The burden of proof lies with the less reality orientated disputant - the less authoritative party. — J O Lambert

"Less reality oriented" and "less authoritative" aren't always married. The King (authority) has little inclination to prove he is naked. It's always on that little boy in the crowd (more reality oriented). But, as Baker said, only his ilk would take up such a burden. And that is so even if the burden should be on the King, according to the King's own rules.

It is now way too late for Zero Population Growth. If we do not shrink our population, nature will eventually find a method for reducing our excess population. Nature has done this before with other species and it will do it to us if necessary (or maybe we will do it to ourselves). I guarantee that we will not like it. — Bitter Crank

:100:

I think your concept of sharing is great but with billions of humans existing now there is no danger of things not being shared. — Andrew4Handel

Especially now, with social media. Word travels fast. While many folks are satisfied with the cyber world, others will definitely "get out there" and see it, and when they do, that's often the end of it.

At the same time people have different preferences so sharing something does not ensure the person who recieves the share will appreciate it. — Andrew4Handel

True. That's another reason people want kids. They think the kid is more likely to appreciate X than another person might. While kids are known for appreciating the ass-opposite things their folks appreciate, they are less likely to actually trash it. Some of the upbringing will instill a modicum of respect, if not appreciation. Especially if it's something outside of and independent of the parent. Daddy takes you fishing and you hate to fish, but you don't go back and ruin the lake. Share that lake with Billy Bob and Cletus, though, and, well, you get the picture.

I've met those who love life. They don't want a kid to love them. They want to share what they have found, and feel guilty keeping it all to themselves. I suppose if I were a Christian I might say the reason I go into the Amazon and totally fuck up bunch of lives is because, you know, Jesus and all that. I just have to share. Or, closer to home, when I find an absolutely stunning secret place I want to share it. Knowing, intellectually, such sharing will result in it's destruction, I don't share. But the urge is there anyway. I know some folks who love life the way I love this secret place I found, or like some bible thumper might love Jesus. To have a clean slate to share it with (a kid of your own) would be a lot safer than sharing it with someone who may not appreciate it the way I do (and then trash it) or who might ruin it.

Edited to add: I'm not defending it. I'm just providing a motivation that is not all mercenary or self-serving.

but that is an uncertain standard, because it is the spirit, not the letter of those rules, that was sought when they were established...and it is just that spirit that has now come into question. — Todd Martin

:100:

All of that sounds pretty persuasive to me. However, I have met people who are genuinely, sincerely in love with life and want to share it with new life. I know there is other life around they could do that with (adopt), but they feel driven to breed. Just as suicide is relatively rare due to the desire to live, so too some people think breeding is part of evolution's (not grand but site-specific) plan. It would take intellect to override the desire to eat meat, so why fight it?

Human beings are a resource (human resources) and therefor subject to supply and demand. The fewer there are, the higher the price. The more there are, the lower the price. When you are stuck in growth/progress model that doesn't perceive alternative directions of growth (i.e. growing smaller) and progress (i.e. not viewing people and nature as resources) then you want breeders slinging semen far and wide.

Good? No. But Mother Nature controls, notwithstanding our silly belief that we are exempt and can save ourselves with the current model. After all, if you are in the air, you must be flying and not falling, right?

When one of seven billion, though a human being, is less important than a snail darter who's only contribution is to act as a canary in a coal mine, market forces should, eventually, move us beyond ourselves and back toward standing for that which we stand on. It's going to seem "cold" to the humanist, but the "dogmatization of human behavior" may not spring from game theory. Maybe, instead, game theory is just another wag's effort to explain human behavior?

The arc is slow and gentle but it bends, two steps forward, one step back, toward our aspirational ideals. When one realizes that something which is (at least ostensibly) further out on the concentric circles of care presents less of a threat to the center than something else which lies closer in, then there is a re-set toward the aspirational ideals, using game or any other theory.

