:100:

It seems to me that we were promised something that they are unable to deliver. — NOS4A2

Entitlement mentality. (How much of their failure to deliver is due to tortious interference with their efforts to deliver?)

Given the denial of rights and other sacrifices the tax-payer has to make — NOS4A2

I know, right. Life is so unbelievably hard, as we pound away on our keyboards, with our full, warm and rested bellies. A billionaire paying a million in taxes is like an income of 100k paying 100. :cry:

we are also left to pay for these shortcomings, sometimes with our lives and livelihoods. — NOS4A2

You mean externalized costs? Welcome to the club! :rofl:

Even the mask mandates and vaccine passports are left to the tax-payer to enforce at their own expense. — NOS4A2

That's just another example of being nice and letting the individual decide how best to enforce. But yeah, that's a burden, so we should demand the military come in and enforce at government expense. :roll:

In Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein examines why we want the certainty of picturing language as words connected to objects (including a "meaning"). To unearth our desire he looks at example after example of the ordinary complicated ways the world is meaningful to us. — Antony Nickles

In this regard, animals are indeed innocent. And I too can be an animal.

Large tree plantations sprung up in the wake of America’s rape of her natural forests. Most of these are in the south east. All those who have spent time, in both plantation and forest, know deeply that a forest, by definition, is more than just trees (AWF). Some already knew this. Others had to witness the difference. Thus, when a tree falls in a forest, there is never no one there to not hear it. It always makes a sound.

However, there is a qualitative difference between the sound of a tree falling and that of a tree being felled. Some already knew this. Others had to listen to the difference. The ears of the innocent hear a different sound, a better sound. Whereas the words written on pages, made from the pulp of the wood from the trees? They make no sound that an innocent can hear over the din of the felling. Nor should they.

Sometimes even the logger will set down his tool and listen for a better sound. But it takes time; more for some than others. It’s not merely how long the ringing continues in the ear, but how innocent the ear is.

The requirement cannot be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or boy-specific and still be fair. But life isn't fair. If the SM has total authority under the institution's rules, then life's a bitch. But it's not fair.

If the kid knew patience was a requirement, and there were criteria set forth to obtain the accomplishment and he failed, that's on him. But your description makes it sound like an abuse of discretion.

Tell the kid to quit and join the Marine Corps. Messing with your head is part of the training, to make sure you can have your head messed with and still function as a Marine, but that's not arbitrary or capricious.

Patience is good, though. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.

This issue has been substantially dealt with in Eastern (and some Western) spiritual practices. The "effort of non-effort" and all that. It only seems to be a problem to the dualistic Western mind set.

This is not to suggest it is easy, far from it. I don't know for sure that it is possible to completely eliminate attachment and become permanently non-attached (enlightened). But I am humble enough to realize that I don't know that it is not possible either.

I think the idea that it is about making an effort to "harness" anything is a common mistake. It is more about an effort to keep "coming back" to and allow something more primordial.

So, I shouldn't have spoken about harnessing the ego; I think it's more about moving away from it. — Janus

It's a word choice problem that is not a problem. I'll use any word you want for "an effort to keep "coming back" to and allow something more primordial." My point was, it may be like trying to out run your shadow. Run, turn out the light, stop trying, whatever. Trying to be eternally in the now may be futile simply for the trying or cessation of trying. I'm no guru either, but I've had glimpses of something that may not be mine to have, at least perpetually.

All the best to those who want to put in the work, eastern or otherwise. Good on them. I've got a different life to live. There will be plenty of time for nirvana when I'm dead.

I think this is a mistake. The idea is not to harness "It", but to harness the ego that occludes "it". — Janus

Six of one, half dozen of the other. Harnessing the ego in an effort to "achieve" (harness) the selfless state may be doomed to failure simply for the harnessing (or effort to achieve, if you will).

I’m talking about what one should or should not do. — NOS4A2

Okay. I think we can both agree that everyone should be kind, respectful and considerate of everyone else. Were it so. Were it so. In the mean time, back in the real world . . .

Indirect democracy can do no better than to legitimize authority and give a man or party the right to control us and steal the fruits of our labour. Representative democracy is democratic in name only. — NOS4A2

If everyone did what they should or should not do then yeah, no need for any of that state stuff.

