World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Mentality differences
Papaphilly wrote: "No as in Darwin awards. The tongue in cheek award is given to an individual that does something stupid to take themselves our of the gene pool either through death or sterilization, thus improving humanities gene pool."
Sorry, Papaphilly. I hadn't heard of them before. I was still in the mindset that I was speaking to the 2 men of science but forgot we were on the mentality differences thread ;)
Sorry, Papaphilly. I hadn't heard of them before. I was still in the mindset that I was speaking to the 2 men of science but forgot we were on the mentality differences thread ;)
Beau, look up "Darwin awards" on the web. Some of the examples will make you either laugh or shake your head in despair. Or both.
Beau wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "No as in Darwin awards. The tongue in cheek award is given to an individual that does something stupid to take themselves our of the gene pool either through death or sterilizati..."Oh son, what kind of education did you have???? Check it out and laugh, or weep. 8^) go look up Darwin awards.
Papaphilly wrote: "Oh son, what kind of education did you have???? Check it out and laugh, or weep. 8^) go look up Darwin awards."
Thanks, Pops and Uncle Ian, I'm going to look them up now.
Thanks, Pops and Uncle Ian, I'm going to look them up now.
J. wrote: "Adrian wrote: "Thing is, this discussion is supposed to be about differing mentalities rather than the benefits (or otherwise) of particular systems. So thanks for the insight..."Difference in at..."
Nicely said. I am all for hunting meat and in the midwest we put 3 deer in the freezer every fall, with my son bagging his first one at age 12.
However, a rifle is not the same as semi-auto hand gun or worse. I would think it's much more difficult to sneak a rifle into school than a handgun.
Living in AZ, they are sold daily without any background check because the law allowes it - aka private sales.
I have added the bold and italics to separate our conversation from my new responses. Italics are my original comments and the bold are your responses. I am trying to keep the conversation from getting to confusing. I have changed not answer from either of us.J. wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "How many deaths are acceptable to you?"
I asked you that question about the flu. You still haven't answered.
Just realized I missed this post earlier. So I will answer. Zero deaths are acceptable. That is why I take the flu shot to prevent both my death and the spread.
Papaphilly wrote: "Why do you think it is OK that disease can be spread? Especially when it can be prevented?"
Death is part of the human condition. How many lives could we save by banning alcohol? Do you think that it's OK to let people die because of alcohol? Especially when it can be prevented? How about obesity? That's a massive killer. Imagine how many lives we could save by making people weigh in before eating out or buying groceries. Wouldn't it be immoral to not save them from themselves? Or do we own ourselves?
There is a far difference from self-immolation and setting the whole forrest on fire. However, it is a fair question. Our society has tried to limit the damage from alcohol and there are plenty of programs to help those that have issue with the alcohol. The difference between the damage of alcoholism and the Pandemic is that alcoholism cannot be spread from breathing on people. BTW, if you go to far with alcohol abuse, one can be forced placed into treatment or jail. Society will remove criminal acts due to a legal product.
Papaphilly wrote: "I am going to ask you again what are you going to say when the Supreme Court rules against the anti-vaxxers? This is a six to three conservative court and it will go at least 6-3 and my guess it will be 9-0 with a couple of concurring opinions on religious exemptions."
What are you going to do when such a ruling gets used against you?
Live with it like everyone else or create a law if that is a legal avenue. I do not like every Supreme Court decision, but I live with them.
Papaphilly wrote: "You speak of freedom, yet seem to fail to understand the freedom from spreading disease. Our country has long history of requiring vaccines with the courts firmly on the vaccine side. This is not new. Why should this vaccine be different?"
It's a novel vaccine with ongoing questions about its ability to prevent transmission.
So far the science shows it pretty much knocks the spread out and it is certainly better than the alternative. No vaccine is 100% effective and no vaccine is 100% safe. Yet using that excuse is another dodge. BTW, it is not a novel vaccine. It has been in the works for 15 years. mRNA started back with SARS.
Papaphilly wrote: "I do not think those the refuse the vaccine are evil. I think they are stupid and ignorant. They wrap themselves in the flag and talk about their rights. It does not make them any less stupid or ignorant. I find their stand Anti-American. What sacrifice will they make? They are asking others to sacrifices for them."
You are promoting a plan to essentially place them under house arrest. That is treating them as criminals, hence evil.
Considering that vaccines are intended to protect the vaccinated, they are potentially sacrificing themselves.
