Why is wanting to go to the disco selfish, and wanting to participate in public life (even though you're afraid that getting coughed on kills you) isn't?

Is inept rage your only mode of response?

The result would be that a woman is forced to give birth against her will, or perhaps worse, attempt to terminate the pregnancy herself.

I honestly can't see how this can be acceptable, whether she is deemed irrational or not.

It is a rock and a hard place, but I know to which side I am leaning.

its risks are less than the risks of COVID. — Michael

Vaccines have already been put on hold, for example in Denmark, because exactly this was suspected not to be the case.

Besides, to say the vaccine is safe is a guarantee no one can make. For one, there is no way the long-term effects could have been mapped, because the vaccines do not exist long enough for that. Secondly, for certain persons the vaccine has proven to be very much not safe, as they have suffered serious side-effects or even death.

Would you deny a woman who is deemed irrational beyond a reasonable doubt her right to have an abortion?

If so, what good would it bring?

Mhm. Of course. And if what you determined is a psychosis persists you force her to have the baby?

Sure you are. And if the reasons for a woman to have an abortion are irrational by your standards, should she not be allowed to have?

Didn't know you were the arbitrator of what is rational and what is not.

Abortions affect others as well.

What people inject into their bodies is no business but their own. Whatever reasons they may have, no matter how illogical to outsiders, does not factor into whether they should have the right to make their own decision. To me, this discussion is as clear cut as abortion.

Policy, or law, is a fancy word we use to disguise impositions made by governments through threats of violence. That to me is irreconcilable with love.

Maybe we are drifting a bit off-topic.

To maintain a degree of legitimacy I suppose.

They sure are.

Because emotions are very subjective and can inhibit one's ability for rational thought. Governance and policy are about forcing people to do things. In my eyes, those things don't mix.

Regardless, it seems academic if your loved one is dead or dying. — James Riley

However sad that may be, policy should not be determined by emotions.

Compare that question with the inconvenience of distancing, masking and vaxxing. — James Riley

Much has been said about the effectiveness, side-effects and potential dangers of those things.

The body needs contact with others to maintain a healthy immune system, for example. The thing that ensures the vast majority of people are absolutely safe from covid AND other diseases.

Further, masks were never made for prolonged and daily use and ironically the way they are being used now also forms a potential risk to the immune and respiratory systems.

This discussion has been had probably a dozen of times in this thread alone - lets not have it again. I understand your part of the argument, and I have hopes you understand mine. My bottomline is, people need to decide for themselves in this uncertain time what risks they are willing to accept and which ones they aren't.

Some flus cause more deaths than others. Covid-19 has a comparable IFR to flus that kill a relatively large amount of people, the difference being that those flus do not have mass hysteria as a side-effect.

I fully agree: infections mean nothing for a virus that cause little to no effects in the vast, vast majority of people. Here too, much has been said of covid-19 being noted as the cause of death even if it did not contribute to the actual death of the patient. What is true of all this, I honestly do not know.

However, I prefer to use numbers that are official, and even then I prefer to use high estimates, so as to give people no excuses to ignore them.

The IFR of covid-19 isn't very far from a serious flu.

Violence rules the land of the dead, in both the physical, intellectual and spiritual sense.

That doesn't quite work, because one's own evaluation of what belongs to who can be completely different from the evaluation of another, hence the slippery slope — khaled

I was talking about the individual's physical body. I hope we can agree that the individual's physical body belongs to the individual.

So you can't impose anything on anyone unless they impose first?

Say there is a drowning person and a sleeping ex-lifeguard on the beach. You can't swim to save them. Do you impose on the sleeping ex-lifeguard to wake them up? — khaled

The nature of the examples you are comparing is different. I can explain to you why, but you are smart enough to see it yourself.

As I said earlier, impositions, if they are to be done at all, must be done with the utmost carefulness. Does the individual possess enough wisdom and insight to judge this situation accurately: a life can be saved and at most what can be lost is the lifeguard's temporary sleep.

Then perhaps he may take the risk of imposing. But even then it is a risk, you see? It required an accute situation of distress to force our hand, no time to discuss and deliberate.

But you said needs like these are insufficient.

So are they sufficient now? — khaled

The need itself is not, however perhaps the need in conjuction with an assault on something that unquestionably belongs to the individual is sufficient. Perhaps the need in conjuction with the thief's mistake of imposing is sufficient. Maybe a combination of those, or maybe there are more we could think of.

Note, it is not the need that may justify an action, it is the thief's imposition that justifies it.

I don't think so. The thief imposes on their victim first, by threatening their life with direct physical violence. The imposition that follows by the victim is of a different nature than the thief - it is a reaction - protecting that which is rightfully theirs: their life and their body.

But maybe the right thing to do is to turn the other cheek? I'm willing to consider that option.

But one often has a pretty reasonable estimate of how much harm they'll suffer vs how much harm they'll inflict by doing an action. — khaled

Maybe. I cannot be the judge of that. I'm quite skeptical of a parent's ability to reasonably estimate the life of their child.

One could simply treat one's own needs as just as valuable or less valuable as those of others. So don't do something to others that is harmful unless the alternative is equal or way greater harm onto yourself. — khaled

This is not a bad start, but it is not enough. A person often times is not even able to accurately determine their own needs, let alone those of another.

Anyways I want to ask you this: If a thief is about to stab you what justification do you have to stop them? Or is it not right for you to stop them? — khaled

I would argue that in this situation one's needs are sufficient, because they extend only to oneself (self-preservation). One's life and body belong to the individual, and thus one is justified in protecting oneself.

It is the thief whose apparent needs extend to others, and therefore he who must tread carefully and doesn't.

The appeal to instinct seems to me a weak one: animals are not moral agents.

That doesn't quite work, because one's own evaluation of the harm done can be completely different from the evaluation of another, hence the slippery slope:

If I can judge for others what is harmful or not, then there is indeed no limit to the actions I can afford myself while still considering myself moral.

If, however, one comes to the sensible conclusion that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to judge what is good for others, then one will realize one must always tread carefully when imposing things on others, with all the implications that has for childbirth.

I think this probably the key point here. You don't see the pull of having kids. OK. But most people do, for whatever reason. Certainly cultural indoctrination has a lot to do here, with cities being population farms and all that. But people were procreating long before civilization. There is an instinctual aspect to it. For what reason would a hunter-gatherer have offspring, their own material benefit? Hardly, because it's just another mouth to feed. Infanticide and presumably abortions were quite common back then.

Probably a more interesting question would be to ask why people have children, and whether there can be a substitute for doing so. I remain unconvinced that there is something that can fill that need for a child that so many people have. — darthbarracuda

To the discussion about the morality of having children, the needs of the parent are irrelevant, since one's own needs are never sufficient to justify an action that involves other individuals. To argue otherwise would lead to a predictable slippery slope.

That isn't to say that the question isn't interesting.

Maybe it is instinctual, but doesn't that essentially mean people have children because they are incapable of reasoned thought in that regard?

Well your boss exerts authority over you, but you're still responsible for yourself, right? — frank

Unlike life or citizenship, work is a voluntary agreement. But even then an employer carries a certain responsibility for their employees.

As I stated, those who know lack confidence (Socrates?) and those who don't know are full of confidence (Tucker Carlson, et al). — James Riley

Don't you think that this is a bit ironic, given the content of your posts?

You barely know me, but I am sick, a pussy, selfish, etc., and all the other things you assumed I must do or be. Your heart may be in the right place, but your writings suggest you have no ability to sympathize with people whose opinions you do not share, and upon those people with whom you do not agree you project the worst of qualities.

You fault people for not caring about the problems of others, yet you don't care about their problems either.

The link you shared likens those who do not share your opinions to "Einsatzgruppen", Nazis, murderers. It drips with pure, inept hatred, and people that are capable of harboring such burning hatred for people on the basis of ideological differences have no right to call anyone else a nazi; more irony. Well-placed as your heart may be, I sincerely hope yours is not as dark.

Your avatar is a fitting symbol - a walking contradiction? I think I may have said that before, haven't I?

When you quoted Fauci your point seemed to be that others should care. From what you've written so far you seem to care little about others yourself.

The state is responsible for bringing individuals under its effective authority, and thus can be considered morally responsible for every single one of those individuals.

Like, a child does not choose to be born, or who their parents are, so the individual does not choose to be born either, or in which state.

Is a parent responsible for the well-being of their children? Is a parent responsible for the failures of their children? Can a child be held responsible for not knowing things it hasn't been taught? Can a child be held responsible for perpetuating those ideas it has been taught?

Some on this forum consider childbirth to be immoral. What does that mean for the existence of states?


I suppose your intended question was more about what powers states should have, and whether they should control healthcare, but I kind of wanted to share this train of consciousness.

I understand you believe the sacrifices others must make are benign. Others disagree. But I'm getting the impression you are already past the point of considering the subjectiveness of your own position.

But only if it suits the narrative. When the "other people" are the millions of individuals that have to change their way of life, or when the state is walking the thin and slippery line of infringing upon citizens' right to bodily autonomy by attempting to pressure them into vaccination on the basis of incomplete information, I'm not sure if Fauci believes we should care about that.

... , mysticism is another religious doctrine or way of living.

As has been pointed out, there are many definitions abound of mysticism, but I'd like to share my view on it.

I don't think mysticism can be called a religion. Religious individuals can be mystics or partake in mysticism, but the two are different.

Religions are belief systems.

Mysticism concerns itself primarily with peak/mystical/enlightenment experiences.

To the experiencer, these are no different and no less real than their sight, hearing, sense of smell, taste or touch (albeit a lot more profound).

The difference between religion and mysticism is that between which is believed and that which is directly experienced.

Next time, think things through beyond the bare surface level before making such ignorant statements.

In an ideal world they'd let fat anti-vaxxers die instead of postponing medical treatment for other diseases because the IC is full. — Benkei

Even anti-vaxxers (are forced to) pay for collective healthcare their entire lives, and you wish to "let them die" because you disagree with how they wish to exercise the right to their own body?

I think that, as Western interference created the crisis, ... — thewonder

I would avoid the term 'western' and simply call the culprits by their names: the United States and Israel.

Europe isn't to blame for this mess of power politics, yet it bore the brunt of the fallout. I'm sure that has suited the United States and Israel just fine.

If God exists, presumably an afterlife exists, and suffering evil is meaningless.

I expected better from you.

I stand by it, actually.

As with every moral choice, we must make sense of it at the level of the individual. Every act, thus every moral act, is carried out by individuals.

Every child starts with "I want...", and to fulfill that want, one must take a considerable risk of harming the child one wants to have. Furthermore, there is no way of knowing whether the child, once its born, actually wanted to be born.

So we have a situation where we take a considerable risk on someone else's behalf, having not the slightest idea of how their lives may turn out or how one's parenting style may affect them, not knowing whether the child actually wants to be born, to fulfill our own desires.

I don't think this holds any moral ground.

I don't think so, for primarily two reasons:

1. Non-democratic states like Russia, but especially China, seem to be taking a dominant position over democratic states. The time of US hegemony is over, and China seems to be gearing up to take its place. As the US weakens, Russia's leverage over the EU will increase. In the long run this will first lead (and already has) to a series of crises as Russia reincorporates former Soviet states. After that, relations will probably normalize but Russia will be the dominant player in EU-Russia relations.

2. Democracy isn't just under threat from external sources. In fact, the bigger threat in both the US and the EU comes from within in the form of corruption. Social engineering, misinformation, propaganda, etc. have all turned the tables on the δῆμος. I no longer consider the US, the EU and many nations within the EU to actually be democratic. The will of the people is no longer the leading thread in decisionmaking. The leading thread has become the agenda of the elite, and the people are to be manipulated and coerced into accepting it.