Coronavirus

[Spekulatius]

How did the main topic of this thread become the confederate flag and how did a Jewish person (Gregmal)  accused of anti semitism?

 

I know that sometimes creep sets in, but one also need to look at the current situation and decide if this makes any sense.

 

As far as I know, the virus does not afflict the brain. I am guilty of causing topic creep as well but that’s just too much. There is quite a bit of useful info here, but it’s gets drowned out by more and more garbage posts. Those should go into the politics boards.

[stahleyp]

I think everyone here knows I'm a fiscal conservative, but a liberal socialist when it comes to individual rights.

 

But I have to ask my liberal friends, are we going too far in some issues.  Now they are banning "Gone With the Wind".  What's next, "Forrest Gump?"

 

I knew GWTW was racist when I first saw it as a kid, same with Breakfast at Tiffany's, but are we going to outlaw all movies and books with racist connotations?  We would then have to ban books like "To Kill a Mockingbird", which would serve the opposite purpose of the book's moral outrage at racism.

 

Banning confederate flags at Nascar...yes, I think that is very reasonable.  But when you start skewing history and censoring information written in a historical context or period, you are actually moving closer to the direction of Nazi's than away.

 

And you are talking to a Indo-Canadian kid born in Canada, whose family is made up of Hindus, Punjabis, Blacks, Chinese, Vietnamese, Italian and English backgrounds!  Cheers!

 

If we're going to ban confederate flags, you should also ban any other flags that might offend people. It's not right to censor one view just because group X gets offended but allow another flag to go  even though it offends group Y.

That's bullshit. There are plenty of instances of banned flags because of what they represent. Throughout most of the eastern block you cannot display flags with the hammer and sickle for example. In Germany it is illegal to display the Third Reich flag or any nazi symbols. These laws are mainly for a few whackaoos because no organization in their right mind over there would ever display one of these flags or symbols.

 

Keep in mind that these were actually the official country flags for these countries. In some cases for a long period of time and they are banned. The idea of banning the battle flag of a bunch of traitors that started an open insurrection against a country that led to the deadliest war that country has ever experienced isn't that out there.

 

I'm not a fan of the confederate flag but I see no reason why the folks who enjoy that flag should be discriminated against if one is really "tolerant." We're not talking about Germany here. We're talking about the US. Would you be in favor of then, saying banning something like the flag of Japan because we were at war with them at one time and that they bombed Pearl Harbor?

 

Spoken like someone who's never spent any quality time in NW FL or lower AL.

 

It's not a matter of "enjoying" the confederate flag.

It's a symbol of racism & those who fly it are making their feelings known.

If you doubt what I'm saying, I invite you to visit & I'll take you on a tour of our beautiful beaches.

 

It's a symbol of racism to you. That doesn't mean they see it way. Why be so intolerant?

 

Why remove asbestos?  Why not continue using lead pipes?  Let's continue serving 40 oz cups of Cola to children.  White hoods should be allowed like all Halloween costumes.  Chloro-fluoro-carbons should be used again, because the hole in the ozone layer has closed.  The world changes, moral standards change, slowly we all become more enlightened!  Do you guys still call your female staff or colleagues "sweetie" or "honey"?  Cheers!

 

 

A) showing your "southern pride" by wearing a flag isn't hurting anyone. Even if it did hurt people, the moral value of that is subjective. Plenty of societies allow people to hurt (or kill) others without punishment.

 

B) We've become more enlightened? You really believe that? If you're an atheist such a thing as moral progress most certainly does not exist. There is an illusion of progress but it's really just personal opinion (much like Hitler's version of progress was an illusion).

 

It's irrational to believe such a thing exists because there is no evidence. Do you honestly think you have more "moral insight" than the slave owners did? Why on earth would you think that? Did Hitler also have more "moral insight" than you?

 

Perhaps if the Nazis would have won WWII, you would be thanking Hitler for his version of "enlightenment" too (well, maybe not for Indians but others might have thought that!)? Or perhaps if the Confederacy had won, Americans would be thinking Davis for the "good work" he did too?

 

So overall my point is this: if atheism is accurate, it is quite silly to act like there is some higher moral standard we should be aiming for (after all, atheists only believe in things with evidence and there is no evidence for a higher moral standard so its best to be neutral on such matters). Likewise, it's silly to act like slavery, racism (or anything else) is "bad" because the people committing those acts have just as much moral insight as any of us.