And everyone they come into contact with that is either not vaccinated due to medical conditions or to young for one. They have no other avenue. I do not consider them evil, but dangerous due to their stupidity or self-absorption. These people want the ability to run around freely and not have to take any precautions to help prevent the spread. If they do not want to take the shot, then they do not have to take the shot, but there are conditions and they do not like the conditions.
On a final note, Beau is correct about vaccinations not ending lockdowns. As he pointed out, they've promised and moved the goalposts several times already. There is no reason to believe that they won't do it again and again and again...
Am I missing something? When was America under lock down since it came out from the original? When was it seriously discussed that we need to go back under? As for other countries, that is their politics and decisions. As I have said before I do not comment on other countries internal politics because I do not know enough about it. As for moving the goalposts, as situations change, so do policies. This is not a half-hour situation comedy where the problems are resolved inn 20 minutes with ten minutes for commercials. Talking about moving the goalposts, there is always an excuse for not getting the shot, never a reason for getting the shot.
Something for you to think about, as worried as you seem to be with breakthrough cases, if everyone had the shot by now that could have one, even if there were breakthrough cases, where would the COVID go with no incubating pool available?
755,000 dead Americans. 99.1% unvaccinated deaths since the vaccination became available.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-...
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n...
https://covid-101.org/science/how-man...
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/w...
https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/...
Papaphilly wrote: "... 99.1% unvaccinated deaths since the vaccination became available...."Papa, I don't know where you take this remarkable percentage from, but that's not what I read from cdc:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/w...
It says with Delta, vaccine's effectiveness (VE) goes down from 91% to 78% in preventing infection, 92 to 90 in preventing hospitalization and from 94 to 91 in preventing death, showing that 9% fully vaccinated died. This report tracked figures as late as July.
I suspect the numbers might be even lower if updated to Sept, Oct. Ours were for sure.
Nik wrote: "I suspect the numbers might be even lower if updated to Sept, Oct. Ours were for sure."
Ours are too, Nik. Latest UK Government report well worth a look. See my post on The Great Corona Debate and the follow-up due out today. Also, as we saw Friday on the covid thread, Moderna now down to 13% efficacy.
Ours are too, Nik. Latest UK Government report well worth a look. See my post on The Great Corona Debate and the follow-up due out today. Also, as we saw Friday on the covid thread, Moderna now down to 13% efficacy.
I will try and track it down again. I posted it last week? let me look. The numbers are updated from July, I want to say September.
In the early 1990s, there was a sudden emphasis on health and safety. This had benefits in terms of safer working conditions but it also had a flip side in terms of the huge increase in red tape, micro-management of employees and ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Later in the '90s, the concept of keeping us safe spread to the widespread rollout of CCTV across our towns and cities (I think the UK has the greatest coverage of CCTV anywhere in the world).
Then, in the noughties, the cameras extended into our properties through the increased popularity of CCTV to keep driveways and cars safe.
Last year, there was a new development in safety, with lockdowns, mask mandates and other restrictions implemented to keep us safe from covid. The catchphrase ‘stay safe’ was used by everyone to remind us to obey the rules for our own safety.
Now, vaccine passports are being rolled out to keep us safe from infected people and there’s a big push to promote other vaccines, e.g. flu, so we can stay safe from these illnesses too. In the UK, there’s also a big television advertising campaign advising us to fit CCTV inside our homes. After all, you can never be too safe when it comes to preventing burglary.
Last night, I noticed that increased safety was also evident in my gym, as a new regular tannoy announcement kept advising me that around-the-clock cameras have just been fitted in all areas of the gym to – you’ve guessed it – keep me safe.
Are group members feeling safe yet or is there still some way to go? Or are some of you actually beginning to feel suffocated? Was life better before we were kept safe or was it too dangerous back then?
Later in the '90s, the concept of keeping us safe spread to the widespread rollout of CCTV across our towns and cities (I think the UK has the greatest coverage of CCTV anywhere in the world).
Then, in the noughties, the cameras extended into our properties through the increased popularity of CCTV to keep driveways and cars safe.
Last year, there was a new development in safety, with lockdowns, mask mandates and other restrictions implemented to keep us safe from covid. The catchphrase ‘stay safe’ was used by everyone to remind us to obey the rules for our own safety.
Now, vaccine passports are being rolled out to keep us safe from infected people and there’s a big push to promote other vaccines, e.g. flu, so we can stay safe from these illnesses too. In the UK, there’s also a big television advertising campaign advising us to fit CCTV inside our homes. After all, you can never be too safe when it comes to preventing burglary.