"In Descent of Man, Darwin observes that the history of man's moral development has been a continual extension in the objects of his 'social instincts and sympathies.' Originally each man had regard only for himself and those of a very narrow circle about him; later, he came to regard more and more 'not only the welfare, but the happiness of all his fellow men'; then "his sympathies became more tender and widely diffused, extending to men of all races, to the imbecile, maimed, and other useless members of society, and finally to the lower animals." Christopher Stone.

I would guess that so long as game theory is on the table, we are good. When game theory (and it's ilk, MLK, Adam Smith, etc.) fall away as luxuries no longer affordable, then it will be one step forward, two (or even more) steps back to Darwin's roots (i.e. morals are no longer on the table).

In short, if game theory seems inadequate or cold, it's just because it has not yet calculated the true value that we want it to. It will. Someone will eventually find value in that which is currently free and abundant; and rather than absconding with it, and finding value in the reduction of it's numbers to a point where it can be sold for profit, it will instead be encouraged to flourish in freedom for all; if only so that person can survive.

In other words, Nature (the ultimate gamer) will have man reinsert the "enlightened" back into "enlightened self-interest." Hopefully it won't be too late. But even if it is, by our standards, where the baseline is reset with each generation, I think those who wander a post-apocalyptic wasteland of the future will still think life is worth living. So there's that. Best of luck to them.

Basically human knowledge is leaving the individual behind. — DingoJones

That makes sense. Where one's ability to drive a car is unrelated to their understanding of how it works, the difference is not as great as that between my ability to type and send this, and my ability to understand what the hell is going on. Good point. Of course it doesn't help when a mechanic back in the day might graciously tell me how an internal combustion engine works, whereas IT might roll his eyes and tell me to STFU, or maybe even lie and tell me there are little gremlins inside running things around. And once the gremlins are aligned with a political party, forget it. All knowledge goes to hell.

Recently the lawyer for Sidney Powell, one of the most prominent instigators of the BIG LIE, stated in court recently that “No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.” — praxis

I'm not sure, but I think that is an argument that was previously used by Tucker Carlson in defense of a law suit brought against him. Some wag said it should hence forth be known as the "Tucker Carlson Defense." (Or maybe it was Hannity, I can't recall.) Nevertheless, I like it. Whichever clown it was, the name should be recorded in the canons of law so we have a ready short-hand for the future. Maybe Faux News can use it against Dominion. Had that been done, Sidney Powell could have saved herself having it spelled out, and her sycophants, incapable of reading the pleadings, would be faced with less cognitive dissonance.

Sounds like you know more about this stuff than I do. My can of spray says "NOT FOR USE ON HUMANS". Active ingredients are Capsaicin and related capsaicinoids (Derived from Oleoresin of Capsicum) 2%, with 98% other ingredients.

I have no idea what that means, but I'd much rather run back into the Gas Chamber in boot camp and hang out for a half hour than get sprayed once with this stuff for a nanosecond. Maybe I just got weak in my old age.

I'm somewhat confused by your post though, and ask you to clarify:

"[Bear spray] isn’t supposed to inflict a level of pain and incapacitation on par with what pepper spray does, — FlaccidDoor

That sounds like bear spray is not supposed to be as bad as pepper spray. But compare with:

On top of causing less pain, "pepper sprays are specifically designed to bring down human adversaries — FlaccidDoor

Which seems contrary to the first quote. I'm not sure how to read your findings. Thanks.

