Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/05/2021 in all areas

  1. Some further comment after Ellen's post ... Quoting caroljane: “... it [a vaccination ID] illustrates my point. A public health measure is not viewed [by those who object to this?] as what it is, a measure to limit the initiation of force by citizens upon each other, but as – well, what? An infringement on your sacred right to get sick, and make others sick?” The ending is sarcastic and “initiation of force” is designed to push Objectivists’ buttons. The mask orders, “lockdowns” of healthy people, limiting businesses, closing businesses, forbidding public assembly, etc. have to do with naked power, nothing to do with public health – where is the science as they say – and neither does a vaccination ID. (It would be a federally issued ID that would track your medical history and be required to use the post office, fly, eventually to use a bank, etc.) The last is monstrous even if the Pfizer’s experimental vaccine (which isn’t a vaccine) were proven safe, and it hasn’t been. It is, as I just said, experimental (link to abridged talk by Simone Gold). Let’s get real. Even without treatment a healthy and non-decrepit person’s chance of getting very sick from Covid-19 is near zero. With treatment – and there are several inexpensive ones available – it is inconsequential Life is inherently, metaphysically, risky. You engage in reasonable precautions to minimize risk. What has been going on is not reasonable precautions but a naked power grab by totalitarians. Neo-communists would be a fitting label too.
    4 points
  2. William, I've read people with far better credentials than you or me say it is true. But there are many people who agree with you. In my view, the idea of vaccines is no longer a medical issue, but is now a team sport. On another point, let me ask you something. How would you like to be banned from OL for saying that? I'm not going to do that but the fake news media and big tech do that to people who disagree with them (and you) all the time. All. The. Time. Do you think the powers that be should do that? If I banned you because you disagreed with me over facts, would you be likely to agree with me in the future? Over anything? Or would you think that if I knew for certain, I would not feel so threatened by disagreement, I would shut down free speech? That's your science with a capital "S" for you these day. That's what you are supporting. In this case, you are on the side of bullies and evil. Michael
    1 point
  3. Speaking of the NIOF principle , it does imply reciprocity, no? Who is going to stop licking his honey pots and kick Pooh's ass ? I suppose the question is when are enough people in this country( and the rest of the west) going to demand a Pooh ass kicking and get someone to do it?
    1 point
  4. Tony, That's easy. Go look. There are two issues here. 1. The either-or people. Either humans have instincts or they have volition. Neither consider that humans have both. The bad guys fall into this category and try to sell it to get power. You, also, fall into this category, but I won't speculate about what you gain. Rand, at times, fell into this category. When she did, she was fighting the bad guys. 2. The law of identity. Humans have both instincts and volition. Humans evolved. Humans are still evolving. There is plenty of evidence for this and even Rand acknowledged it at times. In addition to her inconsistencies about instincts, she wrote an essay called "The Missing Link" about her suspicion that the anticonceptual mentality was an evolutionary transformation stage. This shows she was not as certain as you are about this issue. She was groping to understand what her eyes kept telling her despite her previous arguments. I find your comment "Why anyone should want it" kinda funny. I hear it like this: Why anyone should want humans to have two legs is beyond me. That is determinism, leftwing collectivism. Religion. Michael
    1 point