Last night, I noticed that increased safety was also evident in my gym, as a new regular tannoy announcement kept advising me that around-the-clock cameras have just been fitted in all areas of the gym to – you’ve guessed it – keep me safe.
Are group members feeling safe yet or is there still some way to go? Or are some of you actually beginning to feel suffocated? Was life better before we were kept safe or was it too dangerous back then?
CCTV does not keep you safe - it merely records an incident after the fact - deterrence affect is same as noticeboards. They are not noticed after a whileIf CCTV kept people safe there would be no terrorism or crime in any CCTV area.
As for lockdowns the effect has waned for multiple reasons not least of which is boredom which is like CCTV or actually no consequence. I don't want Chinese 6 months inside and re-education as penalty for breaching but without enforcement or live CCTV monitoring they cease to have any impact
I'm not saying any of the measures work, Philip, I'm just noting that over the last 30 years we're increasingly being monitored and controlled, and that the authorities are selling it all to us on the basis of keeping us safe.
Add this to the general movement from transacting all kinds of our business from in person to online, which is obviously subject to close monitoring and control, as well as the move to a cashless society, and one could come to the conclusion that if our democratically-elected, benevolent leaders ever decided they no longer wished to be democratically-elected or benevolent, it would be extremely difficult to do anything about it.
Of course, we all want to feel safe up to a point, but do you think safetyism has gone too far? Might it actually lead to humans becoming a weaker, more docile species, lacking the skills to innovate or progress?
Add this to the general movement from transacting all kinds of our business from in person to online, which is obviously subject to close monitoring and control, as well as the move to a cashless society, and one could come to the conclusion that if our democratically-elected, benevolent leaders ever decided they no longer wished to be democratically-elected or benevolent, it would be extremely difficult to do anything about it.
Of course, we all want to feel safe up to a point, but do you think safetyism has gone too far? Might it actually lead to humans becoming a weaker, more docile species, lacking the skills to innovate or progress?
Should've added, noticeboards can't monitor you.
As Philip notes, CCTV merely records. Its only means of stopping bad behaviour is the promise of recording said bad behaviour followed by sufficiently deterrent consequences. If there are no consequences, all you are doing is feeding the bureaucracy. So the question is, what are you trying to achieve? If it really is, keeping people safe, what are you doing to make your plan work? If nothing, why bother? Save money and do nothing, and achieve the same.
Ian, stop licking up to the voters. You are a man of extraordinary academic achievement but I'm beginning to wonder if I'm on a higher mental plane than you :) Did I miss my vocation in life? Should I have gone into academia?
The issue isn't whether the safety measures work, it's whether the promise of ever-increasing safety is being used to monitor and control us?
The issue isn't whether the safety measures work, it's whether the promise of ever-increasing safety is being used to monitor and control us?
Beau wrote: "In the early 1990s, there was a sudden emphasis on health and safety. This had benefits in terms of safer working conditions but it also had a flip side in terms of the huge increase in red tape, m...""Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Beau wrote: "Ian, stop licking up to the voters. You are a man of extraordinary academic achievement but I'm beginning to wonder if I'm on a higher mental plane than you :) Did I miss my vocation in life? Shoul...""Licking up to voters?" For goodness sake, can't you do better than that?
For me, the primary issue on safety measures is, do they work? If they don't, what is the point?
As for monitor and control, I guess there will be a lot of monitoring from asking people to wear a mask.
Of course there is control. There always is. Think of driving. Isn't it much better to have everyone choose to drive on the same side of the road? If you could choose your side, you would have freedom, but it would be the freedom to die. There would be chaos. And if you think someone is busy watching CCTV just to note when Beau goes towards the pub, turns around when he realises he forgot his wallet, then goes a little later and notes all this aberrant behaviour, you must be paranoid. Have you any idea how boring watching this sort to TV is?
Ian, it’s not paranoia. I’m the guy in the flat cap onboard The Titanic, shouting ‘Iceberg!’, while Captain Ian sips port in the VIP lounge, gaily chatting to his passengers.
Add newish anti-terrorism laws, facial-recognition software capabilities and the UK’s planned new law limiting protest (the first two, at least, introduced in the name of staying safe) to what I mentioned yesterday, and all the apparatus is in place for an around-the-clock army of AI to keep everyone under control.
Why would they want to do this? The climate emergency. If you think that the farcical COP26, etc, is anything more than a smokescreen, you’re very much mistaken. It is inviting derision while the real work to limit Joe public’s carbon-producing activity takes place unobserved. Before long, we will all be kept on a very tight leash and we won’t be able to do a thing about it because people like Ian will have sold their rights for safety.
