I want mandatory vaccinations and passports for Republicans/Trumpsters and those who don't want them. Voluntary for everyone else.

"When I was thinking, that it might do some good
If we robbed the cynics and took all their food
That way what they believe will have taken place
And we can give it to everybody who have some faith"
Jewel emphasis added

Yes
For
For
I want mandatory vaccinations and passports for Republicans/Trumpsters and those who don't want them. Voluntary for everyone else.

"When I was thinking, that it might do some good
If we robbed the cynics and took all their food
That way what they believe will have taken place
And we can give it to everybody who have some faith"
Jewel [[i]emphasis added[/i]]

This poll is much too vague for me to vote. — 180 Proof

:100:

If it's a lack of charitable interpretation that's bothering you, there's a list of posts ahead of mine need addressing. — Isaac

Whataboutism. I thought Murica had an monopoly on that. Anyway, those posts ahead of yours did not arise in a vacuum. They were preceded then again by your own. So many now that I have lost track. Best I can make out is a moving target that keeps getting hit.

Their content doesn't matter. — Isaac

And therein lies the rub. If my guys say X and your guys say Y and that is the end of it, then the only recourse is to choose X or Y. The analytic mind would ask what X had to say about what Y said, but apparently that does not matter. So, as a non-expert, I choose X, the vetted, peer-reviewed, expert authorities upon which policy makers rely. You choose Y, flapping in the breeze and being obstinate, petulant, apparently for it's own sake. If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bull shit. Load that straw! What do the Phd's in astrophysics and geology and paleontology have to say? They're smart.

Or, perhaps to a re-flowering of the Golden Age of Islamic philosophy. :smile: — Gnomon

Wouldn't that be nice!

I'm not expert either, but I think Islam is not the culprit. Tribalism, mafioso, paternal BS is the problem. It's not even "nationalism" exactly, although I do think they take some pride in the old saying that there are where empires go to die. They just have never experienced total war. So long as their "enemies" refrain from total war, they can continue to live in their world.

You mean like this? — baker

No, I mean like you. Like this:
https://chrismaleyblog.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/devils-advocate-white-guy-3.jpg

If all you're willing or able to do is engage in politically correct watercooler talk, then what on earth are you doing at a philosophy forum??! — baker

Right now I'm engaging with a passive aggressive, fascist racist, namely you.

https://chrismaleyblog.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/devils-advocate-white-guy-3.jpg

This is true goodness. True goodness. True human goodness. The role model of human goodness you are. — baker

Here's you, baker, being the passive aggressive fascists racist that you are: https://chrismaleyblog.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/devils-advocate-white-guy-3.jpg

All of those critters can run. A human baby is a few kilos of flesh at no risk; unless mum is nearby. — Banno

Yes and no. But regardless, the distinction lies in the dependency/mobility, not crying.

But heading back to the OP - the notion of "More evolved" is a nonsense. — Banno

:100:

So do fawns (mule deer), calves (elk and bison), pups (coyote and wolf) kits (cougar and beaver) and cubs (bear). I admit that the baby birds that I am aware of are silent, as are reptiles. But I've heard a lot of animal babies cry.

The younger they are, the more a tit seems to be required to shut them up. However, as they get older, I've seen them pipe down when they see/sense tension in mom, the aunts, or even dad and uncles. But I'm still not seeing a lot of difference that can't be explained by spoiling or tolerating the way we do. That's why I wonder if indigs might do it less. I doubt Aborigines bawl incessantly like a suburban brat, if only because they have less to bawl about.

And yet when they are even mildly uncomfortable, they draw attention to themselves, loudly. — Banno

I wonder if that is true, or if it's a more recent (10k - 13k years) thing. I'm not talking about various cultural methods of dealing with crying, but the crying itself. I've heard baby animals make noise in the wild. It's usually a tit in the mouth that shuts them up. Everybody likes a tit in the mouth.

No one gave a shit about the last two when they were news. — Isaac

You are grasping at straws. Here's the problem: You are sitting on the camel's back as you grasp at them. The health care system, or the individual, can be the camel. Doesn't matter. Covid, being fat, whatever comorbidity you can think of. It does the camel no good with you sitting on there. Another way to look at it is taking oxygen out of the room.

If you really cared about anyone but yourself, you'd take a seat, or go engage the experts on the merits of all these irrelevant straws.

P.S. Some fat people want to eat shit that makes them fat. They even pay good money for it. Covid, not so much. Nobody wants it. There is no market for it.

I know this is about race and other issues, but it reminds me of you for some reason:

https://chrismaleyblog.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/devils-advocate-white-guy-3.jpg

:halo:

Aka woman-bane. — tim wood

[Looking over my shoulder before responding . . .]