 

 

You are not a conservative or an individual with a good moral character.  What you are, is a religious fundamentalist, similar to what you would find in Iran or Afghanistan.

 

Do you care to attack my argument rather than me as a person?

 

Why do you say I am a "religious fundamentalist?" I don't even go to church. But, I really fail to see how there is some higher moral standard if atheism is accurate.

[meiroy]

I think everyone here knows I'm a fiscal conservative, but a liberal socialist when it comes to individual rights.

 

But I have to ask my liberal friends, are we going too far in some issues.  Now they are banning "Gone With the Wind".  What's next, "Forrest Gump?"

 

I knew GWTW was racist when I first saw it as a kid, same with Breakfast at Tiffany's, but are we going to outlaw all movies and books with racist connotations?  We would then have to ban books like "To Kill a Mockingbird", which would serve the opposite purpose of the book's moral outrage at racism.

 

Banning confederate flags at Nascar...yes, I think that is very reasonable.  But when you start skewing history and censoring information written in a historical context or period, you are actually moving closer to the direction of Nazi's than away.

 

And you are talking to a Indo-Canadian kid born in Canada, whose family is made up of Hindus, Punjabis, Blacks, Chinese, Vietnamese, Italian and English backgrounds!  Cheers!

 

If we're going to ban confederate flags, you should also ban any other flags that might offend people. It's not right to censor one view just because group X gets offended but allow another flag to go  even though it offends group Y.

That's bullshit. There are plenty of instances of banned flags because of what they represent. Throughout most of the eastern block you cannot display flags with the hammer and sickle for example. In Germany it is illegal to display the Third Reich flag or any nazi symbols. These laws are mainly for a few whackaoos because no organization in their right mind over there would ever display one of these flags or symbols.

 

Keep in mind that these were actually the official country flags for these countries. In some cases for a long period of time and they are banned. The idea of banning the battle flag of a bunch of traitors that started an open insurrection against a country that led to the deadliest war that country has ever experienced isn't that out there.

 

I'm not a fan of the confederate flag but I see no reason why the folks who enjoy that flag should be discriminated against if one is really "tolerant." We're not talking about Germany here. We're talking about the US. Would you be in favor of then, saying banning something like the flag of Japan because we were at war with them at one time and that they bombed Pearl Harbor?

 

Spoken like someone who's never spent any quality time in NW FL or lower AL.

 

It's not a matter of "enjoying" the confederate flag.

It's a symbol of racism & those who fly it are making their feelings known.

If you doubt what I'm saying, I invite you to visit & I'll take you on a tour of our beautiful beaches.

 

It's a symbol of racism to you. That doesn't mean they see it way. Why be so intolerant?

 

Why remove asbestos?  Why not continue using lead pipes?  Let's continue serving 40 oz cups of Cola to children.  White hoods should be allowed like all Halloween costumes.  Chloro-fluoro-carbons should be used again, because the hole in the ozone layer has closed.  The world changes, moral standards change, slowly we all become more enlightened!  Do you guys still call your female staff or colleagues "sweetie" or "honey"?  Cheers!

 

 

A) showing your "southern pride" by wearing a flag isn't hurting anyone. Even if it did hurt people, the moral value of that is subjective. Plenty of societies allow people to hurt (or kill) others without punishment.

 

B) We've become more enlightened? You really believe that? If you're an atheist such a thing as moral progress most certainly does not exist. There is an illusion of progress but it's really just personal opinion (much like Hitler's version of progress was an illusion).

 

It's irrational to believe such a thing exists because there is no evidence. Do you honestly think you have more "moral insight" than the slave owners did? Why on earth would you think that? Did Hitler also have more "moral insight" than you?

 

Perhaps if the Nazis would have won WWII, you would be thanking Hitler for his version of "enlightenment" too (well, maybe not for Indians but others might have thought that!)? Or perhaps if the Confederacy had won, Americans would be thinking Davis for the "good work" he did too?

 

So overall my point is this: if atheism is accurate, it is quite silly to act like there is some higher moral standard we should be aiming for (after all, atheists only believe in things with evidence and there is no evidence for a higher moral standard so its best to be neutral on such matters). Likewise, it's silly to act like slavery, racism (or anything else) is "bad" because the people committing those acts have just as much moral insight as any of us.