I admire you, Ian, but I’m disappointed in your inability to separate the laws required in a functioning liberal democracy (why do the pro-restriction chaps always use car analogies) from totalitarian measures.
Btw, I don’t need cash at the pub. I’ve got a tab. Cheers!
Add newish anti-terrorism laws, facial-recognition software capabilities and the UK’s planned new law limiting protest (the first two, at least, introduced in the name of staying safe) to what I mentioned yesterday, and all the apparatus is in place for an around-the-clock army of AI to keep everyone under control.
Why would they want to do this? The climate emergency. If you think that the farcical COP26, etc, is anything more than a smokescreen, you’re very much mistaken. It is inviting derision while the real work to limit Joe public’s carbon-producing activity takes place unobserved. Before long, we will all be kept on a very tight leash and we won’t be able to do a thing about it because people like Ian will have sold their rights for safety.
I admire you, Ian, but I’m disappointed in your inability to separate the laws required in a functioning liberal democracy (why do the pro-restriction chaps always use car analogies) from totalitarian measures.
Btw, I don’t need cash at the pub. I’ve got a tab. Cheers!
Beau wrote: "In the early 1990s, there was a sudden emphasis on health and safety. This had benefits in terms of safer working conditions but it also had a flip side in terms of the huge increase in red tape, m..."I guess the population gets thoroughly sedated, primarily through tv and cellphones, which can much more comfortably transmit most intimate data from our homes and pockets..
I guess those smoking, drug abusing, violence - accustomed, chauvinist dudes of the 80-90-ies (were most of us to a degree?) gave way to a tranquilized, spoiled, bisexual (yet still suppressed aggressive) generation. If then - you'd rather see small groups with lit cigarettes, eyeing a passerby and entertaining a thought whether to mug him, nowadays there are sportive dudes running or walking with the music in the earpiece. Not a bad thing per se, but maybe a little too much. If I resume smoking at the age of 70, I'm not sure they'll sell matches then :)
"Safe & healthy" agenda doesn't necessarily entail negative connotations, but we should beware of the aberrations. The privacy is gone. If not cctv, the sats can pick up anything from above. Being a caveman in a remote destination can somewhat alleviate the feeling :)
70s and 80s dudes, Nik. The rot was starting to set in by the 90s ;)
Joe…no…Joanne public (just to show my belief in gender equality) is going to have a big problem before long. If we’re not careful, we’ll find that humankind has already reached its peak.
When I think about J’s Franklin quote, Jim’s quotes and the various great writing I’ve read over the years, it fills me with inspiration. I gain immense pleasure from getting a glimpse into the minds of some truly brilliant men and women, who used their powers of thought to make some incredibly astute observations about life’s great (and not so great) questions. Trouble is, none of these quotes are new. Apart from the double-edged sword of technological advancements, what are the current generations contributing to the mental advancement of the human race? Very little, if I’m honest. The age of great thinking has gone.
Over the next generation, I think we’ll see that the peak has been reached in terms of physical achievement too. Faster, higher, stronger. What a fantastic concept. Although records weren’t kept in antiquity, modern history has shown a continuous improvement in physical achievement. I’m not sure this will last. Within a generation, I can see these records only ever being broken by human-AI hybrids or those under the influence of then-to-be-legal, big-pharma-supplied performance-enhancing drugs.
In fact, I can see a gap opening up in the future between 2 distinct types of human being: 99% of the people will shrink in stature, capability and achievement, while the 1%, those who currently set the agenda, will fuse themselves with AI to take everything for themselves. Raise any objections and the immediate answer will be, ‘Show me your papers, put on your mask and get back in your home (which I own). It’s not safe for you out here.’
And the 99% will be frightened and comply. Why? Because of decades of safetyism.
Joe…no…Joanne public (just to show my belief in gender equality) is going to have a big problem before long. If we’re not careful, we’ll find that humankind has already reached its peak.
When I think about J’s Franklin quote, Jim’s quotes and the various great writing I’ve read over the years, it fills me with inspiration. I gain immense pleasure from getting a glimpse into the minds of some truly brilliant men and women, who used their powers of thought to make some incredibly astute observations about life’s great (and not so great) questions. Trouble is, none of these quotes are new. Apart from the double-edged sword of technological advancements, what are the current generations contributing to the mental advancement of the human race? Very little, if I’m honest. The age of great thinking has gone.
