as usual politicians are late to the party. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/627691

Following the fall of the USSR the view was that a cordon of neutral countries could act as a barrier to avoid tensions. Russia was still respected as an important player in world politics and their interests were therefore strategically considered. Several decades later, the respect is gone and it's basically Western hubris they can just intervene in the geopolitical sphere of a strong regional power without consequences - or so they thought until Russia annexed Crimea.

Russia's internal politics are irrelevant. I don't give a shit that Putin is a criminal. I care about avoiding needless bloodshed and accepting that regional powers project a sphere of influence in which you cannot fuck around without consequences. So all this IMF and NATO shit should be called out for what it is : provocations.

The EU and the US need to just fuck off and de-escalate.

I don't pretend to any special knowledge of these events. I do some online looking and i remember, more or less, the news of the time. And there is one thing consistent: The wars - let's call them wars because that is what they are - are started by the Palestinians. — tim wood

That's patently false. Cease fires have been broken more often by the IDF than the Palestinians. And we all know where it started. It was Begin himself who boasted there was not an Israeli village that wasn't build on an Arab ruin. Ruins caused by the indiscriminate massacre of Jewish Israelis in 1948. The Jewish Israeli historian Illan Pappe considered it a campaign of ethnic cleansing. All for the purpose of maximising Zionist objectives to conquer as much of Palestine as possible - a lot beyond what was mandated under the UN resolution.

Both the land grabs in 1948 and 1967 are prime examples of aggression and war crimes terrible. And while the Arabs and Palestinians certainly weren't innocent in 1948 the number of innocent victims targeted by the Arab nations and Israel shows a clear difference, with Israel Zionist elites already showing it's true colours in 1948. After 1967 the balance of power in the region had permanently shifted in favour of Israel, or actually before that, 1967 simply was the proof in the pudding.

What is not complicated about the history is that Israel stole land twice and continues to do so through its colonialist settler program, evictions, apartheid rule and stranglehold "occupation". What is not complicated is that there are clear oppressors and oppressed. What is not complicated is that Israeli war crimes far outstrip anything the Arabs and Palestinians have committed combined. What is not complicated, therefore, is having moral clarity as to who deserves our support and who doesn't.

The only reason people think this is complicated is because of misguided guilt, pesonal loyalties or general lack of being adequately informed - particularly if they can't go beyond MSM reports.

Diversity without inclusivity will not change SCOTUS though. The problem runs deeper than just appointing a black, female judge. She'll have a hell of a job to do, not as a judge but managing the institution to open up and realise the added value of minorities' experiences and their different knowledge and ways of thinking and paving the way for future minority generations for whom it should be normal to have access to and exercise political power.

No concern, no pros and cons, no rights-based approach, just counterfactuals and weasel words. — NOS4A2

The right based approach is something we already went over when I quoted the typically accepted limitations to human rights. The general welfare of society is a permitted ground to limit individual right and the weighing of interests is performed at that stage. The fact they escaped quarantine certainly is adequate indication that they would flaunt mere guidelines. Only an idiot cannot add two and two together.

You say there is no effective difference between my normative claim “people should isolate” and “the government shouldn’t put people in internment camps”, as if people are unable to isolate and stay away from others without government internment. I’m some sort of hypocrite for making too big a fuss because government internment is no different than staying home. — NOS4A2

I didn't say any such thing, I said complaining about no visitors when you think they shouldn't have any visitors is an idiotic argument to make.

Here's another question for you, since it's clear not enough people will distance our take a vaccination, how do you propose to deal with the fall out that causes? Eg. overrun healthcare systems.

Maybe read some actual case law instead of sharing your worthless opinion.

Please continue to demonstrate you don't know about human rights. The floor is yours.

Seat belts and helmets are not 100% effective. In fact, they can actually result in worse harm, and death, depending upon the physics of an accident. — James Riley

That's neither here nor there because it doesn't affect bodily integrity.

I believe its overstepping the bounds of what should be permissible for governments to mandate. Vaccines are not 100% safe and unless you can guarantee that you shouldn't be forcing people to take it. Bodily integrity is a whole step up from curfews and movement restrictions.

I have similar problems with the so-called 2g policy, which in the Netherlands means you can only get access to all sorts of places if you have been vaccinated or recently recovered from Covid. That's effectively indirect coercion on people to get vaccinated.

Let's hope the Omicron version is as light as it seems and darwinism will have done its job by developing a highly infectious but non-lethal strain which is a win - win for both the virus and us.

