4 ms·

> Forcing someone else to take a vaccine, if they don't want to, or forcing someone else NOT to take a vaccine, if they do "Making somebody pay taxes, if they

by ericol 7y ago

> Forcing someone else to take a vaccine, if they don't want to, or forcing someone else NOT to take a vaccine, if they do "Making somebody pay taxes, if they don't want..." Dude, this has been discussed ad infinitum. You don't want to take a vaccine? Fine. But then, do I have the knowledge to know you haven't taken it, as refusing to be around you, etc etc etc because you refuse to do something that is proven to better the life of humanity as a whole (And you can't prove otherwise). I could argue a lot more, but english is not my mother tongue.

peter_d_sherman 7y ago
OK, let's understand a few things. First, I am self-quarantining, even though I do not have CoronaVirus. I wish for no harm to you, or to my fellow man. Second, I am a philosopher. After deep introspection, I have realized that even though, from my limited human perspective, it would be nice for large segments of the population to do certain things, and not do other things, it's not my place in the universe to force them to do or not do so, much less support any government or political system which forces them to do or not do so. That is, force someone to do something against their will. That is, I must grant freedom to all others, regardless of what they do or don't do, even though I might not like this, even though it might impact me and my life. True freedom is not had through a Government -- but rather by granting everyone their own freedom, including (as paradoxical as it would seem) the freedom to create and participate in governments, including the ability to disagree with other people (e.g., your comments to me), and including the ability to use force on others. Yes, I might not like any of those things... but if I want freedom for myself, true freedom -- I must grant everyone the right to do all of those things. We have no argument... you are correct in what you believe. I don't see things exactly the same way as you... but my own philosophy grants you the freedom to see things how you wish. Now, if you wanted to free yourself, that is, free your mind, you would study everything you can about medicines, vaccines, health, nutrition, DNA, biochemistry, etc., as I have done in the past. Ultimately, the study of all of that becomes an "argument to authority". That is, we're saying that things about medicine that we believe to be true are true, because doctors and other highly educated men say they are. Now, in my own experience, generally speaking, that's true. But the knowledge of those in medicine -- typically goes down to a certain level... Cells, DNA, etc. And it stops there. It doesn't go down to even deeper levels, atoms, sub-particles, quanta, string-theory, etc. The medical doctors would have a lot to learn if they explored these areas, specifically the mind-body-biochemistry link, but unfortunately, in this day and age, they constrain their knowledge to statistics... Statistically, yes, people are going to die from things. Statistically, they're going to die from car accidents, from diseases, and even old age! They might even die (statistically) from too much or too little of something, like too much lead in the water, or not enough love by their parents, or too much (or not enough) money! CoronaVirus is a statistical phenomena. It's a glass-is-half-full-no-glass-is-half-empty perceptual filter on top of the statistical deaths caused by comorbidity, which is what happens when you take already unhealthy health conditions, and add another one on top of those. Healthy people do not get diseases. Human beings have been on this planet for millions of years, and our genome has adapted to all kinds of viruses, diseases and pathogens. CoronaVirus is no different, it will be adapted into our DNA, we'll be immune to it, no need for a vaccine (if we don't want one -- I'm not preventing you or anyone else from getting one), and then we can all move on with our lives...
- Tainnor 7y ago
  There's a lot to unpack here. First of all, "healthy people do not get diseases" is just flat out wrong, I don't know how you could support such a claim. Second, do you accept the inevitability of death in all things, meaning you take zero precautions to protect your own life in any and all situations of your life? You never wear a seatbelt, never go to a doctor, wouldn't stay clear of a person if you knew they had a very contagious disease, ...? If yes, I would be very surprised about your stoicism; otherwise it seems inconsistent. Lastly, do you really believe no person should ever be forced to do anything? So, for example, a mother should not be forced to feed her child, or people should not be prevented from murdering other people? If not, your argument that unlimited freedom is the most important value to preserve falls flat and we must start talking about the situations in which you would restrict someone's freedom. (I won't even go into how I think this notion of "freedom" is very simplistic because it ignores how un-free we are fundamentally due to situations outside of our control, e.g. very poor people are de facto not very free.)
  - ericol 6y ago
    I applaud you from taking the time to reply to that... but it was just not worth it.
  - peter_d_sherman 7y ago