Over the next generation, I think we’ll see that the peak has been reached in terms of physical achievement too. Faster, higher, stronger. What a fantastic concept. Although records weren’t kept in antiquity, modern history has shown a continuous improvement in physical achievement. I’m not sure this will last. Within a generation, I can see these records only ever being broken by human-AI hybrids or those under the influence of then-to-be-legal, big-pharma-supplied performance-enhancing drugs.
In fact, I can see a gap opening up in the future between 2 distinct types of human being: 99% of the people will shrink in stature, capability and achievement, while the 1%, those who currently set the agenda, will fuse themselves with AI to take everything for themselves. Raise any objections and the immediate answer will be, ‘Show me your papers, put on your mask and get back in your home (which I own). It’s not safe for you out here.’
And the 99% will be frightened and comply. Why? Because of decades of safetyism.
Beau wrote: "... Apart from the double-edged sword of technological advancements, what are the current generations contributing to the mental advancement of the human race? Very little, if I’m honest. The age of great thinking has gone...."
Unfortunately, philosophers are unable to bring bread home. Erudition is not required in ever narrowing specialization. We maybe become richer in paraphernalia but poorer in ideas...
Nik wrote: "We maybe become richer in paraphernalia but poorer in ideas."
The 99% will become a lot poorer in paraphernalia too. Once they've taken our liberty, they'll come for what we own. The 1% will have everything, while the remainder will own nothing and be happy.
The 99% will become a lot poorer in paraphernalia too. Once they've taken our liberty, they'll come for what we own. The 1% will have everything, while the remainder will own nothing and be happy.
Beau wrote: "... The 99% will become a lot poorer in paraphernalia too. Once they've taken our liberty, they'll come for what we own. The 1% will have everything, while the remainder will own nothing and be happy...."Canbe. But then the 1% needs to really make sure the 99 don't eat them alive. Happiness is the king. If one is happy, assets might not really matter. Make us happy, Elon, Jeff,....! :)
Beau, I can't comment on surveillance in the UK because I don't know much about it, although I did see an interesting TV programme where some specialists had access to the system to locate volunteer "escapees" who had to evade it for a month, then get to some designated point and escape the UK. There was a good supply of cash if they succeeded, and some managed it. It was very difficult because they had their images targeted. My case for "controlling the masses" was there was so much data. Find someone, yes, but follow everyone, I don't think so. However, those in the UK may have a different view.Where I live there is limited CCTV. It has been put around certain car parks and has greatly reduced vandalism and cwar theft while people have left their car for the day, and it has been put in places around bus stops etc, and it has stopped mugging there (by catching the muggers) but apart from that, it is basically absent.
The comment about climate change - I am convinced it is real. However, I rthink COP26 was a farce, not much will change, but a limited few will make some serious cash. If the general public think much was achieved, they are sorely mistaken. But if we want to go down that track we need another thread.
OMG. I can't take any more of this quagmire.
According to the news here at COP 26 protestors slashed tyres of SUVs belonging to delegates. Doesn't sound to me that there is huge control there - perhaps insufficient?
Ian wrote: "....The comment about climate change - I am convinced it is real. However, I rthink COP26 was a farce, not much will change, but a limited few will make some serious cash. If the general public think much was achieved, they are sorely mistaken. But if we want to go down that track we need another thread...."This seems appropriate: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Beau wrote: "Of course, we all want to feel safe up to a point, but do you think safetyism has gone too far? Might it actually lead to humans becoming a weaker, more docile species, lacking the skills to innovate or progress? ..."That is a very important and very good question. I too wonder if in some way this is actually hurting in the long run. What would be very interesting to study is if not the crime rate going to down, but conviction and arrest rates going up due to all the camera coverage.
Papaphilly wrote: "Beau wrote: "Of course, we all want to feel safe up to a point, but do you think safetyism has gone too far? Might it actually lead to humans becoming a weaker, more docile species, lacking the ski..."Based on UK evidence - reported crime initially goes down, then moves location away from CCTV which is then also covered by CCTV before both return to pre-CCTV levels. Conviction and arrest should both go up but picture quality is often so poor it doesn't and issue is police now spend hours looking through CCTV instead of patrolling (Deterrence) or other investigations.
We have same issue with mobile cell phone investigations and social media - there is so much data that police forget to do other basics - also leads to inherent bias on first suspects i.e. trolling through data trying to prove guilt in terms of resource allocation and stop looking for other suspects.
That said CCTV does allow slam dunk evidence but CCTV pictures have to be found first.
Scout wrote: "Can someone define safetyism?"“Safetyism” refers to a culture or belief system in which safety has become a sacred value, which means that people become unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns. “Safety” trumps everything else, no matter how unlikely or trivial the potential danger.