You mentioned he doesn’t like babies, and ran with it. But there is evidence contrary to your claim. I choose the evidence, you choose...what exactly? — NOS4A2

I didn't say he didn't like them. I said he could give less than a rat's ass for them. There is a difference. My evidence is his turning toward whatever direction provides him with props. Those who dote on him can turn him in their direction. If the left had even a rudimentary understanding of child psychology, they could have turned him left. But alas, the left is like herding cats, and they are ill-inclined to sell their souls to the devil or compromise their values to obtain a goal. The Christian right, however, will say "Look, I don't care what the guy's personal feelings are, as long as he protects the unborn. If he does that, I'll suck his dick on national T.V. He can cheat on wives, grab pussy, worship idols and gold, or whatever. He's better than the godless left." My evidence is Trump's turn to the right when the national spot light came on the screen and all the lead rolls had already been taken. He found his niche (knuckle-draggers who wanted the apple cart tipped so bad they would hitch themselves to the likes of Trump).

I, like you, tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. While I did not vote him (I'm anti-party so I wrote myself in), I did wait for the longest time, hoping he was the guy to finally set the plutocracy back on it's heels. No joy. So I continued to watch him prove his interest in himself and nothing else. His failure to go to the Capital is but one example, but it is the icing on the cake. That is my evidence.

There isn’t a strand of chewing gum connecting the premise to your conclusion, but that’s how the internal logic of anti-Trumpism usually works. — NOS4A2

Those who have partaken of the Kool-Aid would not know logic (which has it's own skeletons) if it jumped up and slapped them in the face. So pardon me if I don't take your snipe as as inciteful about my argument.

I might appreciate upsetting the apple cart. I just wish a leader could have done it, and for reasons that aligned with Liberal or Radical Democratic Theory. Our loss. And so the pendulum swings and the right will have brought upon itself the boogey man it said was coming. They should thank their lucky stars they got Biden instead. But we shall see.

I hate to say it but I knew it wouldn’t be long before a few sensationalized statements plucked from the vast sea of his rhetoric would occupy your opinion of the man. That’s how contextamy is supposed to work, after all. — NOS4A2

You make the mistake of thinking it was a few, just because I used a few. I've got five years worth. Yet you pick a baby kiss, and an admonition of the Capital raiders and run with it? I'm sure you've got your own five years of things you find admirable. That is what makes us finders of fact. The jury. America ruled. And it wasn't all based on spin. Most of it was based on personal observation of how the man held himself out to the public. Most people think he's a dishonorable coward and a liar. All politicians want you to see them kiss babies. And it works. You are a case in point. But it does not always work, hence he is a loser.

Politicians love you, I'm sure. But where we are alike, I think, is, like a jury, we utilize our life experience to discern whether one is being honest or not (we are "finders of fact"). But some folks will see and hear Trump tell the crowd he'd like to punch someone in the face, and he'd pay the legal fees of anyone charged with assault while evicting someone from a rally. Or how he likes to grab pussy. That is all hyperbole and locker room and whatnot. Not to be taken as sincere. But kiss one baby and you're good to go.

I’m fairly certain you have not met the man, have zero personal observations, and like the rest of us derive your opinion from news stories and commentators. — NOS4A2

You would be wrong, then. While I never saw a single minute of "The Apprentice", and had never really considered the man before the elevator, I have watched *him* and I have seen *his* mouth move and I have heard *his* words come out of it. I have read *his* tweets. And I have observed *his* demeanor. I have considered his executive efforts. My opinion is based upon what I have seen of *him*.

He had some choice words for those who participated in the incursion, so I think it can be said he was not a fan of them. — NOS4A2

That may not be the flex you think it is. He is not a fan of losers and suckers. But taking your point as I think you intended, for you to find sincerity in those words he spoke, and not in others, could be testament to your own value system. I'm not sure because I have not been following you like I did Trump.

Edited to add: Maybe I actually didn't hear or see any of that. Maybe the Deep State Conspiracy generated a bunch of Deep Fake and fooled me in to thinking the idiot I saw was actually the POTUS. Go Q!

That you believe such a thing occurred is a testament to your own value system, one easily moved to conclusion by gossip and palace intrigue — NOS4A2

I must have a similar value system then. I sincerely believe that Trump views those who attacked the Capital as losers and suckers. As an analogy, notwithstanding all of his policy "positions" and any substantive steps he took which hindered abortion, I sincerely believe that he could give less than a rats ass for any baby. I don't think I'm confused by gossip and palace intrigue. I take my opinion from personal observation of the man, and not what others have said about him.