:wink:

When I think of the rain forests I think of the most diverse and even most beautiful creatures one can think of. However aren't places like that also most dangerous? Animals having very specific means of attack, poison, camouflage, etc just so they can eat? Does scarcity of resources bring out the best in species or does it only make them more viscous? — TiredThinker

In my opinion, the answer to all those questions is no. I have thoughts on that, expressed before, and don't want to get into that right now because I am more interested in this:

Would a wiser more evolved living people be near defenseless? — TiredThinker

That is a good question. I have a feeling that right-leaning, conservative men, or those who admire them, think they would stand the best chance in a nature that is red in tooth and claw. I think they view others, who are not like them, as either akin to a prey species or people who need them for defense from the brutal realities of the world. You know, like Jack Nicholson's character in Code Red.

But I think the Tom Cruise character in the movie is a more likely outcome at the end of the day.

It could be that we need both, in separate bodies. Or it could be that we need old school enlightenment where we have both in one body.

I look forward to reading the thoughts of others on this question.

Sometimes, when I disagree with my wife and she's pissed at me, she says "That's right, I'm a liar." I say, "No, you're just wrong." — T Clark

If there is one thing that pisses people off, it's reason. :lol:

So we're back to questions like burden on the healthcare system and such, — Srap Tasmaner

Regarding the "and such" I was thinking about one of the little admonitions against suicide: "It doesn't make the pain go away; it just transfers it to someone else."

I know a guy who died from Covid and, while I don't really much care about the dead (after all, they're dead, right?), it's all the wailing and pain and horrendous grief of those who are left behind that makes the failure to get a shot seem selfish, disrespectful and inconsiderate. His kin are devastated.

Compound that with the fact he took up a bed for a month on his slow, agonizing way out, and there is, or could be even more pain inflicted on yet other people. That's the real issue with the burden on the health care system. The system itself will survive. It's the people in it, or who want to use it, that suffer.

So if those who are vaccinated suffer less, are unlikely to be hospitalized or die, then getting the shot seems like the moral thing to do. I mean, if we are talking morals and all. I'm not inclined to dive into arguments about bats and labs and leaks and some of the nuanced arguments of the experts. That just takes the oxygen out of the room. Covid is like that, I guess.

Whether a statement is a lie, is not determined by time or the objective truth of the matter asserted. It's a lie if the declarant thought it was a lie when stated. It's the subjective understanding of the declarant. One can be wrong and not have lied, or be a liar. One can state an objective truth but be a liar if they thought they were lying.

though if he stepped out of line with the wrong people, it might hurt him. — Baden

True. I forgot that when you step out of line in the U.S. you don't really get hurt the way you might in China.

I'm not saying legal reasoning should control here, but, to the extent it tracks logic, it might throw some light. We generally have burden's of proof and scope's of review. Someone comes forward with evidence in support of an argument, which shifts the burden to those in opposition. Those in opposition reply, and then there is a rebuttal to the reply. When counter-actions are filed, then the simultaneous exchange occurs in the opposite direction.

But all of that is for naught if the parties are not talking to each other, and there is no central clearing house (finder of fact).

You then not only have the moral case for vaccination in all cases, with a moral finger wagging simply because someone says "I'm not getting vaccinated" (outside of any medical reason) on one side, but you also have people trying to make a moral case against that case simply for what reason? To the extent they have assumed their burden of proof to explain why "I'm not getting vaccinated", they have not rebutted the reply. In such a case, they appear to be obstinate little babies who do not accept jurisdiction of the finder of fact. They are like the sovereign citizen who appears before the court claiming that he is answerable only to his particular interpretation of the common law and is not subject to any government statutes or proceedings.

In this light, they are not peers subject to peer review.

It's sad, really. But that is the way it is.

On the other hand, if I implied too much too soon, then I'd beg, again, for the exchange. So far, crickets.

The jury doesn't have to spend 20 years in school and 20 years in practice. Nor should they. All they need is to listen to the arguments exchanged and summarized. What did Bob say about what John said, and what did John say about what Bob said about what John said? Then, to the extent Bob said anything, what did John say about that, and what did Bod say about what John said? Again, crickets.

If it's out there, then you'd think one versed in research could find it. Maybe it's not out there. In which case I'll take a risk and ride with the "peers." I will wag my finger and morally and rightously so.

I certainly hope you are correct. The problem, as I see it, is the guy who put it up probably earned some cred in the eyes of a few in Beijing who agree. Kind of like Marjorie Taylor Green, those governor's in FL and TX, and other stupid people; they prove their loyalty to nationalist BS and are shelved until needed. Going back further, think Tea Party. I think the thread title says it all.