Papaphilly wrote: "“Safetyism” refers to a culture or belief system in which safety has become a sacred value, which means that people become unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns. “Safety” trumps everything else, no matter how unlikely or trivial the potential danger."
I read this and immediately thought what an amazing definition! I then googled safetyism and realised that it is an actual term.
I know certain things can stick in your unconscious mind (probably the case here) but when I posted it, I genuinely thought I was making the term up. How strange.
I read this and immediately thought what an amazing definition! I then googled safetyism and realised that it is an actual term.
I know certain things can stick in your unconscious mind (probably the case here) but when I posted it, I genuinely thought I was making the term up. How strange.
Beau wrote: ".... when I posted it, I genuinely thought I was making the term up..."Whoever defined it elsewhere - it's plagiarism, I'm sure it was you
Philip wrote: "Just found this article which covers a lot of ground
https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/..."
Looks like the article was written by a safetyist :) It's certainly not my understanding of why people oppose safetyism, although perhaps I've got the scope of the debate wrong? Anyway, Papaphilly's definition made far more sense to me. In layman's terms, my basic argument against safetyism is that by behaving like pussies, people paralyse themselves to such an extent that they are unable to live fulfilling lives for fear of what might happen if they do.
https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/..."
Looks like the article was written by a safetyist :) It's certainly not my understanding of why people oppose safetyism, although perhaps I've got the scope of the debate wrong? Anyway, Papaphilly's definition made far more sense to me. In layman's terms, my basic argument against safetyism is that by behaving like pussies, people paralyse themselves to such an extent that they are unable to live fulfilling lives for fear of what might happen if they do.
Beau wrote: "Philip wrote: "Just found this article which covers a lot of groundhttps://slate.com/technology/2021/11/...-..."
Yes, and what the article is explaining is that the risk calculation is sometimes incorrect or wrongly applied e.g. crash helmets being opposed on liberty grounds using false safety grounds when actual data showed they saved lives.
They then mention the debate on masks and we then get into risk analysis i.e. is reducing your risk of catching or others catching worth the cost to liberty.
The mentality difference is understanding what these risk numbers mean statistically not just from a political standpoint.
“The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he is on.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22
Nice quote, Philip, but the debate now seems to be moving away from my argument.
An individual doesn't subject themselves to any meaningful control by wearing a seat belt or a crash helmet. Check out Papaphilly's definition of safetyism to see why:
"Safetyism” refers to a culture or belief system in which safety has become a sacred value, which means that people become unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns. “Safety” trumps everything else, no matter how unlikely or trivial the potential danger."
There is no trade off or moral concern because there is no downside to wearing seat belts or crash helmets. Those opposing these measures would be doing so for liberty's own sake alone. They would be acting petulantly. What's more, the danger is neither unlikely nor trivial.
However, when they can be scrutinised through CCTV, in towns, cities or at home; are denied due legal process (anti-terror laws); are prevented from going about their business or interacting with friends (lockdowns); and have to inject themselves with a foreign body or reveal their private medical details (mandatory vaccines and vaccine passports), they are having fundamental, important rights denied to them.
Comparing these motor vehicle examples to legal rights, freedom of movement, the right to bodily autonomy and rights on medical privacy is like comparing chalk with cheese.
An individual doesn't subject themselves to any meaningful control by wearing a seat belt or a crash helmet. Check out Papaphilly's definition of safetyism to see why:
"Safetyism” refers to a culture or belief system in which safety has become a sacred value, which means that people become unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns. “Safety” trumps everything else, no matter how unlikely or trivial the potential danger."
There is no trade off or moral concern because there is no downside to wearing seat belts or crash helmets. Those opposing these measures would be doing so for liberty's own sake alone. They would be acting petulantly. What's more, the danger is neither unlikely nor trivial.
However, when they can be scrutinised through CCTV, in towns, cities or at home; are denied due legal process (anti-terror laws); are prevented from going about their business or interacting with friends (lockdowns); and have to inject themselves with a foreign body or reveal their private medical details (mandatory vaccines and vaccine passports), they are having fundamental, important rights denied to them.
Comparing these motor vehicle examples to legal rights, freedom of movement, the right to bodily autonomy and rights on medical privacy is like comparing chalk with cheese.
Beau wrote: "Nice quote, Philip, but the debate now seems to be moving away from my argument. An individual doesn't subject themselves to any meaningful control by wearing a seat belt or a crash helmet. Check..."
