Coming from somebody who said the fetus is a human but you would personally kill it is asked by the mother.. — Gregory

Correct, and?

I place the mother's right, carte blanche, over that of any that reside within her.

The mother has rights over her body, not someone else's — Gregory

She sure as hell does, if that other body goes a wandering around inside of her body. It's like a little uninvited trespasser.

:100:

You do use sophistry. The mother has no right over something that is not her body. Child's body, it's rights. — Gregory

You are using a big word in order to sound intelligent. I am not using sophistry. Look it up.

Anyway, the mother has sovereign rights over that which is IN her body, whether some wag wants to claim it is part of her body or not. She can snip that umbilical any old time she wants as far as I'm concerned. The child has no rights unless and until we give it rights. And even then, those rights have been and can be subordinated to the rights of the mother.

LBC radio got a caller once who had voted for the UK to leave the EU. He cried down the phone (“What have I done to my country?”) because he felt so strongly that he’d made a mistake.

How far from such feelings are advocates for these restrictions and mandates? Do they dare consider what they’ve done? It doesn’t seem so to me. — AJJ

I don't know but the news is full of folks with Covid crying that they wished they'd vaxed. Some die. So there's that.

On your question, we'll have to wait a spell, I reckon. After all, we've mostly been asking politely and the harshness has yet to really kick in. Keep up your whining and they will kick in. Then we wait and find out if I and my ilk have any regrets. Then you can tell us "I told you so!" in your righteous indignation.

Life must be assumed to have rights. — Gregory

No assumption must be made. But even if it is, rights are not absolute. We subordinate them all the time.

There are no counter rights of the mother. — Gregory

Wait, what? I thought you were arguing that the baby's right to life was a counter to the rights of the mother? I must have missed something.

When this is not accepted morality slips into nihilism — Gregory

Life need not be meaningless and yet one life can be subordinated to another life, or a right held by another life.

So there is the sophism. — Gregory

That is not a sophism. Look it up.

The one and only issue is whether the pre-born should be considered human. — Gregory

No, that is not the one and only issue. The one and only issue is when the right to life vests. That is a legal question. The courts rule on matters of law. The legislature makes the law.

It's about what we are willing to respect. — Gregory

Yes, and by "we", see above.

You are willing to kill the pre-born even if there might be human rights there. — Gregory

Well, I suppose if a woman asked me to, and if I had the skill set, then yes, I'd be willing. Her choice.

Abortion supporters don't care if there might be rights involved. — Gregory

Sure they do. See above.

They want some kind of false liberation in order to be "free". — Gregory

No, they don't. They want you to mind your own business.

It's ridiculous that you are willing to end a beating heart just because you can't find a logical proof that it is human. — Gregory

Please don't put words in my mouth. I stipulate that life begins at conception, if not before, and that anyone, anywhere, at any time has sovereign jurisdiction over any life that resides within their body.

There is no logical proof for anything about rights in that way. — Gregory

If you are arguing that the law is illogical, then take it up if you are so concerned about it. I, personally, think she should be able to kill it any time that it is within her, but the law says otherwise. Some sophistic BS about sentience, viability, heart beats and other nonsense. If I really cared, I'd take it up, but it's not my call. It's a woman's call. I will support her decision regarding anything inside of her and whether she wants to litigate something.

We come from a family tree of hominids. It's about what we should respect as honorable responsible people. — Gregory

I agree. As honorable, responsible people, we should respect the sovereign jurisdiction of a woman over any life that resides within her (aka mind our own business).

Pro-choice people are like people in free fall trying to grab on to anything they can to keep it going — Gregory

Sounds like the busy bodies minding other people's business.

First you say life, then you limit that to human life, then you don't fight the state's right to kill on the back end, but you do fight when the state decides vesting on the front end. Then you distinguish based on innocence, while we kill the innocent all the time on the back end. Talk about sophistry. Jeesh!

Abortion advocates have trouble defending their positions without resorting to sophism. — Gregory

No they don't. There is a world of difference between life and the right thereto. Her house, her rules. No sophism.