 

 

You are not a conservative or an individual with a good moral character.  What you are, is a religious fundamentalist, similar to what you would find in Iran or Afghanistan.

 

Do you care to attack my argument rather than me as a person?

 

Why do you say I am a "religious fundamentalist?" I don't even go to church. But, I really fail to see how there is some higher moral standard if atheism is accurate.

 

No. Because: 1. You are a troll 2. You are a religious fundamentalist.

[stahleyp]

I think everyone here knows I'm a fiscal conservative, but a liberal socialist when it comes to individual rights.

 

But I have to ask my liberal friends, are we going too far in some issues.  Now they are banning "Gone With the Wind".  What's next, "Forrest Gump?"

 

I knew GWTW was racist when I first saw it as a kid, same with Breakfast at Tiffany's, but are we going to outlaw all movies and books with racist connotations?  We would then have to ban books like "To Kill a Mockingbird", which would serve the opposite purpose of the book's moral outrage at racism.

 

Banning confederate flags at Nascar...yes, I think that is very reasonable.  But when you start skewing history and censoring information written in a historical context or period, you are actually moving closer to the direction of Nazi's than away.

 

And you are talking to a Indo-Canadian kid born in Canada, whose family is made up of Hindus, Punjabis, Blacks, Chinese, Vietnamese, Italian and English backgrounds!  Cheers!

 

If we're going to ban confederate flags, you should also ban any other flags that might offend people. It's not right to censor one view just because group X gets offended but allow another flag to go  even though it offends group Y.

That's bullshit. There are plenty of instances of banned flags because of what they represent. Throughout most of the eastern block you cannot display flags with the hammer and sickle for example. In Germany it is illegal to display the Third Reich flag or any nazi symbols. These laws are mainly for a few whackaoos because no organization in their right mind over there would ever display one of these flags or symbols.

 

Keep in mind that these were actually the official country flags for these countries. In some cases for a long period of time and they are banned. The idea of banning the battle flag of a bunch of traitors that started an open insurrection against a country that led to the deadliest war that country has ever experienced isn't that out there.

 

I'm not a fan of the confederate flag but I see no reason why the folks who enjoy that flag should be discriminated against if one is really "tolerant." We're not talking about Germany here. We're talking about the US. Would you be in favor of then, saying banning something like the flag of Japan because we were at war with them at one time and that they bombed Pearl Harbor?

 

Spoken like someone who's never spent any quality time in NW FL or lower AL.

 

It's not a matter of "enjoying" the confederate flag.

It's a symbol of racism & those who fly it are making their feelings known.

If you doubt what I'm saying, I invite you to visit & I'll take you on a tour of our beautiful beaches.

 

It's a symbol of racism to you. That doesn't mean they see it way. Why be so intolerant?

 

Why remove asbestos?  Why not continue using lead pipes?  Let's continue serving 40 oz cups of Cola to children.  White hoods should be allowed like all Halloween costumes.  Chloro-fluoro-carbons should be used again, because the hole in the ozone layer has closed.  The world changes, moral standards change, slowly we all become more enlightened!  Do you guys still call your female staff or colleagues "sweetie" or "honey"?  Cheers!

 

 

A) showing your "southern pride" by wearing a flag isn't hurting anyone. Even if it did hurt people, the moral value of that is subjective. Plenty of societies allow people to hurt (or kill) others without punishment.

 

B) We've become more enlightened? You really believe that? If you're an atheist such a thing as moral progress most certainly does not exist. There is an illusion of progress but it's really just personal opinion (much like Hitler's version of progress was an illusion).

 

It's irrational to believe such a thing exists because there is no evidence. Do you honestly think you have more "moral insight" than the slave owners did? Why on earth would you think that? Did Hitler also have more "moral insight" than you?

 

Perhaps if the Nazis would have won WWII, you would be thanking Hitler for his version of "enlightenment" too (well, maybe not for Indians but others might have thought that!)? Or perhaps if the Confederacy had won, Americans would be thinking Davis for the "good work" he did too?

 

So overall my point is this: if atheism is accurate, it is quite silly to act like there is some higher moral standard we should be aiming for (after all, atheists only believe in things with evidence and there is no evidence for a higher moral standard so its best to be neutral on such matters). Likewise, it's silly to act like slavery, racism (or anything else) is "bad" because the people committing those acts have just as much moral insight as any of us.