Enlightenment means a conscious annihilation of yourself. For most people, it will take a certain amount of time and maturing to understand that whatever you make yourself to be, in the end, it is frustrating and not enough. However wonderful you make yourself, still it is not enough. Only when you disappear, everything becomes wonderful." — Tom Storm

This reminds me of the phrase "beside one's self". It is a state, I think, where awareness exists, but it is not an awareness of one's self. It it actually a super-awareness of everything but one's self. One ceases to be, and all there is is now. No past, no future, no self. Just now. I find this in the hunt, I've found it at my child's birth, maybe a few moments of unbridled emotion. I can see how the examining of an examined life, or that eureka moment in the lab, or the middle of the night, or maybe a glimpse of something when meditation is mastered, might all be construed the same, both east and west. A flash of nirvana. But only a flash. A tease. Maybe the eastern effort to harness it, through some kind of practice, is the equivalent of domesticating something wild: the result becomes us and we like it, but it's a watered-down version what we wanted when we saw it. It is not enough.

That's the spirit of the times. — Banno

I know, right! Ugh!

Have a look at this post where I attempt to disambiguate the word in respect of its European and Eastern applications. (Not that it makes a lot of difference to the mob.) — Wayfarer

:up: Good read, thanks. I'm comfortable with the Eastern notion too, and even a combination, but, other than my theory of All (which I endeavor to explain in terms a western view might entertain) I try avoid the eastern. It seems so personal to me and I hate to subject it to the slings and arrows of those who (think) the "know" better. There is room for it in my heart, though, and I think that's good enough.

Maybe instead of defaulting the period of the "Enlightenment" I should just visualize a person with a light bulb going off over their head and a smile on their face:



Another angle that might offend everyone is "woke." :grin:

Thus, "the enlightened" live (more) worthwhile examined lives — 180 Proof

Yes.

When I hear the word "enlightened" I think of the Enlightenment, which then makes me wonder what distinguishes leaders of that era from everyone else of that era. When I look at everyone else of that era, I see folks who knew. They knew they were peasants, they knew they were clergy, they knew they were aristocracy; whatever. They knew. Everything was ordered and everyone had their place. That was the way things were and that was the way things should be.

Enlightenment = not knowing, but wondering. Examining. Questioning. And, like they said in the 60s, "Question Authority."

I worry about that last one though, because a lot of Trumpettes think they are doing exactly that. Hmmmm. But I think they lack curiosity, examination. They "know." They don't question authority. They they don't question. I guess one who questions authority should at least listen to the answers. After all, authority is not necessarily wrong simply by being authority. Might is not necessarily wrong just because it is mighty. Power is not absolutely corrupt simply because it is powerful, and maybe somewhat corrupt.
The state might actually be weaker if it is deep. When you lose a lawful election you should take your licks. If you want to consider yourself enlightened, then you have to argue with something besides a temper tantrum and threats. We're supposed to be adults here.

"Ch'i 'hu nan hsia pei" goes the Chinese proverb, translated in 1875 as "He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount."

Once you have achieved absolute power, how in hell are you going to step down? You've made so many enemies getting up, that there is no way down. And continued enemy efforts from below will bring you to corruption in keeping them there.

The Japanese may have had a way out, which was suicide. Rather than act corruptly, and rather than try to retire, you find some honor excuse to off yourself.

If you could only restrain your corruption to invocation upon enemies:

"Hey, my loving children, I promise to be good to you. When you see me, admittedly, act corruptly, please know that I am only acting corruptly with respect to evil doers. I am the philosopher king, only doing evil to evil and always doing good to good."

Yeah, that's the ticket! :rofl:

Perhaps it is noble that Trumpists are willing to die for their beliefs? — praxis

I don't know if it's noble, but it can't be good for their base.

P.S. Why hasn't ISIS, et al, weaponized Covid? You'd think they'd have a bunch of guys walking around like Republicans.

One should not exercise a right that would infringe on the rights of others. — NOS4A2

We're not talking about what one should or should not do. We are talking about what one does; and what, if anything, should be done about it. If you don't think anything should be done about it, then just say so.

As for rights, in my view no right shall be infringed. — NOS4A2

So all rights are unconditional?

Only the state gets to legislate. In the absence of referendum the “people” have had no say in any of it. — NOS4A2

So the people have no say in a representative democracy? And you would champion direct democracy, as opposed to representative democracy?

I think to be enlightened is the realization that there are things that you don't know that you don't know.

Everyone knows there are things they don't know. But not everyone knows there are things that they don't know they don't know.

