Campbell is an idiot.

From the study he cited:

Hospital employees scheduled to undergo mRNA-1273 booster vaccination were assessed for mRNA-1273vaccination-associated myocardial injury, defined as acute dynamic increase in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T(hs-cTnT) concentration above the sex-specific upper limit of normal on day 3 (48–96 h) after vaccination withoutevidence of an alternative cause. To explore possible mechanisms, antibodies against interleukin-1receptor antagonist(IL-1RA), the SARS-CoV-2-nucleoprotein (NP) and -spike (S1) proteins and an array of14 inflammatory cytokineswere quantified. Among 777 participants (median age 37 years, 69.5% women), 40 participants (5.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7–7.0%) had elevated hs-cTnT concentration on day 3 and mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was adjudicated in 22 participants (2.8% [95% CI1.7–4.3%]). Twenty cases occurred in women (3.7%[95% CI 2.3–5.7%]), two in men (0.8% [95% CI 0.1–3.0%]). Hs-cTnT elevations were mild and only temporary. No patient had electrocardiographic changes, and none developed major adverse cardiac events within 30 days(0% [95% CI 0–0.4%]). In the overall booster cohort, hs-cTnT concentrations (day 3; median 5, interquartilerange [IQR] 4–6 ng/L) were significantly higher compared to matched controls (n=777, median 3 [IQR 3–5]ng/L,p<0.001). Cases had comparable systemic reactogenicity, concentrations of anti-IL-1RA, anti-NP, anti-S1,and markers quantifying systemic inflammation, but lower concentrations of interferon (IFN)-λ1(IL-29) andgranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) versus persons without vaccine-associated myocardial injury.

Conclusion: mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was more common than previously thought, being mild and transient, and more frequent in women versus men. The possible protective role of IFN-λ1(IL-29) and GM-CSF warrant further studies.

Big fucking yawn.

As I said, you just come up with shit so you feel good about yourself doing fuck all. It's the same why oil companies are so keen on wanting carbon capture work but of course have governments pay for it. That way they don't have to stop what they're doing. You want a magic bullet (fusion) so you don't have to do shit, a government to do shit for you, a religion to convince others to do what you won't do out of free will (I guess; I haven't exactly read the hair-brained idea of convincing 8 billion people to change religion but hey, very unhelpful bullshit as usual) and every other thing you mention as a reason not to do anything.

The technology is already there, the awareness is there but hey, let's just keep doing what we're doing. What I contribute is less than the global average and I set aside about 3% of my income each year to finance further reductions. Isolate your home maybe get some solar panels, ompartimentalise your heating system so you only warm rooms you're using, use a bike to get around, consume less, buy second hand, torch all advertisement. You'll save money, get healthier and be happier. It's not new or ground-breaking. In fact, it's all very easy unless you're poor. That's really the only excuse to do nothing.

Let's just assume there's competing narratives. How do you tell which one to subscribe to? Assuming it's not false reporting, a majority of scientists state there's a climate crisis and biodiversity crisis looming or already there. Obviously, from a purely logical standpoint I can't claim "the climate crisis is happening because almost all scientists say so" but heuristically that's how we tend to have to operate. And to an important extent the IPCC reports do try to make the science understandable to laymen, if you've read it.

So I kind of miss what exactly is the relevance of pointing out that it's a narrative to assume the science in favour of the global warming hypothese is right or a "fact"? Technically those claims go to far but for the purposes of discussion I've found alternative narratives easy to disprove. The bigger problem is the moral apathy and cynicism of some posters - which I feel regulary but choose to ignore because I owe that to future generations. Even if we can't stop it, mitigating it will go a long way.

Other than that, good quotes from Marcuse!

Any good textbook on global warming will have a section on the philosophical challenge of climate change: that this problem will always be with us as long as coal is around to burn. As a species, we have no experience addressing a problem that extends beyond about a hundred years. This problem extends for thousands upon thousands. The real problem is time. — frank

The real problem is people like you insisting the problem is too big, too difficult, too whatever reason you can dream up to do fuck all. It's just moral weakness.

Nothing of the sort. I just think most of your posts in this thread are vapid and devoid of any semblance of a moral backbone. I've yet to discover a substantive post or anything respectable in this thread from you.

We're not fucked, the human race isn't fucked, so let's fuck the next xx generations. You're a sad case you know that?

Yep, they seem to be pretty Marxist to me... — javi2541997

Any social democrat, eg. centrist and anything to the left of that has similar ideas. It's not really marxist.

Yes, and given such history it's so annoying you get these ideological fundamentalists proclaiming the evils of collective action when it's unions and governments but when it's corporates it's all "no problem mate! Markets are super efficient!". Which is true, I guess, if you don't give a shit about your fellow man.

@javi2541997 Here's some Spanish history on unions and how you got an 8 hour workday.

In February 1919 the Catalan Regional Conference (part of the CNT, an anarcho-syndicalist union) organized a strike at the Barcelona offices of a Barcelona electrical company, because they fired people for attempting to form a union.

When they didn't listen the CNT escalated and organized a strike at the electricity generation plant. This plunged Barcelona into darkness and stranded trams on the streets.

So the Spanish state send in the military to restore power.

So naturally this caused the strike to further escalate now including most of the city's gas, water, and electricity workers. Not to mention the solidarity strikes, outside of Barcelona, happening in Sabadell, Vilafranca and Badalona.

On March 8 the Spanish state responded by militarizing the reservists working in these fields, threatening them with being confined to barracks, if they don't break the strike.

Which of course ended in the only obvious consequence. The tram workers and carters who transported essential goods also joined the strike.

And almost none of the militarized workers broke the strike leading to the government locking 800 of them up.

These workers were than supporterd by the printers union, which refused to publish the proclamations of the Spanish state or articles that opposed the strike.

Not even the statement by the company saying that everyone who wouldn't return the work would be fired was printed.

Throughout this whole strike the CNT sought to win their demands by mobalising a lot of large amounts of workers and using tactics like sabotaging the transformers and power cables.

At this point the CNT's strike committee were in a position where they could negotiate with the ruling class and force them to increase wages, pay worker's wages for the period that they had been on strike, recognise the union, grant an eight hour day and reinstate fired workers.

This whole thing was so threatening that the prime minister declared the 8 hour day for the whole construction industry (and later expanded it to all industrie) just to calm them down.

This is a great example of how solidarity can be an extremely strong weapon, being able to shut down whole city's.

A following strike to release a number of prisoners who were not released sadly failed, through state repression using martial law, but what was achieved is still incredible. And it is also absurd how much the strike grew. Remember this conflict started with a company firing a couple of people for trying to build a union. — Lonely_traffic_light

Viva la Unión!

People are atoms. All relationships are transactional. I'm an idiot homo economicus. It's tiresome to read ideological screeds from wannabe Thatcherites and Reaganites that missed the last 40 years of economic research.

&Yes, income was the wrong choice of words by me.

There's no one way to arrange this and I suspect you have much more information and "insider" knowledge to know everything that's wrong with the Greek system. The Dutch system looks horrible a lot of the time as well but pretty good when compared to UK or USA, for instance.

I think we could relax employee protections provided we create a good safety net. That should include options to learn new trades at no cost and substantial efforts in combatting discrimination (age, sex, ethnicity, etc.) would go a long way as well.

The other side of the coin of employee protections is also that employees feel safe to speak out against corruption or to challenge management views. And diversity of views makes for more profitable companies as well. It's very hard to get fired in the Netherlands as well, probably not much easier than in Greece (if at all, I haven't compared the two). The problem is often that those advocating for relaxing employee protections do it for the wrong reasons (the ephermal market) and would double-down by also cutting unemployment benefits or otherwise make life harder for the unemployed as a perverse incentive to force them to work as soon as possible. Whereas we're probably better off (morally as well as economically) with people doing what they want to do instead of what they have to do to avoid starving.

I've never been a union member but I'm a trained human rights lawyer. People underestimate the good unions have brought because especially Americans are hung-up on the mob influence on the unions in the past. It's not representative of its history.

You'd still be working six days a week, starting at 8 AM until past midnight (90+ work week, hooray), no holidays, no paid leave for family deaths or health issues. They ended indentured labour. Women would still not be voting because mass protests wouldn't be accepted and women's suffrage movement would never have been possible. And they did all that in the face of corporate and government backed violence. When unions were most powerful, income inequality was lowest.

Do not underestimate the good we enjoy now that we only have thanks to unions. Those early unionists were some of the bravest and morally upright persons, who not only fought for their own good but that of all labourers, even those who weren't brave enough to stand up for themselves.

Is there anyone who'd like to proofread my first few chapters to see whether I'm on the right track with world-building and initial character exposition? It's hard sci-fi set in 2130, dystopian, corporate, corrupt and polarized.

No problem. It's interesting to see quite a few people in this thread were unaware this is relatively common. I think unions are fantastic. They managed to get people the right of freedom of association. A right we have thanks to the early unions and gives individuals the right to get together and to collectively pursue an objective. Without unions we wouldn't have HS&E laws in the workplace either. They're an important countervailing power against corporate and monied power that love externalising costs unto their employees.

I get most countries don't really understand socialism and welfare and this might sound really wild but in the Netherlands every union has money saved up for strikes to enable them to pay strikers, which is funded by union member contributions. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakingskas

Trump only denounces it when he vacillated or equivocated before.

Maybe he considers both points valid. I don't think there's a right and wrong here. Except for @javi2541997, who's just wrong.

Because leaving his bullshit uncontested on a public forum could raise the idea with casual visitors it's a valid position. That's the only reason I ever reply to him.

Doesn't the union provide income during the strike?

I think the intent on the outcome will be another difficult issue to prove since it's not a general intent crime.

yawn Are you starting to cry? You're blaming me for what you're actually doing. I don't have a horse in this race so accusing me of partisanship just underlines your myopic worldview.

We've seen a lot about proving things to you. No one can prove anything to you, which you do not want proven. But anything which you want proven, you readily prove it to yourself. — Metaphysician Undercover

The subject being that you're totally partisan on anything to deal with US politics, which was an entirely accurate assessment by MU and which you then whine about as bullying tactics. And like any Trumpster, instead of reflecting on your own behaviour you double-down, by insisting a clear paraphrase is a misquote.

So I was on message and you're just trying to deflect.

There's a quote function for quoting, which I didn't use, and posts are right below each other. I know reading and thinking are difficult for you but I have a higher standard for people's average reading abilities than that.

Wait, what? So as a healthy man I'm capable of rape (I just don't because morals), how would that excuse an actual rapist? I'm confused...

It's called paraphrasing. You qualified MU's comment as "bullying tactics" but of course will now insist you didn't judge it "bullying" because you were just being descriptive. You seem to have problems understanding how your mother tongue actually works.

Bullshit called out. "You're bullying." :rofl:

Just on a basic level, laws against public defecation or laws against exhibitionist public sexual acts are, by definition, restrictions on that sort of thing. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's not a limitation of physical integrity. It merely tells you where not to do it. Just find a place where you can do it. We can prohibit people from eating on the train but we cannot deny them eating tout court.

For larger stories, I start with world building wondering what technology would look like in 100+ years (and I've built my fair share of worlds in the past for d&d). Based on the imagined technology I can imagine what it looks like and what the politics look like. Then I insert a simple plot and start adding layers as I write.

Edit: actually, my main problem is I don't think I have a consistent writing style yet. Even within a couple of pages and I'm wondering whether it has charm and work, just how Mozart works with his stitching of tiny pays, or if it's just annoying.

Yes, that's something else than bodily autonomy. Physical integrity doesn't preclude detainment for instance.

