his affections for her.

So what are those young women supposed to do?

Statistically, it's probably safer to take their chances with covid than with a man.

↪frank I believe baker is a woman. I had Astra Zeneca yesterday and I feel my skin is sensitive and muscles aching. These are listed as common side effects. If Baker got her shot in the left arm that could explain the slight numbness, I'm not sure what "hot flashes" are, and I don't think palpitations are that uncommon; they can be brought on by anxiety for example. But you have more medical experience than I. and I agree with you that it's best to err on the side of caution. — Janus

Thank you for your concern. The last two days were quite bad. After the vaccination, I got symptoms as if I had a cold, and then some. The constriction in the chest has mostly subsided, I don't have palpitations anymore, the numbness is my left arm (where I got the injection) is also mostly gone, as is the pain at the injection site (for the first two days, it felt as if someone hit me with a bat there).
I'm stil tired and I still have no appetite, I'm only very thirsty.


"Hot flashes" are intermittent fever; you get a burst of fever for a few minutes, then it subsides for 10, 15 minutes or longer, and then again a burst.

↪baker Status? — tim wood

Imagine, Tim Wood, if I had a fatal heart attack and the last words you said to me were:

I'll ask the doctor to increase your dose. — tim wood

I probably shouldn't take antipiretics for the hot flashes. Unless I still have them tomorrow. I'll see how the night goes.

Besides, one cannot just go to the hospital here, unless it's an urgent matter. First, you need to go to your GP, who then perhaps refers you further. It all makes for a lot of waiting in situations that aren't particularly epidemioloigcally safe.

God no. Hospitals are places one goes to die.

Janssen, motherfuckers, about three hours ago.

My left arm feels a bit numb, and I get hot flashes, and some palpitations.

As of tomorrow, Slovenia will have some of the most restrictive measures in the world: the only places one can go without a valid covid passport are basic grocery stores and pharmacies, provided they are not in a shopping mall, but directly accessable from the street. Masks, social distancing, disinfection as usual.

The government is announcing even more restrictions, although I'm not sure what more they can do.

$15 million funding has been raised to re-animate a version of the extinct woolly mammoth. — Wayfarer

Some people have too much money. And time.

Given that most people who die from/with Covid are at the ends of their lives anyway you can expect natural deaths and Covid deaths to significantly overlap. — AJJ

And, of course, in some jurisdictions, for a death to be ruled a covid death, no covid test and no autopsy are required, just the assessment of a doctor.
So who knows how accurate the covid death numbers are.

I do wonder how the trade-off is made though, as children in school together represent an excellent way for diseases to spread from household to household, even colds, flu, and the like. — Srap Tasmaner

This is what is happening in some EU countries: A fully vaccinated teacher infects a class of children and coworkers. All must go to quarantene. Now what?

That's because you're those three monkeys, all in one.
— baker

Prove it. — Tom Storm

You see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The world is a good place for you.


Mwhahaha!

They're not "friendly" toward other religions, they just don't give a shit about them. Duh.
— baker

I'm not sure what is intended by your remark, but you can flesh it out if you feel like it. — Ennui Elucidator

The difference is in the intention. On the surface, two people can act the same way -- appear generous, tolerant, etc. -- but they differ in what motivates them to act that way. For example, one can be acting out of a genuine regard for others, another one out of pity. It can take quite a while to discern those motivations.

Have you, for example, never seen a mild, kind person explode in an, "I've been kind to you for so long, but now I've had it, no more! You ungrateful brat!" ? It reveals that they've been acting out of a transactional model of relating with others, that their kindness has been conditional all along.

A free lunch can usually only be found in mouse traps.

I am personally familiar with these religions being friendly with other religions and even encouraging education about other religions to their members. There is "ecumenical" work, interfaith groups, etc. So "not giving a shit" isn't even close to right. Non-proselytizing religions exist.

Aww, ye of great naivete.

Should terms denoting religious identity be exempt from being meaningful?
— baker

Last I checked you aren't a sociologist, ethnographer, or any other thing that could provide a useful inquiry into what is properly classified as "religion." Hand waving about a lack of Jesus or Jesus analogs precluding a group from being religious is not of much interest to me.

Oh. So anything anyone calls "religious" should be considered religious?
Anyone who claims to be a Christian should be considered a Christian?

I'm inclined to agree. I've had significant contact with a range of religious faiths - churches, temples and synagogues and running alongside ethnocentrism and in group chauvinism is also a vast wellspring of generosity, hospitality and solidarity, galvanized by best kinds of ecumenical commitments. — Tom Storm

That's because you're those three monkeys, all in one.

So what? Man lives to please one's ego. One could be dying in the gutter and still feel satisfied with oneself, blissing out in righteous indignation.
— baker

[Brother Wood replies with yet another derogatory remark intent on deflecting attention from the matter at hand.] — tim wood

Nonsense. People are generally driven to please their egos, above everything else. This is hardly a novel idea.

Thought experiment: when on the basis of simple and plain evidence generosity is exhausted or even inappropriate, what then? — tim wood

Then it's time to realize that one wasn't practicing generosity to begin with, but something else.
Be in the clear that you actually want something in return from the other person, and that this is why you're giving them something in the first place. That's not generosity, it's transactional thinking and acting.

Point here. I think you're exactly right. But against that I appeal to longer term interests. That is, they may be tactical, but lack strategic understanding. For humanity writ large, that may be fatal and soon. — tim wood

So what? Man lives to please one's ego. One could be dying in the gutter and still feel satisfied with oneself, blissing out in righteous indignation.