I don't know if I actually believe what I just said, but I'm throwing it out there as a kind of free-form, train-of-thought kind of thing; tossing it on the wall to see if it sticks. Feel free to destroy it. :smile:

P.S. I know I don't know how much you weigh. I also know that I don't know anything about that atom on that piece of mineral on the back side of that distant planet 12 billion lightyears from here that we've never seen and don't know exists and that no one has ever mentioned until now. But beyond that, there are things that I don't know I don't know, and I know that. Thus, I am enlightened. I am both humbled by my ignorance, and eager to know what I don't know. In fact, it intrigues me way more than the answers to those simple things that I know I don't know.

P.S. In addition to my last, I got to thinking also about this:

As well, the antipathy of philosophy is a parred down summary or "thesis"--thinking I could just "tell" you--because plowing through it and noticing what comes to your mind, seeing for and to yourself, is necessary for philosophy to be fruitful at all, to change how you think (not just what, like an opinion), — Antony Nickles

I happen to agree, somewhat. As I said 8 months ago: "The mode of travel can matter. I used to be jealous of those people who, after my long cognitive slog to a place, I find already there, having arrived on the wings of intuition. But then I remember I have found along my way; the truth is often counterintuitive. While others may wonder what took me so long, I’d rather arrive knowing what I don’t know. We may be in agreement; we may be in the same place. But if I must have company, I choose those who arrive by foot."

So we are in agreement. But some folks (me for instance) need:

the possibility of getting you further interested — Antony Nickles

in order to initiate the trek in the first place. Too often I have found the educated will wield their knowledge like a sword of intimidation or pride, with a whole lot of form and no substance. I arrive at the end of a journey and find nothing there. Or, as they say out west, "All hat and no cattle."

I am happy to say that with you, such is not the case. You have held my hand and I thank you for it.

Cavell . . . takes a moral issue of this magnitude not as a matter of an intellectual argument . . . but that it takes re-imagining the world in a different way for ourselves, so that the form of claim I make is emotional and revelatory and calls you out to answer in kind (or be the lesser for it) — Antony Nickles

That (with my redactions) is what I got from your original post. I just got lost in who said what, and did not want to misattribute.

the comment is not about the subject so much as the form of discussion. — Antony Nickles

That was my suspicion, and a cause of a little consternation. I now feel better knowing that what I took from your post regarding the form of discussion applies to how I think about people as well as animals.

I like that form of discussion. It almost seems to put intuition back on equal footing with cognition.

Thanks for the clarification.

Because I am wanting in my ability to parse your post (I don't have the trained academic mind), I did what I have often done with complex statutes that constantly refer/cite to other provisions within themselves, full of caveats, extrapolation and parenthetical explanations, editing out what I perceived as surplusage, and deleting page numbers, etc.. Nevertheless, I found myself getting lost in who said what about what: You, Cavell, Diamond, Wittgenstein, Austin, Banno, Plato, Kant. So I removed the names and tried again to winnow the gist. The end result found me again embarrassingly wanting, and afraid to respond lest I sound even dumber than I am.

So I ask that it be re-written for my lay-eyes; barring that, I will graciously bow out and thank you for an offering, albeit too thick for me to eat. :chin: :smile:

P.S. No culture is stagnant. They either change or die. Every single one.
— James Riley
Exactly.

If for example people don't have in ceremonies folk costumes from the 19th Century (and some from the 18th Century) doesn't mean that Finnish culture is dying. Culture isn't just remembering the past, but adapting to the present and creating something new in one's own way. Besides, there has always been the a lot of influences across cultures. Good luck trying to separate which Nordic traditional folk costumes comes from which country. They actually are quite similar. — ssu

When I was young, and ignorant of such things, I would attend powwows. I would look around for, and be somewhat disappointed not to find, dancers who were in traditional, brain-tanned buckskins and other natural materials, sewn with sinew, etc.

My little brain suffered cognitive dissonance in witnessing all the Nike sneakers, Copenhagen and Skoal can lids, bright silk fabric, metal arrowheads and other accoutrements foreign to my myopic understanding of what an Indian should be. I thought their culture must truly be dead if it did not fit my prejudicial, uninformed and wholly biased view. And there all around, were cowboy hats, boots, Wranglers and rodeo buckles. On Indians! And what was with all those western saddles! And Winchesters in the Easy Rider Rifle Racks!