Disagree Beau, the article was about misuse of statistics to refuse protective measures imposed by governments for the greater good i.e. the safety belt not only protects the individual but also the cost to society for medical treatment. (Mask wearing equivalency)
There are many cases of governments requiring documentation e.g. driving license, car insurance, birth/marriage certificate, qualification certificate (Vaccine passport or actual passport) rights ensue from having this government proscribed information. You driving license can be stopped in the case of medical disqualification, drug medication etc i.e. you have to have evidence and provide that evidence.
I agree CCTV is misused widely (Wait till facial recognition spreads) there is legal process under Data Protection laws in UK, ECHR and for EU GDPR (still enshrined in DPA 2018) to seek redress.
Anti-terror laws and Emergency Powers Act give very wide temporary rule e.g. right to court appearance is different under counter terror 48 hrs before Inspector approval to 5 days to Magistrates' compared to 24 in normal cases
In any case if you believe your rights have been illegally curtailed then you also have legal redress under judicial review or ECHR or UN as well as UK law. Get an injunction
Beau wrote: "Philip wrote: "Just found this article which covers a lot of groundhttps://slate.com/technology/2021/11/...-..."
I think you touched the right nerve, but missed it by a little. It is not about being sissies, but becoming paranoid to the point you cannot live due to the fear of the lack of safety.
Philip wrote: "They then mention the debate on masks and we then get into risk analysis i.e. is reducing your risk of catching or others catching worth the cost to liberty. ..."A great example to look at. if you wear mask for no other reason than to feel safe, then you are right. yet if you wear the mask and it does help protect even in a small degree, then there is a much different argument. Most people that do not want to wear them is really about inconvenience than it is really about freedom or safety.
Papaphilly wrote: "I think you touched the right nerve, but missed it by a little. It is not about being sissies, but becoming paranoid to the point you cannot live due to the fear of the lack of safety."
Yes, you're right. I agree. I went a bit over the top in my description.
Philip, I know where you're coming from and accept many of your points but think that we're in danger of the balance tipping too far towards state control at the cost of individual liberties. Legal redress shouldn't be required and is out of reach of most ordinary people.
Yes, you're right. I agree. I went a bit over the top in my description.
Philip, I know where you're coming from and accept many of your points but think that we're in danger of the balance tipping too far towards state control at the cost of individual liberties. Legal redress shouldn't be required and is out of reach of most ordinary people.
Beau wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "I think you touched the right nerve, but missed it by a little. It is not about being sissies, but becoming paranoid to the point you cannot live due to the fear of the lack of s..."Beau,
I have come to realize that either you are truly a paranoid or there is something going on in the British Isles that we are not experiencing ourselves. Can one of my other esteemed British citizens enlighten me?
Papaphilly wrote: "Beau wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "I think you touched the right nerve, but missed it by a little. It is not about being sissies, but becoming paranoid to the point you cannot live due to the fear of ..."Beau is expressing a minority (% but given over 80% of over 12s have been vaccinated) argument that civil liberties have been removed / reduced / ignored in favour of:
- draconian rules on lockdowns, (None currently in operation)
- masks, (Required on public transport, and some locations but optional elsewhere)
- vaccine passports, (in Scotland and Wales possibly Northern Ireland but not England - will caveat with yet but some private venues have implemented e.g concerts)
- travel vaccine passports (for overseas and returning to UK or testing)
vaccines (made mandatory for care home workers in England and NHS told by April next year some other professions and jobs also mandatory by employers - government no imposition but encouraged e.g. not Austria)
All plans are passed by democratically elected parliaments starting with UK Gov but also devolved.
Not all would share Beau's view but there are limits as Beau has expressed. In normal circumstances, I would oppose, alongside Beau, nearly all these measure; however, I do not believe we are in normal circumstances. We are in the midst of a Pandemic. Vaccines are the only way out unless we are willing to accept not only significantly more deaths and sickness from the virus but also the health service being overwhelmed. Letting herd immunity develop from actual sickness may create even more variations and kill many more than current policies - Beau disagrees and has claimed its all a global conspiracy.
Perhaps I am deluded or naive and Beau is right - only time and deaths will tell.
Philip wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Beau wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "I think you touched the right nerve, but missed it by a little. It is not about being sissies, but becoming paranoid to the point you cannot live ..."OK,
So assuming you are right, our two countries are not far apart in much of what you mention. We have lower vaccination rates, but not much lower. We are pushing vaccinations for work harder and some places it is a must.
Beau wrote: "Comparing these motor vehicle examples to legal rights, freedom of movement, the right to bodily autonomy and rights on medical privacy is like comparing chalk with cheese."Clearly you've not sampled Tesco's Valu-Chedd...