Denying fundamental rights on a hunch is ludicrous. The just and ethical thing to do would be to fix the testing, not toss them in an internment camp just in case. — NOS4A2

It's not a hunch. You already stated people should isolate and get tested regularly. The kids escaping is an obvious example that quarantine centers are a good idea. If they flaunt the rules to escape, you know they would flaunt the rules if they weren't enforced as well. So their escape is actually proof of the necessity to have mandatory quarantine. And the second sentence is idiotic on so many levels. You're incapable in weighing interests, apparently burdened by absolutism in every area. It's precisely because individuals have proven to be irresponsible with regard to health guidelines that stricter measures became necessary.

Sure, the fact that someone can hear birds and see the sun is nice, but it isn’t much a consolation when you are confined against your will. — NOS4A2

Unlike you, most people are perfectly capable of realising what they are doing is to protect others and, despite not liking quarantine itself, are happy to make that sacrifice. Their experience will therefore be different than for immoral egoist like you.

As for the toys, fair enough—even though it says toys are prohibited, gaming systems, puzzles and cellphones could be considered toys—but that wasn’t the only thing I listed. — NOS4A2

Yeah, the no visitors was gold. Even in your own answer people should isolate, which means no visitors. So exactly zero change from what you think people should do. Care packages is quarantine location dependent as is alcohol, although it is generally limited. Such limitations seem for obvious reasons.

I already did link to the Centre for National Resilience in my first post. It was my mistake to think you had read it. — NOS4A2

Hey Sherlock, one guess as to how I know you were literally quoting? Idiot. But it's typical of your low brow morality to not properly attribute quotes (or even put it in quotation marks) or to selectively quote to suit your narrow worldview. It's a rather Orwellian turn to read only negativity in an article that is predominantly positive about the quarantine experience.

If people are in contact with a Covid-positive person they should isolate, stay away from others, and get tested as much as possible. — NOS4A2

Yes they should. And since too many people don't do that apparently it has to be enforced to protect other people.

First off, as expected you didn't answer the question.

You’re either a “vector of transmission” or not. You don’t jail people who cannot spread the virus. If you don’t know whether they can spread the virus or not, you figure it out. — NOS4A2

This is plain wrong. First, there's a probability of being a vector from the moment you've been in contact as you might develop the disease. Since you can be infectious before it shows up on the PCR test or before you show symptoms, you take precautions to go into quarantine.

Second, people aren't jailed, they're put into quarantine.

If you don't know whether they can spread the virus because the tests available aren't sensitive enough from the earliest onset of being infectious, it's totally reasonable to take precautionary measures. Much like wearing a seatbelt is a precautionary measure as there's a possibility you cause an accident.

Aah yes, hearing birds and smelling eucalyptus trees are the upsides to being interned in a camp, confined to a small building. Are you serious? — NOS4A2

The writer certainly was. You just went out of your way to highlight everything you find disagreeable with it, misrepresenting both the tone and conclusion of it to suit your own agenda.

Toys or recreational items such as swimming pools (plastic or inflatable), scooters, skateboards, bikes, balls and roller blades. These will be stored until your exit. — NOS4A2

As I said. All the outdoorsy stuff for obvious reasons. You're not supposed to leave the veranda or room. But your Nintendo Switch, books, puzzles, etc. are all ok. Also if you quote, it's common decency to attribute it to the source.

To repeat: What should people do when they've been in close contact with a Covid-positive person according to you?

As usual you're just acting like a whiny little bitch without providing solutions.

Three teenagers from the indigenous Binjari community recently escaped from one of Australia’s internment facilities, the “Centre for National Resilience”. The authorities had initially rounded them up and interned them, it appears, for the non-crime of being in contact with covid-positive people, not because they carried any virus or posed any sort of threat. — NOS4A2

You obviously don't need to commit a crime to be sequestered. We also lock up crazy people when they haven't committed a crime. And in this case, being in close contact with a covid-positive person means you can become a vector for transmission as it takes time before viral load is sufficient to be picked up by a PCR test. About 24 hours before a PCR test is positive, you can transmit the virus. In Australia they've opted to quarantaine such people in separate facilities to ensure the disease doesn't spread any further. By comparison, in the Netherlands you're supposed to self-quarantine for five days after the last close contact with a Covid-positive person.

The facility seems a frightening place, to me, especially for children. — NOS4A2

A frightening place? Sure. That's because you're apparently a pussy and your confirmation bias doesn't allow you to quote the upside of the experience. So let me:

In Australia's northern quarantine camp, a disused construction workers' hostel outside Darwin, the rooms are basic and the food is, well, institutional. But the fresh air, eucalyptus trees, blue skies and wind on your skin are sources of joy.