Digression story: Many years ago I had some Chinese kids working for me one summer. At the beginning of their tour, while getting to know each other, I took them on their lap tops to a bunch of sites they could not access at home and showed them the Tiananmen Square stuff. I told them they guy in front of the tank was a hero in America. At the end of their tour, I took them out with me as I shot a bison for some meat. They helped me gut, skin, quarter and pack it. Then I let them burn up a couple thousand rounds with my arsenals of evil black weapons. One of them asked me if all Americans had guns. I lied, of course, and said yes. He asked why, so I lied again and said so we can kill anyone that needs killing. Don't want our government getting all upitty. They all looked at each other, but kept having fun with the weapons. I gave them some empty brass to take home but I'm not sure if their government let them have it. Anyway, fun times. If I recall, Hilary was over there at the time doing diplomacy so I thought I'd do my part.

Once we figured out how to do it, we couldn't stop. — Bitter Crank

As one wag said, "We're the only complex, non-servo computing mechanism created by totally unskilled labor."

Anyway, all who have, or have had choice, are to blame. Some more than others. Blame is useless unless it is accompanied by punishment beyond that experienced by all who otherwise suffer consequences resulting from the blameworthy act. If the punishment is there, sufficient to dissuade the actor and would-be actors, then it's all good. Otherwise, we are stuck with "I told you so's" or getting on with making the best of the remainder of the day.

I agree with Xtrix, that the fossil fuel industry is largely to blame. But part of that industry are the shareholders who hide behind the big government skirts of the corporate veil. A lot of these folks have stock lost in the morass of 401ks, mutual funds, IRA's, etc. Myself, included. It's part of the open conspiracy to fuck the planet, largely under the lie of "for the children."

And yes, some of those kids will look back on us from their dystopian hot house and say "They didn't know any better back then."

Please keep in mind that were in the final stages of the 20 year war. The fact that ISIS-K is now some blip on the radar is interesting. — Shawn

:up: It's an opportunity for the Taliban to show they are capable of adulting. Hopefully we weren't the only ones to learn a lesson. They suffered WAY more than we did over the last 20 years, and they know that if another 9/11 happens we won't worry about nation-building next time.

I'm a little confused now and will have a rethink. — Srap Tasmaner

:up:

While you are at it, ask yourself, if true, how best to go about convincing others to not get it. You know, without turning them off to it. And without turning off those who you are trying to get it to. I suppose you could try to prove that smart people have questions. Yeah, that's the ticket. Sounds pretty moral to me.

Heaven forbid we call it "good" and pour all resources into making it ubiquitous. Better to throw shade. After all, we have horse dewormer and bleach to tide us over. Speaking of tide, we also have Tide. Got a pod, bro?

I think that the large majority of Americans fundamentally agree with each other that something is wrong. — Xtrix

I think the gut knows that the growth model is not sustainable, and the ability to keep bailing ourselves out is losing steam. When I say the "gut", I mean an "intuitive sense", not necessarily articulated the way I just did.

It's like the end of a kegger. There's still a lot of half-empty cups of beer laying around if you really want a drink. And the cool kids over in the corner still have wine and a secret stash of bottled beer. But the song is skipping, the sun's coming up, the neighbors dog is barking, that "ten" laying on the floor over there is looking more like a "three" and, well, it's just time to go home. It was fun, the open conspiracy of "fuck 'em if they can't take a joke" has worn out it's welcome. The joke is over. We need some sleep, in our own bed. Tomorrow is a work day.

This discussion reminds me of Godwin's Law. It used to be a way to throw shade. But then Trump came along and it kind faded because, well, . . .

There's a reason you have a jury, right? — Isaac

There is. The public sits on it. I sit on it. The policy makers sit on it. You *should* sit on it. But you sound like a party, or an advocate; not a finder of fact or a ruler of law searching for truth.

Where is the White Paper? Where is the nut? All I've seen from you is the "to-ing and fro-ing between disputing parties". Those are the weeds we don't want or need to get into. That, and your above crowing about your PhD and professorship and other irrelevant BS that is the equivalent of an appeal to authority that you accuse me of. We, the jury are not looking for your creds. We've already stipulated to your guy's creds. You aren't an epidemiologist or virologist, etc. You don't have those creds. Neither do we. If you are a researcher, where is the nut, the white paper we're looking for? Where is what my guys say about your guys? Keep researching and get back to us. Or haven't your research skills found it?

Life, quite literally, has nothing better to do. That is not to say that non-life isn't doing anything worthwhile. It's existence is equal to life. It's just to say that life will get around to non-life, sooner or later, whether it likes it or not. So, in the mean time, it might as well keep living. I mean, why not? Another question would be, will non-life ever get around to living? Maybe it is and we just don't know it.

