I'm trying to imagine but the blatant sycophantism is impeding my efforts :lol:

Dr. Strangelove (if I may translate your name into my native tongue), I assume that your independence of thought from the “rabble” extends to less physical issues than the current pandemic, to questions like, for example, whether it is is true, as Aristotle asserts in the Politics, that some men are born slaves, or whether the dictum that all men are created equal, as a certain famous late professor of political philosophy suggested, is a democratic prejudice...

... may I ask what your opinion on these topics is, and whether you think human beings ought to be free express dissent with regard to them? — Todd Martin

I absolutely reject the notion that any person is equal. The only equality I acknowledge between individuals is that each one is equally unequal. It is indeed a democratic prejudice as described by Nietzsche's slave revolt.

As far as freedom of the individual, each individual is born into slavery, but not one is born inherently a slave. Each individual has the capacity to extricate himself immediately at any moment. It is like we are all born in a cage with the key in our hand, and the longer we spend in the cage, the more comfortable we become, and less likely we are to use the key. And imagine if someone decided that the cage was unsatisfactory and wanted to use the key to escape, or had escaped the cage and come back to testify, they would definitely meet with persecution and ridicule from those who have come to love the cage. This differs from Plato's cave in that each individual innately possesses the ability to escape their confinement and is not dependent on another "free individual" to escape.

I think individual dissention is a self-evident, God-given right for everybody. One of the most noble things an individual can do is to defer from the generational quaff and stand alone.

Everything you say is very reasonable. If somebody knows they are sick, then they should have the courtesy to avoid infecting others as far as possible.

But with covid, everyone is treated as infected before the fact. This ethic contradicts one of the most essential and important principles that free societies are built upon: innocent before proven guilty. It seems that everyone has forgotten this in the covid hysteria, and now we are setting up a very dangerous precedent for the future. What happens when we begin to assume other bad things are the case before the fact and respond with more pervasive countermeasures? How far are we willing to go?

I believe all the covid nonsense and hysteria directly correlates to a historically unprecedented degree of cowardice in the current generation.

I love it when two people argue from their own perceived moral superiority. Makes for an entertaining read devoid of any arguments. — Benkei

To clarify, I have no desire to recruit others into my morality. All that my morality requires is that I stay true to my principles, regardless of consequence. It only requires that of me, not anyone else. So when I express my ethical opinion, please do yourself the favor of understanding that I am not trying to convince you of anything, rather, I am just expressing my opinion, it's a terrible tragedy.

Others, however, require me, and you, and everyone else, to conform to the morality to which they have subscribed and conformed themselves. To anyone like that, I say "fuck off", and I will mock them until they actually do "fuck off".

What does this even mean? Do you mean getting sick proves we're alive so hurray?

Yep, pretty much. Means we aren't dead yet. Which is where we all end up eh, no matter what anyone does. It's the defining feature of life, it ends. — Book273

Right on.

Unlike some forms of madness, there's no vaccine or cure for stupid. Never has been, never will be - it's a congenital species defect. Many cognitive, pedagogical & psychiatric treatments have been developed in the last few millennia and even the best are barely, if ever, effective. Besides lobotomies, sterilizations, actuarial tables or the guillotine, nothing stops - slows - this contagion. Something, no doubt, for philosophers to keep pondering ... :mask:

with covid, everyone is treated as infected before the fact — Merkwurdichliebe

No, it's treated as unknown, because that's what it is in the population at large, unknown.
In small "bubbles" of acquaintances, confidence can be higher.

Surprise — widespread use of masks is known to make a statistical difference.
(At close-up, in labs, masks have been shown to make a difference.)
And so, that's where it's at — make a difference. Common sense, too.

Should someone pin an info-post on the pandemic or something...?
Or not. There are a few available out there anyway. Some will remain challenged apparently.

innocent before proven guilty — Merkwurdichliebe

Hyperbole. Bad analogy. Take the virus to court.

But have you really been trying? You know there's more to protesting than just typing stupid stuff on your phone. — frank

Of course. My method of protest in my daily life is persistent and inconspicuous.

No, it's treated as unknown, because that's what it is in the population at large, unknown. — jorndoe

Extend your logic to everything. If everything unknown is approached with the same mass cowardice that covid is, we are totally fucked as a civilization.

Surprise — widespread use of masks is known to make a statistical difference.
(At close-up, in labs, masks have been shown to make a difference.)
And so, that's where it's at — make a difference. Common sense, too. — jorndoe

That is the delusion that has always plagued modern man: make a difference. The truth is, you can't make a difference, not when it come to sickness, age, or death. That people actually think they have such measures of control...it would be the funniest thing ever of it wasn't the saddest.

As Ricky Roma said: I subscribe to the law of contrary public opinion: "if everyone thinks one thing, then I say, bet the other way." That is my common sense. For other people, common sense is "to believe what everyone else does", if that is you, I say "go for it".

Should someone pin an info-post on the pandemic or something...?
Or not. There are a few available out there anyway. Some will remain challenged apparently. — jorndoe

You don't need to go that far, I have access to all the same propaganda you base your opinion on.

Hyperbole. Bad analogy. Take the virus to court. — jorndoe

Terrible analysis, it wasn't an analogy.

Merkywurdy (if I may give you a pet name, but not in any derogatory sense, but just because I am prone to do so to those I feel some familiarity with), some of the things you say seem to contradict themselves.

For example, you reject the notion that all men are created equal, yet you assert that they indeed are, insofar as you also say that each is born into a cage the key to which he possesses, subverting the Platonic cave, into which everyone is born, but the ability to exit only a few possess by their natural but unequal ability. Is this a fair characterization?

Surprise — widespread use of masks is known to make a statistical difference.
(At close-up, in labs, masks have been shown to make a difference. — jorndoe

Which is it; Wide spread or in labs?
Wide spread masking does not make a difference. If you have an actual study, Not a health organization reference, but an actual study, I would love to read it. Again, not an observational or anecdotal study, something peer reviewed and robust, that I could use in my practice.

Lab use of masks is not wide spread use. I use mask when suctioning patients, and they work under those circumstances. Of course I use an N95, not the crap on my face right now. And a face mask, because who wants that splashing on your face or your eye, or anywhere else? So, yes specific, procedurally appropriate PPE is valid, functional and totally supported by me. However, I do not use my hazmat suit to go shopping, only for hazmat appropriate events.

Seriously, if you have the study, I want it. My health region doesn't have it, none of my peer reviewed platforms have it. I have access to one out of Vietnam that states non-medical masks (the blue ones) used as recommended, double the likelihood of catching whatever you are trying to avoid, if it's aerosolized, and that cloth masks increase it by a factor of 13. Scary. Latest data from my region is that "there is an associated increase in transmission from cloth masks due to poor storage and decreased rate of mask changing". Something I brought up 6 months ago, to no avail.

Merkywurdy (if I may give you a pet name, but not in any derogatory sense, but just because I am prone to do so to those I feel some familiarity with) — Todd Martin

Absolutely, and I wouldn't mind if it were derogatory as long as it was clever.

some of the things you say seem to contradict themselves.

For example, you reject the notion that all men are created equal, yet you assert that they indeed are, insofar as you also say that each is born into a cage the key to which he possesses, subverting the Platonic cave, into which everyone is born, but the ability to exit only a few possess by their natural but unequal ability. Is this a fair characterization? — Todd Martin

That is a great question. The fact that we are all born into the cage does not necessarily mean that each is beset with the same circumstances within the cage. Some may be closer to the gate, and see the way out more clearly. Amongst them some will be daunted by the idea of passing through, while other will see the merit in doing so. We literally can draw from infinite factors in order to demonstrate how each individual, although perhaps nearly identical on face value, is ultimately and irrevocably unique in his own right.
That is, each individual has the innate ability in proportion to the particular task set before him, that of using his own key (which is uniquely fit to him) to escape his own incarceration (which is uniquely fit to him).

So there is one cage from which we might escape, but as many ways as there are individual human beings of escaping it?

Once we have escaped, are we all in the same place, or infinitely different places?

Of course. My method of protest in my daily life is persistent and inconspicuous. — Merkwurdichliebe

Like licking elevator buttons? By any means necessary, you know?

Btw, the predictive text on my phone goes straight to:

by any means necessary.

Hmm.

So there is one cage from which we might escape, but as many ways as there are individual human beings of escaping it? — Todd Martin

First of all, thanks for conducting this thought experiment with me. Let's continue...

Not exactly. There there are infinite cages. But they have the same essential effect on everyone: incarceration. So I just call it "the cage" since its incarcerating effect is universal, as it were.

However, each individual's incarceration is unique to the individual, that is, his relation to the cage is unique to him alone. For each individual, there is only one way of escaping, so there are infinite means of escaping (if there are infinite individuals). Nevertheless, each individual has access to only one means of escape, that is his own key (which is uniquely fit to him, and to the lock of the cage.)

Like licking elevator buttons? By any means necessary, you know?

Btw, the predictive text on my phone goes straight to:

by any means necessary.

Hmm. — frank

:rofl:

Well, I am pretty serious about the cause. Plus elevator buttons look so delicious when they glow. :yum:

It is late and I must bow out of the investigation for now Merky...but I look forward to continuing it, perhaps tomorrow...

I am in the process of transferring phones, so there may be a delay.

Indeed! Best of luck with the phone.

Once we have escaped, are we all in the same place, or infinitely different places? — Todd Martin

Now we aren't talking about a physical cage so I won't assume you are talking about a physical place, but using "place" in the royal sense.

Everyone that escapes is subject to a universal condition, freedom. But the universality of freedom qualitatively differs from the universality of incarceration. The universality of incarceration is reductive, in that it eliminates possibility, and ultimately, especially when brought to its extreme, it appears identical in relation to each individual. It might be correct to say that real equality only exists amongst the incarcerated.

In contrast, the universality of freedom is dialectical, in that it expands possibility, and in it's most radical mode, we will find the greatest diversity of individuals. So, in freedom, we are in infinitely different places, yet there is nothing to prevent one person's place from overlapping with another's, or even circumscribing many places simultaneously. The beauty of freedom is that it is an unconstrained state, and its expansiveness can be all consuming.

The beauty of freedom is that it is unconstrained, and its expansiveness is all consuming. — Merkwurdichliebe

As dialectics, this happens to be hogwash.

It takes global constraints to create local freedoms. The return part of the deal is those freedoms must be designed so that they are themselves going to reconstruct the whole that has formed them.

That is the logic of how dialectics produces historically enduring societies and institutions.

So why did Western institutions come to underwrite individual property rights? Well, that encouraged the personal enterprise that then contributed to the collective nation-building wealth. It was understood as an obviously virtual circle.

And the same applies to a social approach to health, education or any other useful common good.

If you want the right to individual good health, then the social system has to be set up in a way that closes the loop and shapes your freedoms in a way that is conducive to that being a collective general outcome.

You are instead speaking of freedoms as if they could be contextless. And that is illogical.

What nation would vote to be ruled by a lack of logic.

Oh....

It takes global constraints to create local freedoms. The return part of the deal is those freedoms must be designed so that they are themselves going to reconstruct the whole that has formed them.

That is the logic of how dialectics produces historically enduring societies and institutions.

So why did Western institutions come to underwrite individual property rights? Well, that encouraged the personal enterprise that then contributed to the collective nation-building wealth. It was understood as an obviously virtual circle.

And the same applies to a social approach to health, education or any other useful common good.

If you want the right to individual good health, then the social system has to be set up in a way that closes the loop and shapes your freedoms in a way that is conducive to that being a collective general outcome. — apokrisis

:clap: :100:

The Greeks, as I'm sure you know, apo, had a word for 'speaking (and trying to live in society) as if freedoms are context-free': idiṓtēs. :mask:

If you want the right to individual good health, then the social system has to be set up in a way that closes the loop and shapes your freedoms in a way that is conducive to that being a collective general outcome.

You are instead speaking of freedoms as if they could be contextless. And that is illogical. — apokrisis

Yes, I am disregarding context, but it is not illogical. That is because I am speaking of psychological freedom, not societal or physical. And since the psyche is determined by it's own content, the freedom I'm discussing here is absolutely noncontextual.

So what's the problem? If you want to discuss societal freedom or physical freedom, I can do that too.

What nation would vote to be ruled by a lack of logic. — apokrisis

The United States. Did you not see it? They just had a presidential election in which it was thoroughly demonstrated.

Seriously, if you have the study, I want it. My health region doesn't have it, none of my peer reviewed platforms have it. I have access to one out of Vietnam that states non-medical masks (the blue ones) used as recommended, double the likelihood of catching whatever you are trying to avoid, if it's aerosolized, and that cloth masks increase it by a factor of 13. Scary. Latest data from my region is that "there is an associated increase in transmission from cloth masks due to poor storage and decreased rate of mask changing". Something I brought up 6 months ago, to no avail. — Book273

You know how the retard rabble is going to respond to this: "'derr, but 'derr...Da mask save da life, 'derrrr."

And since the psyche is determined by it's own content, the freedom I'm discussing here is absolutely noncontextual. — Merkwurdichliebe

Apparently your psyche is untroubled - informed - by non-subjective (non-psychological) "content" like evidence or sound inference ... or prescribed meds.

... the retard rabble ... — Merkwurdichliebe

Projection. :chin: Must be those pesky shadows (of strawmen) making you bark at them so.

Apparently your psyche is untroubled - informed - by non-subjective (non-psychological) "content" like evidence or sound inference ... or prescribed meds. — 180 Proof

Finally you address me directly, I was starting to think you didn't love me.

Anyway, to address your lack of comprehension, psychological freedom at its maximum, is never troubled by external content of any kind, whether evidential or soundly inferential. Psychological freedom can appear quite apathetic in regard external content, regardless of how much you join others in believing some external content is objective fact.

... the retard rabble ...
— Merkwurdichliebe
Projection. :chin: Must be those pesky shadows (of strawmen) making you bark at them so. — 180 Proof

I just like to alliterate :worry:

Btw, it is "determined by it's own content", it is NOT "it's own content". What are you, a solipsist?

idiṓtēs. — 180 Proof

:grin:

That is because I am speaking of psychological freedom, not societal or physical. And since the psyche is determined by it's own content, the freedom I'm discussing here is absolutely noncontextual. — Merkwurdichliebe

For someone with so much supposed psychological freedom, you seem rather constrained by your own cultural trope.

But I guess whatever gets you a nanosecond of attention.

Merkywurdy (if I may give you a pet name, but not in any derogatory sense, but just because I am prone to do so to those I feel some familiarity with), some of the things you say seem to contradict themselves. — Todd Martin

That's a great idea, Toddler!

In the face of a virus we don't understand, with unknown long-term effects, and a mortality and contagion rate apparently much higher than the seasonal flu, I would say it's only a reasonable precaution to ask (or even to mandate if there is a lot of virus in the community) people to wear masks.

You don't have to have already had an accident to be required to wear a seat-belt, or indeed obey the general road rules. Personally I think it has nothing to do with cowardice, just regard for your own life and the lives of others and the courage to forebear a little inconvenience.