Native green parrots chirrup as they swoop by. Geckos cling to the veranda ceiling. The blinding sun reminds you that you are home. — Dixon

No visitors, no toys, no care-packages, round the clock confinement, and an ever-present police force—one wonders the point of it all if it is not an exercise in totalitarianism. According to Washington Post correspondent, Robyn Dixon, who was forced to stay there, "the feeling is part trailer camp, part hospital, part prison". At least the good officials there provide propaganda on how to maintain insanity during your internment: — NOS4A2

Kids under 12 do not have to quarantaine, so the "no toys" doesn't seem like a huge problem but is in any case not true because only balls, skateboards and swimming and playing in drains during rain are prohibited.

And some rules are not representative for all the quarantine facilities in Australia:

My donga faced a vacant lot with bark chips and trees. People opposite on shady south-facing balconies sat out all day and did morning workouts with dancing and burpees. My north-facing balcony was blasted by the sun, and I had to cover the metal chair with a towel. But it was wonderful after sundown, when the block’s yellow lights blinked on.

Someone would strum on a guitar nearby. Another person put up solar fairy lights. A couple tiptoed to put their baby down to sleep in the next room. Someone sat smoking on the veranda.

The alcohol ban applies only to Howard Springs residents. In Sydney hotels, quarantining guests can order care packages, restaurant deliveries and up to a bottle of wine each a day.

But I did not miss wine, getting through the slow, hot days. The fresh air and sunshine helped. So did the Vegemite. — Dixon

But as usual, you're not saying anything just trolling for a reaction. What should people do when they've been in close contact with a Covid-positive person according to you?

Reply — James Riley

A hero or a martyr to the right depending on the verdict. Lose-lose I suppose.

If you already have 1.4 billion people to exploit, you don't really have to look beyond your borders I guess.

A forum has rules. Just stick to the rules. Just like a game. You wouldn't allow people to cheat, you ban them from the game.

We can not look in the defendent's mind and his political views do not matter in a court of law. We only know something about the outward manifestation of his state of mind — Tobias

Expressed views do influence the interpretation of the outward manifestation of someone's state of mind.

Hmmm... Not sure yet how I feel about that but definitely interesting news. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

My analogy was clear, manchild.

wow. So incredibly profound. My alternative to a shitty world is one that isn't. Go back to kindergarten you manchild.

I have no idea what the guy really thinks about black people, but I don't think he's a psychotic murderer. — Hanover

I never said he's psychotic, I said he's a racist and he went out of his way to travel to an area nobody asked him to defend, in the hopes of catching one of the protesters, who were predominantly black, to give him a reason to pull the trigger. This is clear as day for anyone who looks into his Facebook history and his "proud boy oops-it-really-just-means-ok" sign, blue lives matter white-privileged racist skit.

He wasn't stupid, he knew exactly why he went there.

Jesus man. The kid is a fucking racist. Just like all the Proud Boys and Boogaloo dicks he's been hanging with before and after.

Yet he only killed white people. — Hanover

I'm sure Rittenhouse was very sad about that fact.

I started reading up a bit more and just stopped. Rittenhouse was acquitted from carrying an AR. Noice!

Minors are prohibited from possessing firearms except for hunting in Wisconsin. But I get, I get. He was hunting black people!

19 white jurors and 1 Hispanic. Based on demopgraphics alone at least 1 juror should've been black.

Anyone who doesn't think this wasn't about race again is just looking for excuses to not see the forest for the trees.

Acting wantonly requires the defendant to be aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Presumably, he should then have been aware of the risk of shooting an innocent at the moment he decided to go there. But he brought a gun precisely because he wanted to shoot someone. Proving awareness and conscious disregard with respect to that seems possible despite the remoteness between the decision to go there with a gun and the actual shooting.

So instead there must be a circumstance breaking that causality, eg. a supervening event. The jury must have found that in the way Rittenhouse was approached.

States aren't perfect but they sure as hell protect human rights better than any other situation we have seen. You have no argument because you have no alternative, without an alternative your complaint is the equivalent of the whining of a child who doesn't know how to play with other kids.

The idiocy consists of thinking better government with respect to human rights results from minimal government, which is quite clearly an ahistorical account. Strong governments are the only governments that provide good human right track records because most human rights compete in a non-hierarchical manner with each other and those competing interests need to be arbitrated and structured. Minimal governments and failed states do not have the institutions in place to do this properly and therefore have horrible track records in this area.