 

 

You are not a conservative or an individual with a good moral character.  What you are, is a religious fundamentalist, similar to what you would find in Iran or Afghanistan.

 

Do you care to attack my argument rather than me as a person?

 

Why do you say I am a "religious fundamentalist?" I don't even go to church. But, I really fail to see how there is some higher moral standard if atheism is accurate.

 

No.

 

Your argument is fundamentally sound. I can not bear the weight of your rationality and intellect. I am defeated.  :( :'(

 

[Read the Footnotes]

This thread is seriously off topic.

 

Please move the political discussion regarding the US Civil war to the Politics section. I have created a new thread for your convenience.

 

https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/politics/deck-chairs-on-the-titanic-us-civil-war-edition/

[Read the Footnotes]

Here's some Coronavirus content for the Coronavirus thread.

 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-virus/

[meiroy]

 

The coronavirus will go away or we'll learn to live with it.

 

 

There's a bigger virus now in plain sight.

 

[Read the Footnotes]

How did the main topic of this thread become the confederate flag and how did a Jewish person (Gregmal)  accused of anti semitism?

 

 

I've created a thread in the politics section, hopefully discussion of flags can move there.

 

https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/politics/deck-chairs-on-the-titanic-us-civil-war-edition/

 

I think it's really inappropriate to make accusations at other board, especially if they aren't well founded and they almost never seem well founded founded to me.

 

On the other hand, many people do believe that many varieties of self-loathing exist, so though I discourage people from making aspersions at other members, dismissing the concept out of hand doesn't seem appropriate either.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hating_Jew

 

Also of interest is Roy Cohn, Trump's attorney and political mentor, who not only was the driving force behind McCarthyism, but also is widely accused of the persecution of homosexuals, despite his only sexuality.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn

 

 

As far as I know, the virus does not afflict the brain. I am guilty of causing topic creep as well but that’s just too much. There is quite a bit of useful info here, but it’s gets drowned out by more and more garbage posts. Those should go into the politics boards.

The virus does impact the brain and cause neurological symptoms. If this thread wasn't so full of political garbage and members insulting each other, we could probably have an intelligent discussion on the topic.

[meiroy]

How did the main topic of this thread become the confederate flag and how did a Jewish person (Gregmal)  accused of anti semitism?

 

 

I've created a thread in the politics section, hopefully discussion of flags can move there.

 

https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/politics/deck-chairs-on-the-titanic-us-civil-war-edition/

 

I think it's really inappropriate to make accusations at other board, especially if they aren't well founded and they almost never seem well founded founded to me.

 

On the other hand, many people do believe that many varieties of self-loathing exist, so though I discourage people from making aspersions at other members, dismissing the concept out of hand doesn't seem appropriate either.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hating_Jew

 

Also of interest is Roy Cohn, Trump's attorney and political mentor, who not only was the driving force behind McCarthyism, but also is widely accused of the persecution of homosexuals, despite his only sexuality.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn

 

 

As far as I know, the virus does not afflict the brain. I am guilty of causing topic creep as well but that’s just too much. There is quite a bit of useful info here, but it’s gets drowned out by more and more garbage posts. Those should go into the politics boards.

The virus does impact the brain and cause neurological symptoms. If this thread wasn't so full of political garbage and members insulting each other, we could probably have an intelligent discussion on the topic.

 

 

You just linked to a Wikipedia article on the origin of self-hating jews.

 

[stahleyp]

 

 

There's a bigger virus now in plain sight.

 

So much hate and intolerance!

[meiroy]

 

 

There's a bigger virus now in plain sight.

 

So much hate and intolerance!

 

Unlike you, I'm intolerant towards viruses.

[stahleyp]

 

 

There's a bigger virus now in plain sight.

 

So much hate and intolerance!

 

Unlike you, I'm intolerant towards viruses.

 

And unlike you, I am intolerant toward bad reasoning. ;)

[Gregmal]

Eh thats a bad argument. As you know, a moral compass is not guided by who wins. That said, a flag is a piece of cloth. It means different things to different people. We've seen this in many instances, for a long time. Even down to gangbangers shooting people up over disrespecting their flag/colors. As I mentioned, to many folks in the south, its just a symbol of southern pride.

 

That's interesting. I think this is the first time I've "met" someone who thinks it's fine to fly both the ISIS flag and the Nazi flag.