From a legal stand point this needs to be cleared up. — Rxspence

Her house, her rules. Cleared up.

:up:

I'm not sure which provides longer protection at this point either. I have heard natural immunity wears off sooner than vax, but I'm not sure. Then there is the issue of variants working around immunity. (variants that we might not have if everyone would have played ball.)

Consider it: you’re not a good person. — AJJ

I will take your input under advisement and render an august decision at my earlies convenience. Or not. :razz:

I assume you advocate for these policies, so arguably you share some of the blame for these deaths. — AJJ

Those policies are largely the result of the refusal of disrespectful, inconsiderate and selfish people to distance, mask, wash and vax. Had they played ball from day one, the policies would be gone months ago and we'd be back to where we were. Oh, and don't place the burden of proof on me. It's not mine. So no, we don't share any of the blame. It's your fault.

especially when natural immunity can offer better protection than some vaccines, — NOS4A2

If true, then I suppose we could offer a choice between vaccination and just injecting with Covid. Those who choose the latter could then quarantine for two weeks or whatever the time frame is to gain their natural immunity. The only problem there is, I think studies have shown that the antibodies don't last that long after natural infection.

You do know that it was never written anywhere that you could not drive drunk. Until it was written. And it was only written because some people thought it was their God-given right to drive drunk.

Always consider the possibility that if one is unable to convince others with rational arguments, one's arguments might not be as rational and objective as one thinks. — Tzeentch

Done. No joy.

Society’s interest is its own continuation — NOS4A2

. And nowhere does it state that we have to mandate people to take a vaccine and deny them access to society if they do not. — NOS4A2

Society has chosen. It tried to be nice. But:

It’s a simple moral decision. — NOS4A2

some individuals are trying to impose their will on other individuals, which is closer to the spirit of war than any defense of fundamental rights. — NOS4A2

True. We (society) have decided we want to continue. That is in our interest. We tried to ask nice. While it nowhere states we have to mandate people take the vaccine, we have made a simple moral decision to do so. We don't want war, but you are asking for it. You keep freeloading off of us like a welfare queen and you don't want to do your part. You have a peaceful option: pack your bags and leave. Quit availing yourself of society's benefits. It's a simple moral decision.

Thank you to all the essential workers who do what you do, which keeps me in the standard of living to which I have become accustomed. You aren't always paid enough and "thanks" doesn't always cut it, but thank you anyway. Maybe if you quit I would become a tougher, better person, but I think you teaching me what is essential and what is not, and "for" what. That is a good thing too. Thank you.

:100:

:100:

Society is composed of individuals. — NOS4A2

The body is composed of cells.

First you say:

The interests of the individual is the interest of society at large. — NOS4A2

Then you say:

. . .no one, including the state, can know what “the interest of society” is. — NOS4A2

Which is it? First you say the interest of the individual is the interest of society, then you say no one can know what the interest of society is. Please clarify.

That’s what we’re dealing with here: the interest of some group, in this case the interest of the state and those who seek to gain from the exercise of state power. — NOS4A2

The state is the representative of society at large. There is a collective "we" making these decisions, willing to sacrifice our own and our neighbor's autonomy, willing to deny medical privacy, willing to endorse mass discrimination, all to appease our subjective, consequentialist desires, all seeking to gain from the exercise of state power to protect the interests of the individual. We are trying to protect ourselves from an enemy common to each individual and to society at large.

For me, I engage them only in the company of a third party or audience, not to persuade them but to expose the falsity of such claims before witnesses and hopefully to provoke others to question prevalent, uninformed gossip, conventional wisdom and stupifying conspiracies. Like a good gadly, I try to plant seeds of doubt in as many heads as the occasion allows. 'Shaming stupidity' (or rodeo clownin' the bulls***) is how I roll online as well as off. :smirk:
Philosophy does not serve the State or the Church, who have other concerns. It serves no established power. The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy that saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosophy. It is useful for harming stupidity, for turning stupidity into something shameful.
— Gilles Deleuze — 180 Proof

I think I like that. I'm not so sure, but since it made me think, there must be something to it. I mean, "clownin' the bulls***"? That's some gold right there. And without a barrel! That's old school. :strong:

According to an article in The Atlantic, the ACLU has come out in favour of COVID Vaccine Mandates: — Wayfarer

President Joe Biden to the unvaccinated: "We've been patient, but our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us."

Jeff Tiedrich: "Joe Biden has had just about enough of your shit."

Pam Kling: "Along with 81 million of us."

Me: "I have to have a passport to travel? Wah, wah, wah, wah! You meanies! Wah, wah, wah!"

:up:

Regarding the ninth of November, on the other hand, I think the physical evidence for controlled demolition is completely overwhelming. To even begin to change my mind on that I'd need to see a plausible explanation for the collapse of building 8 minus 1 - office conflagration isn't plausible. — bert1

Off topic, but please educate this neophyte: Why speak obliquely instead of using the date and building number conventionally used? Am I out of the loop on something?

I don't think this answers the objections I raised about the distinction between the daily life and meta determinism problem. You will still act in such a way that people can choose. — schopenhauer1

I believe in All. Which means everything you just said true. And not. In fact, there is a you right where you are, right now, that is not. How can we tap that shit? Well, it is being tapped, by you, right now. Why don't we know that? Well, you do, right now. Try harder. And not. There you go! Good job! And not. It's all good. And not. And everything and nothing in between. :smile:

I struggle with it because of the stakes. — Xtrix

The problem is those other people and the stances they hold and the things they do that take for granted that they are entitled to live in a safe world that is obligated to accommodate them.

They are inconsiderate, disrespectful and selfish. It's all about them. They are afraid of a shot. They think they should be able to run around like nothing is wrong as they spread their filthy disease.

Right but this just has all the problems with hard determinism. — schopenhauer1

I don't see a problem. And I don't see a map that can't be ignored. In consideration of All, choice can still remain while not running afoul of it. Literally anything is possible, and not, at the same time. Not knowing, having the slate wiped clean, is the beauty of it.

Is it even worth it to engage with these people? — Xtrix

It's somewhat like morbid curiosity: we are drawn to it, even though we probably shouldn't be. Where you see a wreck on the side of the road and you slow down to see the ruined lives, you can also slow down on the interwebs to see the ruined mind. You can even engage it, like staring at a dead body, try some CPR but ultimately knowing it's dead and you end up wondering where the soul or the self or the brain went. But in the end, it's best to try to overcome your baser instincts and move on. There will be others, behind you, doing the same. Few, if any, will say "Gee, I wish that was me! I like that way that looks and the way everyone stares at him/her. I want that!"

:up: Yep. And in a true free-market, capitalist system, they would have to pay for their externalized costs. But no. They socialize their costs onto the backs of everyone else.

A while ago, wasn't one of the main anti-vaxxer arguments the fact that the FDA hadn't approved the vaccines yet? Funny how they haven't changed their stance...it's almost as if they can't be persuaded by evidence and reason. — Xtrix

Yes, and their pivot was anticipated before it even happened. No matter what their current argument is, it will morph to new ground. Because it has nothing to do with science. Nothing whatsoever.

It's also interesting how some of those dying of Covid accepted other medical treatments that had not been approved by the FDA. And yet their lives were, in some cases, saved by those medicines.

Your rights stop when you effect others with your body. — Xtrix

:up:

"His right to swing his Covid ends where my nose begins." Actually, that's battery. The definition of "assault" would actually have his right to swing his Covid end well before my nose begins. If I am placed in reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm in the face of his apparent ability to carry it out, he has assaulted me. I think, in light of the Delta variant and pass throughs and other new variants and whatnot, it is reasonable for me to fear his filthy breath.

another possible — AJJ

Add "another possible" to "consideration" and "cause for concern". Do you actually think you walk in the footsteps of Socrates? Are you just fulfilling that role of questioning authority? A public service of thinking being a critic = critical thinking? Why you, AJJ? I mean, couldn't your side have found someone better to carry that water? Never mind. I'm done with you too, I guess.