I think of police as being necessarily more autonomous, which of course in the case of bad or ill-trained policemen is a catastrophe waiting. — tim wood

I'm fascinated by the interpersonal dynamics on the ground. I find the movie "Platoon" to be very inciteful in this regard. So many layers that seem simplistic from 10,000 feet.

I have no idea what the established protocols were, if they were implemented, or not. My greatest fear is this: Some of the defenders wanted to implement the protocols, but some didn't. Those who did may have sufferer from hesitancy due to peer pressure from those who did not want to implement the protocols. Those guys still work together. That is scary, to me.

I think that is why the old maxim about striking the king is important. If you strike, and you fail, and you are not brought to your knees in humble defeat, having the defiance (Churchill) forever removed from your soul, then you will grow stronger. You will fester. And your peers, seeing nothing happen to you, will think their inclinations, hesitant or not, were and are not worth defending.

Imagine being the only guy to implement a protocol, shoot and kill a traitor. On the other hand, had the defenders opened up on the traitors, we'd have a pile of martyrs on the floor. As it is, they are all home licking their wounds, getting called Antifa, and the world is moving on. That is a good thing.

But I can't help but wonder why the Capital is held to a lower standard than the White House. You know damn well their would have been a blood bath had the left or the right tried to invade it. Maybe "the People's House" gets to be a punching bag because, well, it's the people's house.

All this is just speculation. I don't know the truth of anything.

which both rioters and the police had — FlaccidDoor

I don't think the police had bear spray. I have bear spray. It's called "Counter Assault" and it will knock a charging Kodiak Coastal Brown Bear for a loop. It says right on the bottle that it is not to be used on humans. It shoots a cloud about four feet wide and thirty feet long. If you are down wind of your own spray, it will f you up. I've sprayed several bears and on one occasion, spraying two bears on my porch, my son, sleeping with two walls between him and the spray, woke up coughing with sore eyes.

I have never been able to understand for the life of me, how any of those unmasked traitors or cops could function in that mess at all! I once sprayed a big aggressive dog with it and he spent the next day hiding under an RV crying and spewing a metric shit ton of snot and slobber and tears all over the ground.

When I was in boot camp, I went through "the gas chamber" and actually got to the point where I could function in the chamber. I also know what self defense spray is (the kind cops use). Bear spray is on a whole 'nother level. If you have asthma, allergy or any pre-existing condition, it could kill you. And, as we used to say in the law, you take your victim as you find him. You don't get defend yourself on the basis that you didn't know your victim couldn't handle whatever it is you did to him if you shouldn't have been doing it.

:100:

So's syphilis. Without taking a position on the covid vaccine, what kind of reason is that to do anything?

(ps -- Yes I know you were responding to someone who complained that they didn't have insurance to pay for the shot. Just drive-by posting tonight.) — fishfry

Where a question is a gift, I feel I should at least acknowledge it, so I say this: When one answers their own question, as you did, a response is not needed.

That leaves me with my own question: Why did a feel I should acknowledge the gift? Perhaps a fellow human, driving around at night, is reaching out?

I don't know, but it is funny that I was just thinking about gifts before I got on and read your drive-by this morning. I was figuring that something need not be given to be perceived as a gift. I had a whole pile of arguments in support of that proposition but since it is a major digression from the OP, I will check myself now and save that for later. Peace.

and without insurance too — csalisbury

It's free.

In a coup one must have the support of the military above all else. But the top brass weren’t with him, — Todd Martin

Another consideration is, the "top brass" aren't as on top as they might like to think. And the troops aren't inclined to follow all orders. There is a limit. That limit would be found had the top brass followed Tump. But again, it's all academic, because the top brass wouldn't do that.