 

I am a fan of protecting peoples rights and freedoms afforded to them by the constitution. Peoples rights should not change like stock prices based on the flavor of the month or the rotation of parties in power. They should be unassailable and without question. I really dont care about the flag issue. Like, in the course of things that are important in my life, saying its not even on the radar would still be giving it too much priority. If all flags are banned I would get by just fine, and if anyone was allowed to display any flag they wanted, I wouldn't care either. I just think its worth noting how fundamentally hypocritical a lot of people are. I mean, was there just, for the past few years, this massive deal made by some about how taking a knee was fine because "the flag doesnt mean to you what it means to me"? And now, many of those same people are claiming that, "this is what the flag means to me so thats what it has to mean to you"!

 

At the end of the day, if we are consistent, let people fly whatever flag they want, no different than how we can also let Twitter ban or modify content from whoever they want, bakeries can chose to sell cakes to whomever they want, and Sanjeev can choose who gets to be a part of CoBF. From there, society, and the laws of supply and demand will determine the viability of those behaviors, and if, a for profit organization(arguable in Twitters case), people can vote "this is unacceptable" and give the proverbial thumbs down by choosing to take their business elsewhere.

[vinod1]

In a way, - I don't know which - the current line of posting in this topic has to stop.

For those interested, here is a distilled list of best-evidence that has built up over the last few weeks versus prevention of transmission.

https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiaa189/5820886

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/using-face-masks-community-reducing-covid-19-transmission

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

 

From a humble perspective, a detached and rational approach tends to avoid running into sterile debates and tribal drift but i often feel like an idiot.

It's fascinating that this virus, which is somewhat benign from an evolutionary standpoint, stirs so much reptilian instincts and one has to wonder about the host (and its institutions).

Maybe i focus too much on governance issues.

 

Here is another one :

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/9/20-2272_article

 

Runs a bit against my hypothesis that truly asymptomatic (And those that never show symptoms) younger people aren’t likely superspreaders. Well, it seem they can be.

 

Whether one is truly asymptomatic or get some mild symptoms later is not that important.  Its been clear for a while that there is asymptomatic transmission, which happens while talking.  To some extent masks help but not eliminate small tiny droplets floating in air and its difficult to wear masks continuously.

 

That is why Japanese say "ventilation is key".  That makes everyone life easier.  And now we know it works. I think we should copy what works. That is not to say not to use masks or stop washing hands or stop safe distance. But no need for enforced lockdowns.

 

About that mask thing...

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/17/pelosi-masks-house-rule-jordan/

 

You can't even get the leadership of the country to put on a mask.

 

From the linked article:

 

“Can you smell through that mask? Then you’re not stopping any sort of a virus,” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) told CNN last month, an argument not supported by science about the disease’s spread. “It’s part of the dehumanization of the children of God. You’re participating in it by wearing a mask.”

 

To the Russian backed Trump's supporters, this all makes sense along with injecting bleach.

 

Trump, the only American President to run away and hide from people in a bunker, it is a way of making up for his cowardliness.

 

 

 

 

[cwericb]

What sort of alternate universe do we live in?

 

Protected by hundreds of  Secret Service, Police and even Army troops, The President of the United States (You know the draft dodger) is such a phony coward that that he and his family hide in the basement like Saddam Hussein hid in a ditch.

 

And then in an asinine attempt to recover his masculinity the big chicken refuses to wear a mask setting a terrible example for those fools who see him as an example. Not much wonder Trump has done such a terrible job of protecting his citizens from the pandemic.

 

And yet there are those who still attempt to defend this buffoon.

 

[clutch]

What sort of alternate universe do we live in?

 

Protected by hundreds of  Secret Service, Police and even Army troops, The President of the United States (You know the draft dodger) is such a phony coward that that he and his family hide in the basement like Saddam Hussein hid in a ditch.

 

And then in an asinine attempt to recover his masculinity the big chicken refuses to wear a mask setting a terrible example for those fools who see him as an example. Not much wonder Trump has done such a terrible job of protecting his citizens from the pandemic.

 

And yet there are those who still attempt to defend this buffoon.

 

As a Canadian, I have no desire at all to defend the buffoon. But the alternative I see (not just Biden, but what the Democrats/Left are doing) looks even more absurd. I suspect that this would be the primary reason why Trump might still be re-elected.