Papaphilly wrote: "Beau,
I have come to realize that either you are truly a paranoid or there is something going on in the British Isles that we are not experiencing ourselves. Can one of my other esteemed British citizens enlighten me?"
Sorry, you’ve lost me, Papaphilly. You told me that excess safetyism was down to an irrational fear/ paranoia of danger rather than a lack of manliness and I agreed with you.
If you’re calling me paranoid over my concern about the ever-increasing arm of the state, particularly in relation to covid, then I haven’t got a problem with it because I’m in very good company. Many of the world’s most educated, sober and respected politicians, legal experts and other relevant professionals feel exactly the same way. I’m sorry that you can’t see what is happening globally. I’ve done my best to lead you to water but, of course, it’s your prerogative not to drink it if you still think it’s sand.
I have come to realize that either you are truly a paranoid or there is something going on in the British Isles that we are not experiencing ourselves. Can one of my other esteemed British citizens enlighten me?"
Sorry, you’ve lost me, Papaphilly. You told me that excess safetyism was down to an irrational fear/ paranoia of danger rather than a lack of manliness and I agreed with you.
If you’re calling me paranoid over my concern about the ever-increasing arm of the state, particularly in relation to covid, then I haven’t got a problem with it because I’m in very good company. Many of the world’s most educated, sober and respected politicians, legal experts and other relevant professionals feel exactly the same way. I’m sorry that you can’t see what is happening globally. I’ve done my best to lead you to water but, of course, it’s your prerogative not to drink it if you still think it’s sand.
Papaphilly wrote: "Philip wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Beau wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "I think you touched the right nerve, but missed it by a little. It is not about being sissies, but becoming paranoid to the point y..."If you look at virtually every nation on Earth it is a similar approach, clearly some countries have more vaccine than others. Even Russia has imposed restrictions. There are a few outliers where dictators have told there population there is no pandemic, but even these have shown there is.
Sweden is often used as a lockdown comparator (See latest) but we should also look at other nations who have not followed the general rules i.e. claimed no pandemic - unfortunately many of these are very poor and have poor reporting for all issues not just Pandemic.
As developed nations found bad data is almost as bad as no data. Modern governments use statistics to guide policy which is in turn filtered by advisors but those closest to power are political advisors not scientific or medical. As we have seen arguing about a delay of week in data culled from millions is futile.
What would be interesting to debate on mentality differences is how any of us contributors would have done when presented with the information by our advisors - why would we have known to do something different. e.g. PPE you know it will help (Masks for general population) but if you advise all stocks will disappear like toilet rolls and then health and social care groups will have nothing. What would you do?
Philip wrote: "Beau is expressing a minority (% but given over 80% of over 12s have been vaccinated) argument that civil liberties have been removed / reduced / ignored in favour of..."
Philip, you’ve been very naughty turning this back into another covid thread. That said, I thought your post was balanced and a pretty accurate summary of where the UK stands at this precise moment. You’re right, time will tell who’s right. I know you’re the sort of man who will freely admit if events prove you wrong. So am I. Let’s wait and see.
Philip, you’ve been very naughty turning this back into another covid thread. That said, I thought your post was balanced and a pretty accurate summary of where the UK stands at this precise moment. You’re right, time will tell who’s right. I know you’re the sort of man who will freely admit if events prove you wrong. So am I. Let’s wait and see.
Adrian wrote: "Clearly you've not sampled Tesco's Valu-Chedd..."
Adrian, I think I had that culinary pleasure many years ago but have since risen in station and only use Sainsbury, M&S and farmers’ markets now ;)
I’m surprised at your silence on the overbearing arm of the state vs liberty argument. I’ve taken to reading the main Australian news websites lately. There’s a common theme running through them urging Australian politicians to stand up to the tyrannical Chinese. I thought it was the Americans who didn’t do irony?
Adrian, I think I had that culinary pleasure many years ago but have since risen in station and only use Sainsbury, M&S and farmers’ markets now ;)
I’m surprised at your silence on the overbearing arm of the state vs liberty argument. I’ve taken to reading the main Australian news websites lately. There’s a common theme running through them urging Australian politicians to stand up to the tyrannical Chinese. I thought it was the Americans who didn’t do irony?
Not sure about a lack of intermediate-sized predators in the late Mesozoic. Albertosaurus was around about the same time as T rex, and of courses the fossil record is not as good as it might be. As a general rule, predators also tend to have their niches as they prey on different food, and fossils tend to come from a very limited number of areas.