But they were patient, and gentle with me over the years. And not with just a little humor. Although trust was and still is difficult to earn. And understandably so. They trade goods just as they traded goods long before Columbus showed up. Why not continue trading? That is entirely consistent with their culture. The best obsidian came from areas that may have been a thousand miles away. So why not silk from the orient? The horse itself was food, left the continent, returned and was adopted for work and transportation. So why not a truck from Detroit? I suppose if Indians can't have a truck, then horses are out too. What then of the horse culture?

The language was still there. And oh, the drumming and songs and dancing. I have heard it in the clouds laying on the ground in misty rain in familiar lands. It's still in the land. I have many CDs and they are in "shuffle" on my iPod. Whenever I go to powwow, they insist I come dance the veterans dance with them: Nez Perce, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Shoshone, Paiute.

They have all the characters of humanity, generally, including both bad and good. I represented individuals and Tribes, in Tribal and federal court. They have all the politics and infighting and animosities that other cultures have. There is even division between "traditionalists" and others. But I learned the worst thing I could do was to think their culture does not exist. Yes, there were tribes (especially on the coasts) that suffered genocide into extinction. Literally every last member killed. But there are many that are left. Many have their cultures and languages and songs and ceremonies extant.
Changed? Yes. But still very much alive.

I don't hold romantic views of Indians. They are humans and I'm no big fan of humans. But at the end of the day, there are many cultures left, and I've seen worse.

More a question as to what it's doing for folks here, how it rows your boat and what boat it rows. — tim wood

Rather than a boat-rowing metaphor, I like the idea of scratching an itch. Sometimes that itch is too hard to reach, so I use a back scratcher, which would be a book. Hopefully it's not too sharp or too fast, like a chain saw. I'm not that tough.

I like a tree with the bark on. Something that stands still, and solid, while I work on it. AHHHH! A little lower! Perfect!

I've had a hard time finding the perfect tree. I thought of planting a few my own self, and I actually did; twenty years ago, even. But they still aren't throwing shade, or scratching any backs but my own. So I turn to others in the old growth forest.

But I hear chainsaws in the distance.

But what if the overwhelming majority who do not kill or injure others? — NOS4A2

It's up to the people as to whether they want to impose upon their government the burden of screening each and every individual, and then providing the responsible one's with a florescent orange car, so the cops know those people are responsible drivers and to not bother pulling them over, just to have others cry out about unequal treatment of the laws, and how they did their own research, and how they know that a faster rate of speed can safely be sustained on that road.

The people have decided not to do that. They decided instead to have a driver's license vetting process that teaches people what signs mean and how to read them. They decided to have the state hire experts, engineers and scientist who run calculations that are beyond guys like me to discern the nature and radius of the curve ahead, the slope of the road, the width, the number of lanes, etc. and then calculate a safe limit of speed based upon billions of miles of experience that are way beyond any who are not experts in the field.

So if you believe in positive rights such as the right to healthcare, welfare, employment, you also believe in the duty to provide them. — NOS4A2

Thanks.

So if believe a person does not have a right to employment, then you can place conditions upon that employment? Like masking, distancing, vaxxing? If a person does not believe in healthcare, can their access thereto be conditioned upon vaxxing? In other words, if there are no positive rights, then we simply have privileges? Privileges which can be denied without the violation of negative rights?

So if you believe in the right to free speech, conscience, liberty, you also believe in the duty to refrain from suppressing them. — NOS4A2

Are those rights unlimited? Can the exercise of those rights infringe upon the rights of others?

Do rights (positive or negative) come with responsibilities? Or can you run around exercising your rights, carte blanche, while interfering with the rights of others?

Careful she doesn't place it under her authority. The authority of which all married men know, and real men fear (if their wives are real women). — tim wood

:zip: :grin:

And apparently worth not spilling coffee on! Or I'll buy it from you for not more than $20. — tim wood

Yikes! I had no idea. I'll be more careful with my coffee! Anyway, I have to go needle my wife about this. :rofl:

I cannot see it like you because I’m left wondering how someone like you or me “gives rise” to a 30 zone, as if I had any hand in legislation. — NOS4A2

You and me give rise to a 30 by driving irresponsibly (too fast) in that zone, and killing or injuring others and depriving them of their rights.

Do I give rise to a 70 zone if I drive too slow? — NOS4A2

You do if it's been proven to be too slow. We have zones in the U.S. with minimums for that very reason.