[RichardGibbons]

Eh thats a bad argument. As you know, a moral compass is not guided by who wins. That said, a flag is a piece of cloth. It means different things to different people. We've seen this in many instances, for a long time. Even down to gangbangers shooting people up over disrespecting their flag/colors. As I mentioned, to many folks in the south, its just a symbol of southern pride.

 

That's interesting. I think this is the first time I've "met" someone who thinks it's fine to fly both the ISIS flag and the Nazi flag.

 

I am a fan of protecting peoples rights and freedoms afforded to them by the constitution. Peoples rights should not change like stock prices based on the flavor of the month or the rotation of parties in power. They should be unassailable and without question. I really dont care about the flag issue. Like, in the course of things that are important in my life, saying its not even on the radar would still be giving it too much priority. If all flags are banned I would get by just fine, and if anyone was allowed to display any flag they wanted, I wouldn't care either. I just think its worth noting how fundamentally hypocritical a lot of people are. I mean, was there just, for the past few years, this massive deal made by some about how taking a knee was fine because "the flag doesnt mean to you what it means to me"? And now, many of those same people are claiming that, "this is what the flag means to me so thats what it has to mean to you"!

 

At the end of the day, if we are consistent, let people fly whatever flag they want, no different than how we can also let Twitter ban or modify content from whoever they want, bakeries can chose to sell cakes to whomever they want, and Sanjeev can choose who gets to be a part of CoBF. From there, society, and the laws of supply and demand will determine the viability of those behaviors, and if, a for profit organization(arguable in Twitters case), people can vote "this is unacceptable" and give the proverbial thumbs down by choosing to take their business elsewhere.

 

Interesting perspective--I think it is consistent. I really like that you're owning the idea, and not backing down just because the consequences are pretty nauseating.

[RichardGibbons]

So overall my point is this: if atheism is accurate, it is quite silly to act like there is some higher moral standard we should be aiming for (after all, atheists only believe in things with evidence and there is no evidence for a higher moral standard so its best to be neutral on such matters). Likewise, it's silly to act like slavery, racism (or anything else) is "bad" because the people committing those acts have just as much moral insight as any of us.

 

Unless you literally intend "higher" to mean "some God who by definition is always right", then this is a pretty silly argument. (If that is what you're claiming, then, yay, circular argument!)

 

I'm not sure why anyone at all would seriously believe higher moral standards need to be inextricably tied to a deity, unless they need to use that deity to justify doing something immoral.

[stahleyp]

So overall my point is this: if atheism is accurate, it is quite silly to act like there is some higher moral standard we should be aiming for (after all, atheists only believe in things with evidence and there is no evidence for a higher moral standard so its best to be neutral on such matters). Likewise, it's silly to act like slavery, racism (or anything else) is "bad" because the people committing those acts have just as much moral insight as any of us.

 

Unless you literally intend "higher" to mean "some God who by definition is always right", then this is a pretty silly argument. (If that is what you're claiming, then, yay, circular argument!)

 

I'm not sure why anyone at all would seriously believe higher moral standards need to be inextricably tied to a deity, unless they need to use that deity to justify doing something immoral.

 

I look at it like this. Morality comes from our conscience. Traditional thought says that our conscience stems from God or evolution.

 

If it comes from evolution, I see no reason to trust it to make the best decision. Conscience really just boils down to an evolutionary instinct.

 

There are many evolutionary instincts that don't put our interest first. Look at hunger/taste. This evolutionary instinct tells us to eat a lot of fat and sugar. Well, that isn't in our best interest.

 

Look at the stock market even. Our evolutionary instincts tell us to sell out near market bottoms. That isn't in our best interest either!

 

So why trust one's conscience? Is it really in our best interest to give to charity or to die risking your life to save another? I don't see why that would be the case.

 

Well, if God is the source of conscience, then yes it is because those moral claims are bigger than your own self interest. They exceed the evolutionary instincts so certain actions/moral decisions are "higher" than us.

 

Otherwise it really boils down to Group A's evolutionary instincts (xyz is bad!) vs Group B (xyz is good!). You could throw any moral action in there.

 

The "higher" standard is simply an illusion in the case of atheism. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

So if an atheist is like "I only believe in things with evidence. Since you don't have evidence for God, then I don't believe that" But then they go an believe certain things without evidence...like action "xyz" is "wrong." It's like...come on now. The people doing that action think its okay so why wouldn't it be okay?

[RichardGibbons]

 

That said, shutting down was not a no-brainer at any time for many reasons.

 

The Japanese did not go into lockdowns for a very good reason.  They got this ventilation aspect from WHO guidelines for other respiratory diseases such as Measles and Turberculosis. 

 

To me a no-brainer is to start with established protocols for other respiratory transmitted infections like Measles and Tuberculosis.  That means use of masks and ventilation.

 

Lockdown decreases ventilation.  Having people go out increases ventilation.

 

Lockdown has many other effects such as loss of jobs, other areas of healthcare being effected such as cancer screenings.

Possibility of second waves after lockdowns.

 

So, lockdowns were never a no-brainer.  Following using of masks and ventilation which are protocols for TB and measles are.

One should start exactly where Japanese started.  Established protocols for similar infections.

 

https://japan.kantei.go.jp/ongoingtopics/COVID19CASFlyer/PROffice3CGuide_en.pdf

 

Yeah, the problem is that this sort of reasoning is basically, "find the country whose outcome supports my thesis, then say that the outcome in that country was somewhat predictable in the early days", when that's not true at all. I mean, there's a reason that the "we shouldn't lockdown" people were talking about Sweden, and now they aren't.

 

Basically, if you put your life savings on Red 17 on a roulette wheel, and it turns out that Red 17 comes up, that doesn't imply that it was a good decision to put your life savings on Red 17.

 

During a pandemic, before you have knowledge, you should take the conservative approach because a non-conservative approach can potentially lead to massive numbers of deaths.  Then, as you better understand the situation, you should revise your approach.)

[RichardGibbons]

I look at it like this. Morality comes from our conscience. Traditional thought says that our conscience stems from God or evolution.

 

If it comes from evolution, I see no reason to trust it to make the best decision. Conscience really just boils down to an evolutionary instinct.

 

There are many evolutionary instincts that don't put our interest first. Look at hunger/taste. This evolutionary instinct tells us to eat a lot of fat and sugar. Well, that isn't in our best interest.

 

Look at the stock market even. Our evolutionary instincts tell us to sell out near market bottoms. That isn't in our best interest either!

 

So why trust one's conscience? Is it really in our best interest to give to charity or to die risking your life to save another? I don't see why that would be the case.

 

Well, if God is the source of conscience, then yes it is because those moral claims are bigger than your own self interest. They exceed the evolutionary instincts so certain actions/moral decisions are "higher" than us.

 

Otherwise it really boils down to Group A's evolutionary instincts (xyz is bad!) vs Group B (xyz is good!). You could throw any moral action in there.

 

The "higher" standard is simply an illusion in the case of atheism. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

So if an atheist is like "I only believe in things with evidence. Since you don't have evidence for God, then I don't believe that" But then they go an believe certain things without evidence...like action "xyz" is "wrong." It's like...come on now. The people doing that action think its okay so why wouldn't it be okay?

 

Ah, I see.  You want to very narrowly define where morality might come from, then beat down that straw man, and claim therefore morality is impossible.

 

Morality is basically treating others how you'd want to be treated. One can nitpick at the details--as I'm sure you will--but the core of it is very simple, and doesn't require a God. Without such a basic agreement in place, society breaks, and the world sucks for pretty well everyone.

[stahleyp]

I look at it like this. Morality comes from our conscience. Traditional thought says that our conscience stems from God or evolution.

 

If it comes from evolution, I see no reason to trust it to make the best decision. Conscience really just boils down to an evolutionary instinct.

 

There are many evolutionary instincts that don't put our interest first. Look at hunger/taste. This evolutionary instinct tells us to eat a lot of fat and sugar. Well, that isn't in our best interest.

 

Look at the stock market even. Our evolutionary instincts tell us to sell out near market bottoms. That isn't in our best interest either!

 

So why trust one's conscience? Is it really in our best interest to give to charity or to die risking your life to save another? I don't see why that would be the case.

 

Well, if God is the source of conscience, then yes it is because those moral claims are bigger than your own self interest. They exceed the evolutionary instincts so certain actions/moral decisions are "higher" than us.

 

Otherwise it really boils down to Group A's evolutionary instincts (xyz is bad!) vs Group B (xyz is good!). You could throw any moral action in there.

 

The "higher" standard is simply an illusion in the case of atheism. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

So if an atheist is like "I only believe in things with evidence. Since you don't have evidence for God, then I don't believe that" But then they go an believe certain things without evidence...like action "xyz" is "wrong." It's like...come on now. The people doing that action think its okay so why wouldn't it be okay?