Resources wasted on policing illicit 'sex work' should be repurposed to investigating, breaking-up trafficking networks and prosecuting traffickers-pimps, not only nationally but through international coordination. — 180 Proof

:100: I don't think it would be unreasonable to divorce the alleged reason for the trafficking from the trafficking itself. The way we have it now, "sex trafficking" is like "cotton slavery." As if other slavery was okay. :roll: Just go after the trafficking of humans, period. If individuals want to screw or pick cotton, they can do it for pay and pocket all the benefits instead of turning all or some over to a trafficker/slave owner. In fact, let's do away with the term "trafficking" and call it what it is: slavery. Why distinguish between a slave trader and a slave owner? I thought we settled this in the 1860s? Guess not. Find a slave owner? Kill the MFr.

And so I don’t wish to see the driving of cars mandated and it’s reasonable for people to decline using them. — AJJ

The purpose for which the analogy was offered flew right over your pointed little head. LOL! Car accidents are not the result of the vax. DOH! But a dummy might make that connection.

Yes, the government doesn’t own anyone’s body. The legitimacy of government authority over someone’s body has never been justified. It’s as simple as that. — NOS4A2

LOL! Tell that to the guy's who got drafted shot and killed in Vietnam. Somewhere on this board there was an explanation of land ownership and the sovereign. It's kind of like that. Kind of like Socrates and that state that created him. In the end, might makes right and you don't own your own body if your rights to the sanctity of it are violated without recourse. Hell, that meth head across the street could own your body if he played his cards right. And my right to bodily integrity is threatened by anti-vaxers running around spreading their filthy disease. Happens all the time. Get used to it.

I bet we could find evidence that some people died in car accidents on the way home from getting the shot. Probably more than those who got clots. Hmmm. Let's start a conspiracy. I could go on Tucker Carlson and be an expert!

I learned that if I have a question about a mineral, plant or animal, I will ask them. And they will answer, in their own way. And if I don't understand, that's on me; I'm not listening. I have also learned that their failure to ask me questions is not due to an inability to do so, or a lack of curiosity. I just don't have anything to say that they don't already know.

We can’t just surrender that power because, for the time being, it only affects people we disagree with. — NOS4A2

Sure we can. In our version of "free-market capitalism" we make calculations of acceptable losses all the time. Since there will be losses, acceptable or not, the smart thing to do would be to distribute those losses only among those who disagree, like you, Isaac and whatever that new kid's name is. Unfortunately, we can't parse the losses in that fashion because we don't know who the vax will kill or harm. So the next best option is to deprive you of your right to bodily integrity and make you take the vax along with everyone else; simply hoping that you draw the unlucky card. Hell, we do it with women all the time. We ask them to surrender their power because, for the time being, it only affects them. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Pay up. Why should you guys be any different?

It's dangerous, and the only normal response should be embarrassment and retraction.

Again -- not holding my breath. — Xtrix

:100:

:100:

Assuming that people should be able to make their own health decisions, should be able to decide what they don’t want to inject into their body, the problem with vaccine mandates is that it forces or coerces people into putting biological agents into their body that they otherwise might not want to. I think parents ought to decide how to protect their children when it comes to vaccination. I don’t think the government should. — NOS4A2

Is there any case where you would change your position?

For instance, I read some time ago that Covid is, quite literally, nothing compared to what could happen with other unrelated viruses should they: 1. make the leap from the animal to man; 2. be airborne; and 3. be easily transmissible. The worst case scenario being a pandemic that wipes out 70 or 80% of the world's human population in a matter of months.

If there was a biological agent, free and easily injectable into the human body that would stop this in it's tracks if everyone took it, thus preventing variants and pass-throughs, and if the physical down-sides were no worse than the Covid vaccine, would you stick to your guns?

(If I recall correctly, the hypothetical is actually probable if human population continues to increase and if there were no countervailing medical rescues. Apparently it happens in nature all the time when a species gets beyond carrying capacity.)

If you would stick to your guns, fine. But if not, can you articulate where and when the line should be drawn? Or are you just saying "This isn't it. We aren't there yet"?