So, I am just interested to know how important people think that fantasy in the whole process of thinking and as mental states? — Jack Cummins

I agree with all you've said.

In my personal experience, I often fantasize that I matter, and I fantasize that my opinions matter, and I fantasize that someone will ask me the same question they asked some knob in an interview, and I fantasize how I would have answered the same question. I fantasize the multitudes are present to revel in my witty response. In this process, I argue and debate with myself on the answer I would best provide, working on it, refining it, winnowing it down to the nut.

While this rarely does any good in the real world (because nobody gives a shit what I think, least of all the teaming masses who are most in need of my genius), it still helps me formulate my thoughts in a way that I better understand them. And that, to me, is important.

On rare occasion, I find that if I can keep my mouth shut long enough, opportunity will present itself and I can insert something recognizable as somewhat, if barely, contributory and worthwhile. I take those little wins, and the fantasy process starts anew; usually with how I could have better done it.

Or you could just lock your door. Why is violence the default mode of thinking? — Tzeentch

That is a good question. I believe the answer is this: Were I to just lock the door and stay inside, I would be the one who's right/freedom to interstate or other travel would have been denied, if only by my lack of courage to go outside and mingle with the sick. Society, in defense of my right to travel, will limit the right of others (the diseased) to travel. Where society fails to step up, and we are all left to our own devices, some carry disease, I carry a gun. Like the zombie apocalypse, we shoot zombies. Zombies have forfeited their right to life.

:100:

Thanks. :100:

Again, how does one insert that "100%" emoji? I agree with you 100%.

Hopefully no one is forcing you to associate with assholes. — NOS4A2

No one is forcing me to associate with assholes. Yet I do it all the time every time I step outside and get on the road. It's part of life. Likewise, no one is forcing anyone to get a vaccine. I loose business and money by not engaging with anti-vaxers. They lose my widget or my service. Everyone still has freedom of choice.

Maybe they can patronize anti-vaxers that sell widgets or services like mine? Freedom is a wonderful thing, but it cuts both ways. If Uncle Sugar want to create a passport to aid me in my vetting process, like I said, it is based upon privilege and not right. Now, if government creates a passport to speak, or publish, or carry a gun, then it has ventured into the realm of rights. I've got a real problem with that. Nevertheless, I see it happening. If I were to get upset about anything, it would be the area of rights, not personal decision-making. Rights are not unlimited, I know, but not dealing with an anti-vaxer has not even touched on the area of rights.

There is a world of difference between inquisitors and the freedom to not associate.

That's ultimately the way I was going, but hoping there was hope for baby steps; and I was thinking of light instead of gravitational waves. Cool.

Digression: does a photon lose anything for having reflected? I see a lot of indirect light coming into my house and yes, some of it lands and is absorbed/converted/dies or whatever. But if it were to reflect back out again, as in the case of snow, or a mirror, does it have less of an oomph (scientific term of art) or shine, than a photon straight from the source?

I can't imagine it would be hard to forge one. My local health department was just giving out cards and they let recipients fill them in. — frank

How do you put the little "100%" emoji in a post?

I got stabbed April Fools day and they gave me a little card saying it was J&J. I had to fill out the rest. I also did not give them a driver's license or any such ID. I did give them a Colorado Health card, but it really doesn't have any ID on it and I could have picked it up from some else. I thought "Damn! This is a poor way for Bill to slap a brand on his cattle." Maybe they got me with the facial rec coming in? But now that the chip is in me, it's too late too speculate on such things.

Lately I've been reading Plato/Socrates for the umpteenpth time and again, they've got me kind of looking forward to checking out. I also like the lyrics of that song If We Were Vampires:

"If we were vampires and death was a joke
We'd go out on the sidewalk and smoke
And laugh at all the lovers and their plans
I wouldn't feel the need to hold your hand
Maybe time running out is a gift
I'll work hard 'til the end of my shift . . ."
Jason Isbell

And who am I to deprive the universe of that perception of me dying, unless or course the universe is somehow entertained by my exciting life (sarcasm).

I would probably give the pill to someone who wanted it more than me. Maybe an enemy.

I think it is what you are suggesting, but you seem aware that it is quite an untenable position to hold, thus the old semantic smokescreen is deployed. — Tzeentch

It's not a semantical hair being parsed, nor is it "suggesting." It is an argument that so far stands un-rebutted.

Government is the only institution that has the power to do truly horrific things...aptly demonstrated last century. — synthesis

Stipulating, for the sake of argument, that it is the only institution capable of truly horrific things does not mean it is not capable of truly great things which the private sector cannot do. Indeed, it was government that destroyed the governments that brought the bad things, aptly demonstrated last century. RR was full of shit on the contested point. Wait, check that. I was wrong. Government was the problem for Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, et al. So yeah, I guess you are right. RR was right. I was wrong.

Aren't you suggesting individuals should be pressured out of exercising their right to bodily integrity? — Tzeentch

It's not a matter of "should." It's a function of nature, Darwin, society. Why, just recently I was told that if someone did not abide the rules of chess, there would be no game of chess. One could leave the board, I suppose (that was my argument). They might even find new and better rules. Go for it. But I also think of the lone wolf. As much as we like the idea of them, rarely, rarely, do they find their own territory where they won't be eaten.

And I also want to address your use of the word "pressured." No one is forcing. It's only perceived as pressure if the person want's something they have no right to. The anti-vaxer has no right to receive goods or services from the private sector. Nor does he have a right to have the government step in on his behalf. Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. You can be compelled to get a license if you chose to move that way. Otherwise, you are free to walk.

"One farmer says to me, 'You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make bones with;' and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying his system with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable-made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plow along in spite of every obstacle." — tim wood

And woe to the blade of grass in the Oxen's belly. But it too, had to be fit, or the oxen could not pull the plow.

Those pesky individual rights. If only we could do away with those, the world would surely be a better place. — Tzeentch

In the context of this conversation, that could be taken two ways. Are you talking about the individual right to not get a vaccine, or the individual right to not deal with someone who doesn't get the vaccine? As far as I know, no one is violating either.

Regarding funding and development of the vaccines, I had a question mark appear over my head when I heard about the alleged pharma espionage. Based upon how seriousness we were lead to believe the problem was, I thought maybe nobody should be hiding anything from anybody. All research should not only have been open source, but there should have been widespread cooperation and world government funding as incentive. But maybe it wasn't all that serious. I mean, apparently there are palms that must be greased, and money to be made that I am not aware of.

Dolly Parton? — frank

She tossed a cool million into the vax development pot. She's a hero, but Bill Gates is the devil.

Cancel culture negates any chance of forgiveness and reform. — NOS4A2

I disagree, entirely. I think of some of the indigenous communities where the ostracized were always forgiven, even in advance of the ostracization, as evidenced by the fact they were not simply killed, or subject to corporal or some other punishment. And they were always welcomed back into the fold, when the lesson was the genesis of their reform. Now, of course, there are always those who are petulant, stubborn little children who refuse the "get the point", but Darwin will take care of them.

As to the compounding of stupidity in the safety of a conservative safe-room echo chamber for snow flakes, that is what happens when you allow these people to continue to avail themselves of the benefits of society while still harboring and sharing their anti-social tendencies.

I don't advocate limitations on free speech. But nor do I advocate forcing anyone to associate with assholes.

I’m of the mind that we must bring these people closer, protect their right to express their opinions, and hopefully change their minds. — NOS4A2

That's what we've been doing for a year. And I agree, is should be done, even before ostracization kicks in, but society doesn't have to wait around for ever. While our society (U.S.) wants to encourage individualism and liberty, it doesn't have to let sick people roam the streets at will.