 

Ah, I see.  You want to very narrowly define where morality might come from, then beat down that straw man, and claim therefore morality is impossible.

 

Morality is basically treating others how you'd want to be treated. One can nitpick at the details--as I'm sure you will--but the core of it is very simple, and doesn't require a God. Without such a basic agreement in place, society breaks, and the world sucks for pretty well everyone.

 

Oh, I never said morality was impossible. I will say that I don't how a real morality (as in moral truths) is possible. I do think an illusion of morality is possible (like one race killing off another to promote itself).

 

1) How society functions isn't moral or immoral. For instance, if we killed everyone that committed first time criminal offenses, society would most likely function better. That doesn't make it more moral.

 

2) Why should I treat others the way I would like to be treated if I can advance my goals more effectively in a different manner? If I had to guess, you're probably from a western country that has been indoctrinated with the "Golden Rule" popularized by some ancient, uneducated tribesman. That doesn't make it the most rational choice though.

 

If you have a better answer from where morality comes from, I'm all ears!  ;)

[Casey]

So it looks like we've reached the 'Justifying slavery via the existence of atheism' part of the outbreak?

 

Probably bullish for stocks!

[Gregmal]

Eh thats a bad argument. As you know, a moral compass is not guided by who wins. That said, a flag is a piece of cloth. It means different things to different people. We've seen this in many instances, for a long time. Even down to gangbangers shooting people up over disrespecting their flag/colors. As I mentioned, to many folks in the south, its just a symbol of southern pride.

 

That's interesting. I think this is the first time I've "met" someone who thinks it's fine to fly both the ISIS flag and the Nazi flag.

 

I am a fan of protecting peoples rights and freedoms afforded to them by the constitution. Peoples rights should not change like stock prices based on the flavor of the month or the rotation of parties in power. They should be unassailable and without question. I really dont care about the flag issue. Like, in the course of things that are important in my life, saying its not even on the radar would still be giving it too much priority. If all flags are banned I would get by just fine, and if anyone was allowed to display any flag they wanted, I wouldn't care either. I just think its worth noting how fundamentally hypocritical a lot of people are. I mean, was there just, for the past few years, this massive deal made by some about how taking a knee was fine because "the flag doesnt mean to you what it means to me"? And now, many of those same people are claiming that, "this is what the flag means to me so thats what it has to mean to you"!

 

At the end of the day, if we are consistent, let people fly whatever flag they want, no different than how we can also let Twitter ban or modify content from whoever they want, bakeries can chose to sell cakes to whomever they want, and Sanjeev can choose who gets to be a part of CoBF. From there, society, and the laws of supply and demand will determine the viability of those behaviors, and if, a for profit organization(arguable in Twitters case), people can vote "this is unacceptable" and give the proverbial thumbs down by choosing to take their business elsewhere.

 

Interesting perspective--I think it is consistent. I really like that you're owning the idea, and not backing down just because the consequences are pretty nauseating.

 

It is absurd to blatantly pander to hypocrisy and crybabies. Often, many of those who are "offended" do not represent the masses; they just scream loudest(Example being the Washington Redskins. If Redskin was offensive enough to most, there would be no ticket and/or merchandise sales, players wouldn't play for them, etc and they would be forced to change the name). Should your constitutionally guaranteed rights, be subject to the whims of random people and whether or not they claim to be "offended"? Especially when, in some cases, the issue comes down to something that on a fundamental basis, everyone else is allowed to do, but YOU(IE put up a piece of cloth of your choosing)?

 

There was a time when a rainbow flag was highly "offensive" to large portions of the population. Over time, society has advanced greatly, and made tremendous progress, even in many old school institutions such as churches. Why? Because there is a great power in the effectiveness of societal values. It's function is actually very similar to the market adage of "short term voting machine, long term weighing machine"....typically, at least so far historically, we end up getting things right. Bad/unacceptable behaviors tend to get marginalized on their own. If people cant defend their positions, or the consequences of them, more often than not they are forced to conclude that the position is not worth having. Again, much like an investment.

[rb]

Also posted in the politics section.

 

Can we please open up a tread (or maybe even a section) for Paul's morality, theism, gay cakes, views on abortion, and whatever other items he wants to troll about so he doesn't have to spray them all over the board on every single thread?