Or tell me why you are so concerned with assholes? — tim wood

Because at the end of the day, they get to rule the world. And this makes me think that maybe, this is an evolutionary advantage, or the Truth About The World, and as such, not something to repudiate.

Dismissing stupidity as a mere social issue has been standard practice, and in most cases probably best - to dismiss it. I find the world a place where even that becomes a luxury no longer affordable, except at an unacceptable price. Or are you, where you live, lucky enough to be unaffected by such things, or at least to think you're unaffected by them.

This tells me you have great self-confidence.
I try to never confuse stupidity for what might very well be strategy. I find that people are generally strategic, not stupid. They just play dumb, because this can give them an advantage.

There are still legal and insurance issues about the covid vaccines that undermine trust in the vaccines:

Of all the concerns the public has about vaccine safety, there is one that has us stumped for a straightforward answer: “If the vaccines are safe, why is the government protecting itself, health professionals and companies from vaccine compensation?” In fact, the UK government has passed regulations reducing legal protection for anyone injured by a COVID-19 vaccine approved for emergency use.
/.../
Generally, vaccine safety is excellent, which makes it even more incongruous that the government is not putting its money where its mouth is and providing a clear, generous and uncomplicated compensation scheme that would immediately quash any concerns the public has.

https://theconversation.com/uk-citizens-get-less-legal-protection-for-covid-jabs-than-other-vaccines-and-that-could-undermine-confidence-151455

Your OP _is_ the messenger. You always talk about yourself, you set yourself up as the arbiter of wisdom, truth, whatever it is that you like. You're incapable of presenting and discussing a topic on a socially relevant issue without being an asshole.

There's always an element of chance.
— Wayfarer
In the process of the complete cessation of suffering?
Do you have a canonical reference for that?
— baker

How about the Chiggala Sutta? — Wayfarer

Which is precisely the sutta I had in mind when I asked the above question.

Attaining nibbana does not depend on chance, but on deliberate action.

Indeed, it may be a sheer coincidence that one meets an arahant or comes across a sutta, but this alone is not the deciding factor on one's path. Many people may meet an arahant, or read a sutta, but do nothing with that.

Am I to infer that both of you prefer stupidity to reasonable alternatives, including reason itself, And have settled yourselves down to enjoy your ride to hell-in-a-handbasket, notwithstanding that in the years 2021 and following, perhaps for a thousand years, in taking that trip you take others with you, in short victimize them on your stupidity? — tim wood

There you go, brother Wood.
Good luck with ruling the world!

Cars are a lot safer than they were fifty years ago, or even twenty, and we still drive. — Srap Tasmaner

Cars may be safer, and the traffic infrastructure as well, but people are worse drivers.

Is even the elimination of the risk Covid-19 poses worth mandated medical treatments? — AJJ

The matter is primarily psychological and ideological.

This whole covid crisis has long since stopped being about the virus or health, but about people seeking ways to feel good and to feel safe. The emphasis being on _feeling_ good, _feeling_ safe, as opposed to actually _being_ such. The former is much easier to accomplish than the latter.

Issues of social psychology need to be taken into account. In times of crisis, people tend to give up critical thinking. It's not clear for how many people this applies, but some of those for whom it does apply are extremely vocal and influential. Resisting those people can result in short-term and long-term harm for the resisters.

There are also issues of the placebo effect, en masse: If enough people have enough faith in the covid vaccines, the covid vaccines can, in effect, be more safe and more effective than they would be without that faith.

Is it moral to refuse to participate in a mass social delusion, if said delusion can have at least short-term good effects for society at large and for the individual as well? — baker

We have to risk our health, or even actively sacrifice it on one thing or another: Whether it's polluted air, polluted food, work related injuries and diseases, socially praised poisons like alcohol, coffee, and nicotine, hormonal contraceptives, and the occasional experimental vaccine.

It would be unrealistic to think that living in the modern world could come without costs, risks, and sacrifices.

As long as we agree not to engage in a game of what is a true Scotsman? — Ennui Elucidator

Should terms denoting religious identity be exempt from being meaningful?

Do you know of any religion that has ever been friendly toward another religion? I don't.
— baker

Unitarian Universalists
A variety of liberal Jewish movements:
Reconstructionism
Humanistic Judaism

Humanism Generally.
Ethical Humanism

I'm sure I could find others with relatively little effort, but I'm not sure what a more comprehensive list would do for the conversation. — Ennui Elucidator

They're not "friendly" toward other religions, they just don't give a shit about them. Duh.

As an aside, this is a problem for religions interested in applying to everyone everywhere. Religions that are happy to constrain themselves to insular thinking (you do you, we do us, and we are the best) probably exist more than you might think. Not every religion intends to have everyone in the world agree with them or advocates that everyone in the world should agree with them. — Ennui Elucidator

You're not saying anything new.

Brother Wood, don't be daft.

Not to me — tim wood

Pffft. My experience with you informs me otherwise.

One word, bodhisattva. I'm told their primary goal is the liberation of all sentient beings. — TheMadFool

Inform yourself better. They're actually perfectly ready to leave you behind.

As for "no child left behind" policy, never heard of it though it squares with the bodhisattva's mission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

Treating people like objects might seem smart to you, but what if they prove to be alive and objectify you?

The world is made of rotting things.

The question, then, is how to fight the war to win it. Not just to fight it - that's a mug's game - but to win it. — tim wood

Vote for rightwingers, obviously.

But what do you hold to be the source of the greater dangers in the world, both to individuals and to society at every scale? — tim wood

Greed and hatred, and believing that greed and hatred are good.