As for rights, I speak only of the negative rights, not the positive privileges. — NOS4A2

Help me out here, with an example.

Whose copy are you reading? Used book prices on this are North of $500! Oh, wait! One $250. — tim wood

"A Ballena Press/Center for Archeoastronomy Cooperative Publication." I doubt that I paid more than 20 bucks for it. Probably mid-1990s? It's a 9" tall X 6" wide paper back.

Roger that.

I don’t see how I can blame someone else for the actions of some government official. — NOS4A2

So if a cop pulls you over for going 70 in a 30 you blame the cop instead of all the individuals who gave rise to the 30?

But that’s the way collectivism works in a nutshell. The actions of one individual makes the rest guilty by association. — NOS4A2

Indeed. When individuals fail to regulate themselves, the collective will do that for them.

Rather than consider things on a case-by-case — NOS4A2

We actually do that in criminal law. But individuals deprive the state of the ability to consider typhoid Mary's on a case-by-case basis.

This is not because they are right or more just, but because they are easier and involve less effort. — NOS4A2

Bingo! Easier and less effort is what individualist fund the state for.

Principles like due process were devised to protect the individual from the state. It is because of the state’s malfeasances that it exists. — NOS4A2

Bingo!

It wouldn’t exist, in the Magna Carta or the American constitution, for example, if the state had its way. — NOS4A2

Wrong. That is the state.

The protections of these individual rights are the proper sphere of government, in my opinion, but beyond that it should not go. — NOS4A2

The state IS protecting individual rights when it protects the right of individuals to be free from the imposition of other individuals.

But, as you mention, they have taken on collectivist tasks like providing health and welfare, so rights be damned. — NOS4A2

Those collectivists task or protecting the health and welfare (also in the organic documents that you exalt for protecting individual liberties) are specifically designed to protect individual liberties.

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

Maybe cite some actual case law proving my opinion is worthless.

P.S. Belay my last. Better yet, prove you can think on your own two feet.

The upshot of my exchange with is this: I have no right to be right, but he has a right to be wrong.

Where the sidewalk, as a state construct, might be distracting to one uncertain about his own views, lets go to hundreds of square miles of short-grass prairie, 5k years ago. X is standing there, in the middle, minding his own business. Y, completely unaware of X, has been marching west for days. He comes over a rise and sees X, quite coincidentally, standing right in the path that Y is on. The same facts then unfold as we had in the sidewalk situation. Only one need be wise, but which one is that, and what does he do to prove his wisdom? Only one is a fool, but which one is that, and what does he do to prove his foolishness? But wait! We are told they are both fools! Hmmm. An unexplained pivot. What do we do with this pivot?

We discern than there is no right of anyone to impose, under any circumstance. But wait, there is a caveat: self defense. But we agree that self defense is imposition in response to imposition. So there was a first? A "He started it" argument, like a child defending his actions to a mommy who is chastising both, for failure to get along? But even if that is a sound argument, which one, X or Y, was the first to impose before a justified self defense was launched in response?

Again, if everyone was kind, considerate, respectful, as in a Utopia, then this would not be an issue. One, or both, would yield to imposition, without defending against it. But alas, we don't live in Utopia. And where imposition need not be physical, but merely mental, or argumentative, the best we can do is say there is no right to be right, but there is a right to be wrong. And two wrongs can indeed make a right. My being right is apparently an imposition and, in being kind, considerate, respectful and wise, wrong has agreed to step aside. I am a fool for being right, and my learned opponent is wise for being wrong.

I guess it's better than mommy coming in and giving both a spanking.

That will be my last extension of grace. — Tzeentch

There is no grace in your failure to explain your consideration of the fools on a sidewalk, as I requested you to do. Crickets.

Read my whole posts, James. :sad: — Tzeentch

I've been following you in this thread and find what I perceive to be your lack of understanding of your own arguments. Bending over backwards in an effort to make sense of what you say, the best I can come up with, is a notion that "rights" don't exist. There may be no right to impose, but, by your arguments regarding what constitutes imposition, there can be no rights. The sidewalk example was where we left it. Just fools imposing or failing to defend against imposition. Hmmm.

as if people are unable to isolate and stay away from others without government internment. — NOS4A2

I think people are perfectly capable of isolating and staying away from others without government internment.

The problem is those who don't do what they are capable of doing.