Better government is the consequence of how social institutions interact, how its people engage politically, how laws are established, what the voting process is, indeed, how their entire culture is organised. But that is obviously too nuanced for someone who only has an ideological axe to grind. So boring.

When did I pretend something like that existed? Never once. And I disagree with your assertions. — NOS4A2

Oh. I'm sorry. Are the logical consequences of your idiocy too difficult to grasp? Instead of denying it flat out, why don't you paint s picture of how such a society would look like and maybe give a historical example or two? I'll wait.

My take, but that's informed by Dutch law, is that he put himself in a position where the likelihood of him shooting someone greatly increased by travelling there armed with an apparent intent to look for conflict. Whether that was racially motivated or for the "good reason" to protect others and their property is neither here nor there. Anything that followed from that is a consequence of that decision and therefore on him.

It seems the jury considers a causal break between his decision and the actual killings but that wouldn't fly in the Netherlands. In fact, the long time he has been there, the long travel time and chances to therefore turn back would result in a premeditated murder conviction.

Because you're pretending something like that exists when you refuse to accept the fundamental rule governments play in upholding human rights. You cannot have minimal government and human rights protection. That's been proven to be impossible.

nope. The challenge is to demonstrate there is or was a society without a centralised government that had an excellent human rights record. It doesn't exist hence you have an idiotic ahistorical view which is purely driven by naive ideology. And while no government is perfect, by and large, most European countries uphold human rights at a level not seen at any time before in history. Thanks to strong social governments.

bullshit "Noble savage" ideas. Without enforcement and centralised government no society or organisation has managed to protect human rights. Your "men can grant each other rights" romanticism notwithstanding, not everyone will play and you need to deal with that. Time and again history has proven only strong governments subject to the rule of law can manage this.

Nope, but I like the use.

Your naive human rights theories are disproved by the fact that lawless areas in the world have worse human rights records. As usual you have nothing interesting to add with your ideas that are utterly detached from reality.

It's not a view, it's factual. The human rights regime allows for laws to suspend human rights. The necessity for this is obvious.

You are now also arguing against the fact that well organised states are good at protecting human rights. Must be fun being so ideologically blinkered that you get your very own Orwellian world where good things are really bad.

I agree the probability isn't very high but at the same time there's no scientific proof available, that I know of, that it couldn't have been engineered to some extent. If I've missed something, happy to be corrected (I am tired of Covid news to be honest). There was a Nature article early on in the pandemic that was reported by mainstream media as excluding the possibility but this turned out to be wrong. The EU has sent people over to investigate the lab leak theory but no conclusive evidence either way.

I don't think I agree. If it is a lab leak and how China dealt with that then I'd like my 45 billion EUR spend on Covid measures back. And we'd probably be far less relaxed next time something like this happens.

Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Human rights are not absolute or inherent but granted, in any case, by states and really just exists in wealthy counties that can afford it. Inequality and corruption are predictors of bad human rights practices. There are no weak or failed states with adequate human rights protections.

I never denied the possibility of a lab leak, in fact, I've openly changed my mind on the likelihood of that being true in this very thread. But I am denying that Telegraph article correctly interprets the results of the find.

Yes, I think that's clear for those examples but the Collatz sequence goes all over the place. The intuition would be that as long as you don't end up in a loop, you're bound to hit the stack since 3n+1 is always an even number and dividing by two is either odd or even. So the sequence will generate an infinite amount of different even numbers which should hit the stack at some point.

If there are infinite numbers in the stack and the sequence generates infinite new numbers (so it's not stuck in a loop), I would think it's bound to generate a number of the stack. Unlike, say, 2n-1 there's nothing inherent about the sequence that would make it avoid stack numbers.

Probably my idea of infinity is mathematically wrong and therefore the above is gibberish.

Even an infinity of sequences hitting your stack, and your stack being infinitely large, doesn't entail that every single number hits the stack right? All it takes is one. — fdrake

Why doesn't it make a difference that it's a sequence? So yes, not every single number hits the stack but as long as the sequence continuously generates a new number, it is bound to?

So then the only real risk of it not being true seems to be the existence of a loop that doesn't contain the number 1. If you take 3n-1 instead of 3n+1 there are two other loops possible early on that don't contain the number 1. Makes me wonder what the meaningful difference is here between those two equations, which don't seem fundamentally different but yield such different results.