    "There's a lot to unpack here." Yes there is; and it's the tip of the iceberg. "First of all, "healthy people do not get diseases" is just flat out wrong, I don't know how you could support such a claim." Fair enough! I concede that that was wrong, people do get diseases, and previously they might have been healthy, so as a statement standing by itself, evaluated as a truth or a claim by itself, it is definitely wrong. Agreed. Although, I would suggest that looking at it in context would provide a greater degree of what it was attempting to communicate, what I was trying to say. But I agree that by itself, as a statement, claim and/or truth, it's wrong. Concur. "Second, do you accept the inevitability of death in all things, meaning you take zero precautions to protect your own life in any and all situations of your life? You never wear a seatbelt, never go to a doctor, wouldn't stay clear of a person if you knew they had a very contagious disease, ...?" Well, let's see. If I were driving, I would wear a seatbelt yes. And I have seen doctors in the past, that's true enough. Would I stay clear of a person I knew had a contagious disease? Well, I don't know. Explain to me what you think a contagious disease is, if that contagious disease causes death or not (in other words, what am I risking), and what's the status of the person relative to my goals? In other words, am I getting to talk to Elon Musk? Might he give me a job? What's the risk and what are the rewards? If I knew those things, then yes, I might be able to give you a hypothetical answer... "If yes, I would be very surprised about your stoicism; otherwise it seems inconsistent." I'm not as afraid of diseases as most people are. That is because I've done a ton of reading in many subjects (many many subjects!), and a ton of reading in medicine. What scares most people in these areas -- doesn't have as much of an effect on me, because I know things that the average person does not. "Lastly, do you really believe no person should ever be forced to do anything?" Not by me. After a long time in meditation and deep introspection, I have realized that while there may be many people whose behaviors in various areas I don't like, don't appreciate -- that I'd rather work on my own toleration of them -- which is a quality which can be changed (acceptance or inacceptance of the behavior of what others do or don't do is a mental state -- it exists in your mind. If you can change your mind, you can rise above this... that is my goal for myself...) "So, for example, a mother should not be forced to feed her child" I am not prohibited from attempting to persuade, multiple times if need be, to this mother that feeding her child is a good idea, and socially beneficial. Beyond persuasion, I will not use force. If it's my child, perhaps that's different, but if it's my child, why am I not feeding it (thus removing the obligation for the mother to be the sole party responsible). As I don't have children, I couldn't answer this question as applies to me, but all I can tell you is that polite repeated persuasion is permissible (to be used by me) -- but the use of force is not. ", or people should not be prevented from murdering other people? " Again, same argument. I can persuade, I can attempt to persuade them that what they are doing / have did (is/was) wrong, perhaps multiple times on muliple ocassions, maybe many times over, but I will not be the party using force against them. "If not, your argument that unlimited freedom is the most important value to preserve falls flat and we must start talking about the situations in which you would restrict someone's freedom." It's an important value to preserve for me. I should point out that the value does not exist as "unlimited", as that's an absolute, an extreme. It's an ideal (for me), but it's an ideal that is not nor could ever be accomplished by a human living on the earth. I am after all, human. The philosophers of old used to think about things in "ideal" terms... for me, with respect to freedom, the challenge/goal I have set for myself... the "ideal" -- is to give all others theirs, even if it interferes with other others' freedom. I can persuade (or attempt to persuade) other people that what they are doing might be wrong... but I can never coerce them, I can never use force. "(I won't even go into how I think this notion of "freedom" is very simplistic because it ignores how un-free we are fundamentally due to situations outside of our control, e.g. very poor people are de facto not very free.)" The more you try to control the universe... the more the universe will control you. Simple example: Find a wall. Push on the wall. Note that the wall pushes back at your hand with precisely the exact equal-and-opposite force that you apply to it. Precisely. Now, take your hand away from the wall. Look at it. Is it exercising any control, any control over your hand? Is it pushing against your hand? All objects/situations/people/places/things in the universe are like your hand with respect to the wall. If you do not attempt to control them -- you will not be controlled. But if you do... expect and accept an equal-but-opposite force of control in precisely the same amount as you exert against the objects/situations/people/places/things that you are trying to control, by whatever means you are trying to control it. My philosophy is that simple. Newton's 3rd Law... applied to everything in the Universe that you or me or someone else would like to control...

by ericol 7y ago

peter_d_sherman 7y ago

OK, let's understand a few things. First, I am self-quarantining, even though I do not have CoronaVirus. I wish for no harm to you, or to my fellow man. Second, I am a philosopher. After deep introspection, I have realized that even though, from my limited human perspective, it would be nice for large segments of the population to do certain things, and not do other things, it's not my place in the universe to force them to do or not do so, much less support any government or political system which forces them to do or not do so. That is, force someone to do something against their will. That is, I must grant freedom to all others, regardless of what they do or don't do, even though I might not like this, even though it might impact me and my life. True freedom is not had through a Government -- but rather by granting everyone their own freedom, including (as paradoxical as it would seem) the freedom to create and participate in governments, including the ability to disagree with other people (e.g., your comments to me), and including the ability to use force on others. Yes, I might not like any of those things... but if I want freedom for myself, true freedom -- I must grant everyone the right to do all of those things. We have no argument... you are correct in what you believe. I don't see things exactly the same way as you... but my own philosophy grants you the freedom to see things how you wish. Now, if you wanted to free yourself, that is, free your mind, you would study everything you can about medicines, vaccines, health, nutrition, DNA, biochemistry, etc., as I have done in the past. Ultimately, the study of all of that becomes an "argument to authority". That is, we're saying that things about medicine that we believe to be true are true, because doctors and other highly educated men say they are. Now, in my own experience, generally speaking, that's true. But the knowledge of those in medicine -- typically goes down to a certain level... Cells, DNA, etc. And it stops there. It doesn't go down to even deeper levels, atoms, sub-particles, quanta, string-theory, etc. The medical doctors would have a lot to learn if they explored these areas, specifically the mind-body-biochemistry link, but unfortunately, in this day and age, they constrain their knowledge to statistics... Statistically, yes, people are going to die from things. Statistically, they're going to die from car accidents, from diseases, and even old age! They might even die (statistically) from too much or too little of something, like too much lead in the water, or not enough love by their parents, or too much (or not enough) money! CoronaVirus is a statistical phenomena. It's a glass-is-half-full-no-glass-is-half-empty perceptual filter on top of the statistical deaths caused by comorbidity, which is what happens when you take already unhealthy health conditions, and add another one on top of those. Healthy people do not get diseases. Human beings have been on this planet for millions of years, and our genome has adapted to all kinds of viruses, diseases and pathogens. CoronaVirus is no different, it will be adapted into our DNA, we'll be immune to it, no need for a vaccine (if we don't want one -- I'm not preventing you or anyone else from getting one), and then we can all move on with our lives...

Tainnor 7y ago
There's a lot to unpack here. First of all, "healthy people do not get diseases" is just flat out wrong, I don't know how you could support such a claim. Second, do you accept the inevitability of death in all things, meaning you take zero precautions to protect your own life in any and all situations of your life? You never wear a seatbelt, never go to a doctor, wouldn't stay clear of a person if you knew they had a very contagious disease, ...? If yes, I would be very surprised about your stoicism; otherwise it seems inconsistent. Lastly, do you really believe no person should ever be forced to do anything? So, for example, a mother should not be forced to feed her child, or people should not be prevented from murdering other people? If not, your argument that unlimited freedom is the most important value to preserve falls flat and we must start talking about the situations in which you would restrict someone's freedom. (I won't even go into how I think this notion of "freedom" is very simplistic because it ignores how un-free we are fundamentally due to situations outside of our control, e.g. very poor people are de facto not very free.)
- ericol 6y ago
  I applaud you from taking the time to reply to that... but it was just not worth it.
- peter_d_sherman 7y ago
  "There's a lot to unpack here." Yes there is; and it's the tip of the iceberg. "First of all, "healthy people do not get diseases" is just flat out wrong, I don't know how you could support such a claim." Fair enough! I concede that that was wrong, people do get diseases, and previously they might have been healthy, so as a statement standing by itself, evaluated as a truth or a claim by itself, it is definitely wrong. Agreed. Although, I would suggest that looking at it in context would provide a greater degree of what it was attempting to communicate, what I was trying to say. But I agree that by itself, as a statement, claim and/or truth, it's wrong. Concur. "Second, do you accept the inevitability of death in all things, meaning you take zero precautions to protect your own life in any and all situations of your life? You never wear a seatbelt, never go to a doctor, wouldn't stay clear of a person if you knew they had a very contagious disease, ...?" Well, let's see. If I were driving, I would wear a seatbelt yes. And I have seen doctors in the past, that's true enough. Would I stay clear of a person I knew had a contagious disease? Well, I don't know. Explain to me what you think a contagious disease is, if that contagious disease causes death or not (in other words, what am I risking), and what's the status of the person relative to my goals? In other words, am I getting to talk to Elon Musk? Might he give me a job? What's the risk and what are the rewards? If I knew those things, then yes, I might be able to give you a hypothetical answer... "If yes, I would be very surprised about your stoicism; otherwise it seems inconsistent." I'm not as afraid of diseases as most people are. That is because I've done a ton of reading in many subjects (many many subjects!), and a ton of reading in medicine. What scares most people in these areas -- doesn't have as much of an effect on me, because I know things that the average person does not. "Lastly, do you really believe no person should ever be forced to do anything?" Not by me. After a long time in meditation and deep introspection, I have realized that while there may be many people whose behaviors in various areas I don't like, don't appreciate -- that I'd rather work on my own toleration of them -- which is a quality which can be changed (acceptance or inacceptance of the behavior of what others do or don't do is a mental state -- it exists in your mind. If you can change your mind, you can rise above this... that is my goal for myself...) "So, for example, a mother should not be forced to feed her child" I am not prohibited from attempting to persuade, multiple times if need be, to this mother that feeding her child is a good idea, and socially beneficial. Beyond persuasion, I will not use force. If it's my child, perhaps that's different, but if it's my child, why am I not feeding it (thus removing the obligation for the mother to be the sole party responsible). As I don't have children, I couldn't answer this question as applies to me, but all I can tell you is that polite repeated persuasion is permissible (to be used by me) -- but the use of force is not. ", or people should not be prevented from murdering other people? " Again, same argument. I can persuade, I can attempt to persuade them that what they are doing / have did (is/was) wrong, perhaps multiple times on muliple ocassions, maybe many times over, but I will not be the party using force against them. "If not, your argument that unlimited freedom is the most important value to preserve falls flat and we must start talking about the situations in which you would restrict someone's freedom." It's an important value to preserve for me. I should point out that the value does not exist as "unlimited", as that's an absolute, an extreme. It's an ideal (for me), but it's an ideal that is not nor could ever be accomplished by a human living on the earth. I am after all, human. The philosophers of old used to think about things in "ideal" terms... for me, with respect to freedom, the challenge/goal I have set for myself... the "ideal" -- is to give all others theirs, even if it interferes with other others' freedom. I can persuade (or attempt to persuade) other people that what they are doing might be wrong... but I can never coerce them, I can never use force. "(I won't even go into how I think this notion of "freedom" is very simplistic because it ignores how un-free we are fundamentally due to situations outside of our control, e.g. very poor people are de facto not very free.)" The more you try to control the universe... the more the universe will control you. Simple example: Find a wall. Push on the wall. Note that the wall pushes back at your hand with precisely the exact equal-and-opposite force that you apply to it. Precisely. Now, take your hand away from the wall. Look at it. Is it exercising any control, any control over your hand? Is it pushing against your hand? All objects/situations/people/places/things in the universe are like your hand with respect to the wall. If you do not attempt to control them -- you will not be controlled. But if you do... expect and accept an equal-but-opposite force of control in precisely the same amount as you exert against the objects/situations/people/places/things that you are trying to control, by whatever means you are trying to control it. My philosophy is that simple. Newton's 3rd Law... applied to everything in the Universe that you or me or someone else would like to control...