Yes, but I'm not sharing that. :wink: Also, it's not solid yet, some problems will have to be fixed as I progress with writing. The plot has its fair share of holes at the moment.

Guy gets set up, is thrown into a typical whodunnit while being chased by the authorities.

How long a description? The arrogant and condescending female of the species pets the little, big man. — Amity

"She pats my cheek the way a grandmother would pat her favourite, but decidedly stupidest, grandchild."

What do you think it means that Trump is made fun of by a large majority as a complete idiot and liar in the European Union when you contrast that with your own views? To what extent are your views a representation of the average Chinese person? Or is China simply too big to be really concerned with foreign counties and their politicians?

Bodily autonomy isn't something we can uphold as an absolute if we want to have a functioning justice system. If Hannibal is a serial killer cannibal who has eaten all his neighbors, then most people would agree that we have a right to decide that Hannibal can't leave his prison cell, or that we even have the right to execute Hannibal. We have also told Hannibal what he can't put into his body, namely his neighbors. So, obviously bodily autonomy has its limits. Putting people in prison at the very least determines what can go into their bodies, and executing them determines what goes into and out of their bodies. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Where did I talk about bodily autonomy?

1), I'm not sure you should be forced to save a drowning kid. It would be nice if you did, but do we want government compelling charitable acts? — RogueAI

There are plenty of states that compel a duty of care actually. The Netherlands and most continental European countries have this. Penalties are relatively mild though up to 6 months if I remember correctly. @Tobias maybe you remember more details?

Even in some States in the USA. I looked it up at some point and wrote about this before on this site. If you want to know more I can search for it.

My grand sci-fi opus

No seriously, the dictionary recognised, matronise, matron etc. but somehow turns up empty on matronisingly. I ended up hating the sound of it so opted for a more descriptive approach.

God on you! — Vera Mont

Also, I hope God is a woman because I don't swing the other way.

I don't think I can copyright that. :snicker:

So I'm working on my book again since the last literary activity got my creativity flowing again and when wife pats the protaganist on his cheek, I'm like "hell no, it's not patronisingly but, since she's a woman, it should be "matronisingly", only to discover that's not considered a word. Really? Well, now it is.

I have a totally different take nowadays. Let me know what you think! :wink:

I actually think approaching it as a person/not-a-person invites complexity as it introduces issues of potentiality and presumes only persons are worthy of moral consideration. The latter in particular doesn't sit well with me due to my preference for consistencies in moral frameworks. I think this isn't the right way to go. The environment deserves moral consideration but also works of art or information etc.

I'm pro-choice and find that in the inviolability of our physical integrity. I choose what goes in and comes out of my body. Having others tell a woman she must carry to term just sounds like a violation in itself.

The gestation limit is somewhat arbitrary but the main problem I see is people will always argue: "yes but a healthy foetus will grow into a person". My position would be more absolute; there should be no time limit. As long as the baby hasn't been born a woman should be able to decide to have it removed. However, doctors do not have the obligation to kill a viable baby. Indeed, they have the opposite duty to save it. The consequences of the choice of removing a baby late, e.g. an operation that is effectively a ceasarian, should be borne by the person making the choice. E.g., if you're too late and the baby is viable, you have to take care of it - either giving it up for adoption, get family involved or doing it yourself. It should also be easier to have more complex family structures to support different ways of making sure the child starts life in a safe and caring environment, preferably with a view of having the mother involved in its upbringing to the extent she wants and also allowing for her to change her mind.

The choice, even at early stages of gestation, is a tough one for women. At least that's my understanding having spoken to those that had an abortion.I doubt many of them take such choices lightly - although this might be a consequence of selection bias (the women I talk to and make friends with aren't really a good representation of society). Such a choice presumably only becomes more difficult the longer it is postponed. As a result, "late" decisions will probably be very rare and as such not a real problem.

In addition efficiency only leads to more use. So portions get bigger, for instance. Voila, obesity.