As a lay person, I won’t pretend to engage the merits of anything said by the 30 experts you reference. Instead, I will stipulate to some facts about them:

1. They exist;
2. They are experts;
3. They say what you say they say;
4. What they say conflicts with what we are being told by other experts and the policy makers who rely upon those other experts.

For simplicities sake, let’s refer to the experts as “your experts” and “my experts.”

The next logical step would be to ask my experts how they respond to what your experts have said.

My recommendation for you, as the next logical step in your apparent desire to dive into this alleged scientific argument, would be to do just that. What have my experts had to say about what your experts have to say?

I have no desire to take that dive. But if you are really interested in the issue, you simply cannot rely solely upon your experts as I am doing with mine. If there is a conflict within their community, there are protocols for sussing out the issue.

We all know the history of science, and how some scientists were marginalized, ostracized, left out of journals and ignored. Communities have cliques and one not playing ball in their community, well, their opinions can be buried for scientific, or simple personality reasons. But, having been made aware of the past problems, where it turns out the outsider was actually right all along, the professions have developed ways of making sure that outside views are dealt with. It’s called “peer review.”

In a case such as this, my guys could not simply ignore your guys. Nor could your guys simply ignore my guys. Surely, in your research, you have found “the nut.” The nut is the fundamental disagreement where the views of the respective parties have been refined and set forth and the “white paper” on the nut has been written for folks like you, me and the policy makers.

“John says X, Bob says Y. Here is the statement of the case by each, the response thereto, and then the rebuttal to the response of each to the other.”

That is where I would go if I were you. I would be upset with my policy makers, Fauci, et al, if I found out they had not already been there. It’s happened before. Policy makers ignore the science and proceed in a different direction. If you find that is the case, I’d love to hear it.

One thing that has me comfortable with my guys is that the policy makers, while making policy, are actually putting my-guy scientists out there in front of the camera and alleging that they, the policy makers, are relying upon them. Compare: Republican policy makers often do all the talking and don’t put their experts out front. You’d think, if they had any experts that say “Don’t distance” or “don’t mask” or “don’t vax” then we’d have them out front. If not where else than on Faux News? Protocols simply won’t allow for alleged MSM conspiracies to bury the science in support of Republican policy.

Anyway, I’m satisfied with my guys. You, however, as a seeker of truth on the matter, might consider looking for it. What do my guys say about your guys? Then, what do your guys say about what my guys say about your guys. If you chase that down to the end, like we do in legal research, you will find the nut. There may be disagreement there, but you’ll find the nut.

We need people like you to do that for us. Good luck. Hopefully, if there is any there there, you can play a part in forcing your guys to do a better job than they are doing.

As for me, I'm just going to take a risk and take a shot. I haven't understood how that might hurt anyone other than myself or those who have joined me in the risk.

Further this affiant sayeth naught.

I know a guy who was infected and never got long term antibodies, just the short term ones (we're all enrolled in antibody research). — frank

As one wag said to an anti-vaxxer: "So you don't want to be part of a government research project? Guess what? You're in the control group."

It doesn't get much weirder than Florida so far as the US goes — Manuel

America's mullet.

The vaccines only give you antibodies for 7-8 months. Then you're unvaccinated again. — frank

From what I hear, that is also true for getting it, only the antibodies go away sooner than that. No, I don't have a cite.

:100:

:100:

.those who say mandating mask-wearing is ‘tyranny’ are confused about what it means to be a capable human. It means being able to reason about how we should act towards others.

:100:

:up:

there's no way on earth you stick to all the government's environmental recommendations only veering from them in cases of specifically allowed exceptions. — Isaac

I usually don't do this, but give me an example. We've talked about air pollution. I already defeated you on that. Give me another.

Oh, wait, I found it! You are right:

"All Americans should get the Covid Vaccine with the following exceptions:
1. Those who's doctor advises they should not get the vaccine for a medical reason;
2. Those who don't feel like it;
3. Those who are selfish;
4. Those who are inconsiderate;
5. Those who are disrespectful;
6. Those who think Fauci is wrong;
7. Those who are smarter than the CDC;
8. Those who are "special";
9. Those who don't trust gubm't;
10. Those who are afraid of needles;
11. Those who are afraid of free gubmn't medical vaccines;
13. Those who wear MAGA hats;
14. Children;
15. Adults who act like children;
16. Any fucking reason you can pull out of your ass;
17. Your name is Isaac on the internet;
18. Never mind, government hereby withdraws the recommendation;
19. Party hardy, Garth.

Is the same as... — Isaac

No. The exemptions from the recommendations are specified. You're just saying that because it's a recommendation it must be an exception. That's illogical.