Rather than blame those who refuse to do what they are capable of doing, we blame government for internment in response to the failure of some to do what they are capable of doing. Even those who do isolate and stay away from others get rolled up because of those who don't. Not because of government, but because of those who don't do what they are capable of doing.

While government actions may become more draconian over time, just imagine what will happen if government fails: How about the people start holding a blanket party for those who bring the shit down on everyone else? I don't ascribe to that, early on, but it can be an inevitable result.

Where government has this impossible task of protecting individual liberties while protecting the health and welfare of individuals so they can exercise their individual liberties, groups of individuals may step in to get the job done. At that point, internments camps will look like a welcome alternative.

I can't overstate the leniency this all started out with. Is there a progression to harsher and harsher measures? Yes. But we have met the enemy and he is us. (Pogo?). We bring this upon ourselves and government is the least of our worries. Collective, non-governmental action is the worst case scenario. And guess what? You still have that "collective" that is the enemy of individualism. Personally, I'd rather have government hang me after due process of law than a bunch of assholes do it without any process at all. You might argue that it doesn't matter, because you are still hung. But the fact we have civil society demonstrates the difference. If it wasn't a good thing, we would have purged it long ago.

Government should be held to a higher standard. And it is.

All the way! — Tzeentch

An imposition is the use of force to make an individual act in accordance to one's desires. — Tzeentch

Then there is no right to self defense.

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

I already taught you that I have a right to not have my bodily integrity violated by your disease. I taught you that a burden which is upon me cannot be proven. I taught you that society has thus shifted that burden to you. But nice try, arguing that I don't know about human rights when it is human rights the state is trying to protect, in accord with it's very reason for being. I think you need to go back to school and learn about human rights.

Your irrelevant and artificial distinction between "in" and "on" is, as you would say, "neither here nor there." If I punch you in the face I have not pierced your precious skin, but I have indeed violated your bodily integrity. So too the seat belt or helmet that breaks your neck because it does not meet your arbitrary and capricious 100% standard.

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

Sure it does. If your neck breaks in a car accident, I'd say your bodily integrity had been ruined. A needle in the arm, not so much.

I'll let you believe those cultures still exist. There's no harm in that. — frank

The harm is in believing they don't.

P.S. No culture is stagnant. They either change or die. Every single one.

Vaccines are not 100% safe and unless you can guarantee that you shouldn't be forcing people to take it. — Benkei

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. Nevertheless, if one chooses to exercise the privilege of driving on society's streets in some jurisdictions, they must wear a seat belt and/or a helmet. This is done simply to keep insurance premiums down. The vaccine is intended to save lives.

Here is why the vaccine is so important: The burden of proof in an allegation of negligent homicide or reckless endangerment is upon the state or the plaintiff. If a person gets Covid 19 and gets sick or dies, it is *almost* impossible to prove that any particular person was the source of their illness or death. Individuals who refuse to take steps to prevent harming others are relying upon this burden to remain step-free.

If, in a utopian dream world, we could prove that X was the source, then we have protocols in place to stop the spread. People who harm or kill others can be sued until they are destitute, leaving themselves and their families penniless because they refused to take reasonable steps to protect others. Or, they could be imprisoned. But we don't live in utopia, so the the state kindly asks people to distance, mask and vax. The requests and the impositions continue to ratchet-up as time goes on and people refuse.

Individuals want to place the burden of proof where it already lies: "Prove it was me or I'm not going to refrain from exercising privilege." However, because it is a privilege, and not a right, the state is on sound moral ground in denying access to privilege to any who don't want to wear the seat belt, helmet, or vax. This has been argued and litigated for a hundred years and found lawful and moral. The state is NOT forcing anyone to vax. It's just that you can't use our toys on our field if you won't play by our rules.

I'm not a scientist, so I'm not going down the rabbit hole of arguing efficacy. I'm just arguing that the state is on sound legal and moral grounds taking the least-intrusive route available in pursuit of a compelling state interest to protect the health and welfare of it's citizens.

The example features two fools. — Tzeentch

How would one not be a fool? To not stand or walk on a sidewalk? I don't like cities; some folks do. But I don't think I or they are fools simply because we walk or stand on a sidewalk when we are there.

The fact that one of the fools wisens up, does not cure the other of their foolishness. — Tzeentch

Which one wised up? The one that gave way, or the one that refused to go around?

Native Americans aren't like that. Their cultures are gone. — frank

:roll: :snicker:

:lol: