User Tag List

Page 229 of 229 FirstFirst ... 129179219227228229
Results 2,281 to 2,290 of 2290

Thread: Coronavirus Pandemic

  1. #2281
    Administrator Letters's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    27,650
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn View Post
    That would depend on your belief system. In the Christian west inalienable rights are bestowed by your creator and cannot be repealed by any sovereign or legal system.
    So what do you think those rights ARE?
    And don't you think that living in a society pretty much by definition involves following certain societal rules which possibly impinge on those rights?
    Obviously if you remove yourself from society then you could be free of most of those rules, but you'd also lose the convenience and comfort of living in a society.

  2. #2282
    ***** Niall_Quinn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    59,832
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Letters View Post
    So what do you think those rights ARE?
    And don't you think that living in a society pretty much by definition involves following certain societal rules which possibly impinge on those rights?
    Obviously if you remove yourself from society then you could be free of most of those rules, but you'd also lose the convenience and comfort of living in a society.
    Why don't you ever read? I gave you an example already.

    The fundamental natural right that underpins all others is that you own yourself, your life, being, body and (if you like, soul) and you have a right bestowed by God or nature (whichever you prefer, or both) to preserve your life if possible.

    In the example I gave, mandatory vaccination would be an egregious abuse of natural rights (and human rights) despite what any man made law might decree. Nobody can rightfully claim to own you and this was true even during the time of slavery, despite legal rights backed by violence being used to legitimise the practice.

    And how the fuck do you not now this if you are a Christian?

  3. #2283
    Administrator Letters's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    27,650
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn View Post
    In the example I gave, mandatory vaccination would be an egregious abuse of natural rights
    I didn't disagree

    But I don't think anywhere in the Bible it gives us a list of what our "inalienable rights" are.

  4. #2284
    ***** Niall_Quinn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    59,832
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Letters View Post
    I didn't disagree

    But I don't think anywhere in the Bible it gives us a list of what our "inalienable rights" are.
    Unless it is written down as a proclamation from an authority figure, in this case whoever was speaking on behalf of God, then it's not real? Is the Bible a literal handbook governing human behaviour?

    “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

    You're supposed to learn the inherent lesson, not start chucking rocks because some important bloke gave you permission.

  5. #2285
    Member WMUG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,164
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn View Post
    That would depend on your belief system.
    I believe we're here because of an accident of chemistry and physics, and we've evolved behaviours that are beneficial to our individual survival.

    From that point of view, morality, rights and all that good stuff is essentially arbitrary, rather than inherent. I have values that were instilled in me by my upbringing and my own musings, but I don't operate under the assumption that my values are The Best or objectively correct.

    So I don't believe inalienable rights really exist in any measurable way. Certain groups of people can agree to protect the right to do this or that, but people are inevitably going to disagree about what should and shouldn't be protected.

    sovereigns or the legal profession pretending they are entitled, by authority which they grant to themselves, to create exceptions to that which cannot have exceptions.
    The way I see it, groups of people are going to grant themselves authority because that's their natural instinct, and there isn't anything which can't have exceptions. You might wish that a certain group didn't have power, in which case you can either challenge their authority or attempt to escape it, but them having authority isn't inherently good or bad because inherent good and bad don't exist.

    I basically think the less humans die unnecessarily, the better. I imagine most would agree on that. I also think that people should be able to do pretty much whatever they want, provided that doesn't stop others doing what they want. I know. Groundbreaking stuff.

    These two values come into conflict when it comes to mandatory vaccinations (let's forget Covid for a moment and assume the disease that's being vaccinated against is actually society-endangering). If the whole population (or as close to it as possible) doesn't get vaccinated, people will die unnecessarily. But if you force them to get vaccinated, that robs people of being able to do what they like, and might also cause people to die unnecessarily via unintended consequences.

    I don't know how you reconcile those two values, and I'm suspicious of anyone who says that one should be prioritised over the other because *obviously* it should, without giving a good reason.
    You used to be everything to me
    Now you're tired of fighting

  6. #2286
    Administrator McNamara That Ghost...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Colne, Lancashire.
    Posts
    147,557
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    "Don't tear the pants off it".

    Latest scientific advice from Van-Tam there.

    Also, he said this:

    "In my opinion, the rules are clear, and they have always been clear. In my opinion, they are for the benefit of all and they apply to all.'




  7. #2287
    ***** Niall_Quinn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    59,832
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WMUG View Post
    I believe we're here because of an accident of chemistry and physics, and we've evolved behaviours that are beneficial to our individual survival.

    From that point of view, morality, rights and all that good stuff is essentially arbitrary, rather than inherent. I have values that were instilled in me by my upbringing and my own musings, but I don't operate under the assumption that my values are The Best or objectively correct.

    So I don't believe inalienable rights really exist in any measurable way. Certain groups of people can agree to protect the right to do this or that, but people are inevitably going to disagree about what should and shouldn't be protected.



    The way I see it, groups of people are going to grant themselves authority because that's their natural instinct, and there isn't anything which can't have exceptions. You might wish that a certain group didn't have power, in which case you can either challenge their authority or attempt to escape it, but them having authority isn't inherently good or bad because inherent good and bad don't exist.

    I basically think the less humans die unnecessarily, the better. I imagine most would agree on that. I also think that people should be able to do pretty much whatever they want, provided that doesn't stop others doing what they want. I know. Groundbreaking stuff.

    These two values come into conflict when it comes to mandatory vaccinations (let's forget Covid for a moment and assume the disease that's being vaccinated against is actually society-endangering). If the whole population (or as close to it as possible) doesn't get vaccinated, people will die unnecessarily. But if you force them to get vaccinated, that robs people of being able to do what they like, and might also cause people to die unnecessarily via unintended consequences.

    I don't know how you reconcile those two values, and I'm suspicious of anyone who says that one should be prioritised over the other because *obviously* it should, without giving a good reason.
    I know a few people who have similar philosophies. And that's the great thing about liberty and freedom, of the mind at least. We all get to interpret the world we live in as we see fit, if we are capable. The philosophy of inalienable rights extends that thought process around the physical being doing the independent thinking and states, not only can I interpret the world as I see fit (which is fairly obvious right now, but technology is on a trajectory to change that), but the material vessel which is facilitating such thoughts and interpretations is self aware and, in itself, fundamentally free in principle, even when not in practise. There's no right or wrong about this. It's a state of mind which becomes a state of existence. It's also common sense. Merely because you are subject to environment doesn't exclude the idea that, given the ideal environment, nobody or no thing would assert the right of ownership over you. It's difficult to comprehend a circumstance where a free thinking individual would favour being owned. Of course the typical environment is far from ideal and there's a ready supply of individuals who will make such fatuous claims over you. Not directly, any more, because the principles of inalienable rights have eradicated overt slavery in many parts of the world. Which is a vindication on a path, not the final destination. When you can persuade the uncivilised "might is right" antagonist that their own, unnatural beliefs and ideologies are not acceptable then you have taken a step towards building a more ideal environment. Then you take the next step and the next. It's not random, it's not happenstance, it's not a series of biological or chemical reactions (beyond the mechanics of sustaining the ability to think and to be), it's a developing philosophy backed by action and societal change (for the better) that is self fulfilling because by securing your own liberty you must, in principle, secure the liberty of all others.

    Your argument on mandatory vaccination undermines the whole rationale behind vaccination. Assuming it is a good a necessary thing for survival, and that is the main goal of the process (rather than some vested financial or controlling interest), assuming the majority accepts this, then it is of little concern if a minority opts out. Because vaccination works - doesn't it? The vaccinated are safe. It is no threat to them if a few choose a different path, knowing full well the potential consequences of that path. And if the minority becomes the majority then the chances are the rationale behind the vaccine has not been argued sufficiently. And that outcome would be heavily influenced by the manifest danger. Many dead bodies - many vaccinations. No dead bodies - fewer vaccinations. Safety and liberty can be maintained either way, which is surely preferable? But as soon as a claim of ownership is placed over even a single individual, that is the most extreme form of tyranny.

    I prefer nature. I'll either die, which will definitely happen at some point, or the biology and chemistry of my natural being will find a way to coexist with the threat, as has been the case for millions of years. The half a million to a million civilians who burned during the Iraq war weren't offered a vaccination against the violence of the same state who now presents itself as being here to help, for our own good. I trust nature and distrust all those who assume they can wave inalienable rights under any circumstances.

  8. #2288
    ***** Niall_Quinn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    59,832
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by McNamara That Ghost... View Post
    "Don't tear the pants off it".

    Latest scientific advice from Van-Tam there.

    Also, he said this:

    "In my opinion, the rules are clear, and they have always been clear. In my opinion, they are for the benefit of all and they apply to all.'



    Vam-Tam, aren't they the beneficiaries of the health passport scam? I've started to tune out of this, tbh. It's a terrible plot and the characters are wooden as hell.

  9. #2289
    Member WMUG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,164
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn View Post
    I know a few people who have similar philosophies. And that's the great thing about liberty and freedom, of the mind at least. We all get to interpret the world we live in as we see fit, if we are capable. The philosophy of inalienable rights extends that thought process around the physical being doing the independent thinking and states, not only can I interpret the world as I see fit (which is fairly obvious right now, but technology is on a trajectory to change that), but the material vessel which is facilitating such thoughts and interpretations is self aware and, in itself, fundamentally free in principle, even when not in practise.
    I don't quite see how that leap is made. We can all interpret the world as we see fit, sure. We each have our own minds and nothing can stop us having our own private thoughts. Not yet, anyway. So in a sense, we are all fundamentally free thinkers, in as much as nothing exists to stop what goes on in our minds. But extending that to the physical being doesn't quite hold water for me, because from solitary confinement in prisons to national/supranational borders, our physical bodies are demonstrably constrained in all kinds of ways that our minds can't be.

    (That bit about borders is a large part of why I'm so against Brexit, btw. The larger an area over which people can travel, live and work without being stopped by border guards, the better. IMO, of course)

    Merely because you are subject to environment doesn't exclude the idea that, given the ideal environment, nobody or no thing would assert the right of ownership over you.
    I see that as a value. You might consider that the ideal environment, and I would tend to agree, but I don't see how it can be considered a fundamental fact of the universe, in the same way that, I dunno, gravity and weak nuclear force are. I might not want to be owned, but my being a person doesn't preclude it happening (insofar as "ownership" actually exists beyond enough people agreeing on it).

    When you can persuade the uncivilised "might is right" antagonist that their own, unnatural beliefs and ideologies are not acceptable then you have taken a step towards building a more ideal environment.
    Again, I see this as shaping the environment to more closely resemble the values you hold, rather than the environment taking its natural course. You might consider "might is right" to be unacceptable, and enough people sharing that belief might lead to a world that you think is better, but I don't think it's fundamentally unnatural. It's true in basically all walks of life other than humans; the stag with the biggest antlers gets the most mates. Why's that natural for deer but not for humans?

    Your argument on mandatory vaccination undermines the whole rationale behind vaccination. Assuming it is a good a necessary thing for survival, and that is the main goal of the process (rather than some vested financial or controlling interest), assuming the majority accepts this, then it is of little concern if a minority opts out. Because vaccination works - doesn't it? The vaccinated are safe. It is no threat to them if a few choose a different path, knowing full well the potential consequences of that path. And if the minority becomes the majority then the chances are the rationale behind the vaccine has not been argued sufficiently. And that outcome would be heavily influenced by the manifest danger. Many dead bodies - many vaccinations. No dead bodies - fewer vaccinations. Safety and liberty can be maintained either way, which is surely preferable? But as soon as a claim of ownership is placed over even a single individual, that is the most extreme form of tyranny.

    I prefer nature.
    This ignores the fact that there are those out there for whom vaccinations aren't safe for a variety of reasons (immune deficiencies, allergies and so on). To preserve these people's lives, you need herd immunity which is only going to happen if everyone who can be vaccinated is. I guess what's at the heart of the argument for mandatory vaccinations is that the right of these people's lives to be protected is set above the right of others to go with nature. Whether you agree or not depends on your own values.


    The half a million to a million civilians who burned during the Iraq war weren't offered a vaccination against the violence of the same state who now presents itself as being here to help, for our own good. I trust nature and distrust all those who assume they can wave inalienable rights under any circumstances.
    This is the point at which we come to more tangible reality: do we trust a certain group of people to act in our interests? And systemically, that depends on whether the interests of that institution are aligned with ours. Clearly the Blair government's interests were not at all aligned with the Iraqi people's, but there's an argument to be made that any government of a democracy benefits from having its citizens healthy, because it's the citizens' productivity that keeps the state wealthy. More here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
    You used to be everything to me
    Now you're tired of fighting

  10. #2290
    Member Mac76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sport's back

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/52862637

    That's now it for lockdown, if people are allowed to breathe heavily all over each other while playing sports, then might as well give up on the whole thing.

    We need people out of the parks, off the streets and back to work, they've had enough of a holiday now

    And they can open up the pubs too

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •