Part III: Pass me a Corona!

_{April 15, 2020

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

There are numerous article out there right now indicating that the fatality ratio of this corona virus looks to be in the same range as that of a seasonal flu. Dr. Fauci keeps saying that he thinks this virus will be a seasonal flu. But, of course.

Now, there’s a study by an Israeli scientist who tells us that this virus has its own pattern and that this patterns works itself out over a set period of time, lockdown or no. He marvels at the fear factor at work. It’s like a seasonal flu. He asks: was this exponential growth? His answer: no. (Was I not mocked for not understanding that we were dealing with exponential growth——–while I was looking at a chart that was going up linearly!)

Frankly, I’m tired of this nonsense. I live in California. Six weeks of this virus: about 800 deaths. We all mourn those who die; but 800 deaths is next to nothing. In the meantime I have to wear a facemask to buy detergent, can’t go to the library or the beach. Easter Sunday didn’t happen in so many ways. Why isn’t life back to normal right now? Why? A Democratic governor. We’re witnessing the politicization of science before our eyes by people who can’t function rationally. Alas.

And, how did we get here? Bureaucratic mismanagement, as usual. Our friend, Neil Ferguson, has published models over the years that did exactly what his latest one did: completely miss the mark by orders of magnitude. This isn’t the first time. Why did anybody who knows anything pay any attention to him?

I might not respond very much. This is being so depressingly mismanaged.

Comments

@John_a_designer:
Indeed, if morality is nothing more than personal beliefs...
It's even worse. Morals are chemicals.Truthfreedom_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

JVL, I'm happy to keep talking. Perhaps you can ignore those with whom you aren't making any headway.EDTA_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

During Saturday evening's [4/18/20] White House Coronavirus Task Force press briefing, Dr. Deborah Birx showed a chart comparing the number of Wuhan coronavirus deaths across the globe. At the bottom of the chart was China, with a reported 0.33 deaths per 100,000, something we know has to be a blatant lie… “When you are the first country to have an outbreak, you really have a moral obligation to the world to not only talk about it but provide that information that is critical to the rest of the world…”
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2020/04/18/dr-birx-shreds-china-if-an-outbreak-begins-in-your-country-you-have-a-moral-ob-n2567179 Moral obligation? According to many of our regular interlocutors, most of whom appear to be moral relativists/ subjectivists, there is no such thing as moral obligation. Indeed, if morality is nothing more than personal beliefs and opinions, how can there be any real binding moral obligation? In Chinese culture it’s important not to cause someone else to “lose face.” So from a moral relativist POV the reason Chinese failed to admit that they initially withheld information or covered up what they knew about Covid 19 is understandable because being truthful would have caused them to lose face. In other words, to put it in American slang, if your screw-up could cause you to lose face you’re justified in lying about it. That’s just the way their culture is and who are we to say that their “morality” is any worse than our “morality.” Morality is all relative. Therefore any kind of so-called moral obligation is just a myth.john_a_designer_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

@JVL Ah. And according to you, telling someone that their behavior is 'repulsive' is not casting judgement. You said you understand logic?Truthfreedom_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

@ JVL So you find certain topics 'weird' and 'bizarre' but you do not know why. You are then an irrational being that dislikes things for 'no reason'. The rest of your posts: - You whining. - You reading people's minds. - You explaining how cute you are. - You spouting non-sense. - You dictating UD's policies. - You wasting electricity/ being boring. A person that can not offer reasons about why he/she has an opinion, is, by definition, irrational. You do not address the arguments. Again: you can not logically explain why certain sexual behaviors are 'fine' and why others are not. You are ruled by your emotions. And you said you would not engage with me. You make 0 sense.Truthfreedom_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

Vividbleu: The problem certainly is the human heart. I don't understand what a "far-right" extremist represents. I can't take my positions and then make them extreme. They would all break down at some point. Is a racist suppose to represent the "far-right"? The KKK? To me, this is an absurd position. Taking the conservative position to an 'extreme' would look more like unfettered capitalism, with all concern for others seen as irrelevant. This 'extreme' would be an apt one. But I don't think we see too many of them. I suppose that a brand of society unshackled from government regulation is another type of "far-right" extremism. A Libertarian gone wild might represent this. But, again, I don't see too many of those. They certainly don't coaslesce into "groups." But, I guess I see what you're saying about "anarchists" on the right and "tyrants" on the Left: these are the two excesses to be avoided. Yet, notably, there are everyday examples of the Far Left/Left (can you really differentiate these?): Maduro in Venezuela. Castro in Cuba. Etc. Where do we see any form of anarchy in place in the world that represents a rightist extreme? I can't think of any. Nonetheless, virtue is in the mean, and any "far" positions should therefore be avoided. I was born in 1950. I'm not sure that the positions on political and economic matters I had in the 60's are any different than they are now. But, if you were on the Left, if you were a liberal in the 60's, wow, what changes! Gay marriage would be permitted. Abortions would be performed. Divorce should be easy. Premarital sex is OK. Transsexualism is now accepted, leading to boys using girl's restrooms. These are all big changes. So, if there is any extremism evident in our world, it is basically found on the Left. Liberals have swerved leftward; conservatives believe pretty much the same thing as always. Isn't that what "Conservatism" means. So, if there is polarization in our political system, it's not going to come from "conservatives." Conservatism lauds commons sense; liberalism lauds elite thinking. Elite thinking can lead you anywhere; common sense doesn't change much since human nature is rather stable. Just some thoughts. But, yes, Vividbleau, the problem is in the human heart. That's why religion ends up being so important. And, of course, by extension, a consistent set of ethical principles.PaV_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: I will simply note I have already suggested need to tone down rhetorical voltage. I'm not the one to call someone else a liar. I'm not the one who continually misrepresents someone else's opinion. I'm not the one who keeps harping on and on about things like necrophilia. I am trying really hard to be respectful and establish a meaningful dialogue. I think that is important. I think we need to acknowledge our common ground and then really listen to each other so we can make progress on the issues where we differ. But I find that I am frequently attacked and vilified by other commenters on this forum. I am trying to continue to be polite and kind (although I do admit being pretty sarcastic with Truthfreedom because he is so relentless) and I get very little support for my efforts. If Uncommon Descent is just an echo chamber for certain Christian views of ID, cosmology and ethics then so be it. It's not my blog so I cannot dictate its stance. BUT, if it's meant to be a forum for discussion and exploration of ideas and differing views then I think a more conciliatory approach would be in order. I'll leave it up to you to decide.JVL_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Truthfreedom: So you can not support your argument and are deflecting. The truth is I find necrophilia weird and bizarre and I've never really thought much more about it. And since we agree on that reaction I do not understand why you keep harping on and on and on about it. So you can not support your argument and are deflecting. You agree with me so why are you so fixated on me supporting my argument? You've got some weird agenda going I think. AND, let's be honest, you have continually failed to support your opinion on the subject. Haven't you? Huh? Lol. You say incest and necrophilia are ‘repulsive’ and against the law but you are not casting judgement? An opinion is not the same as judgement. I, personally, find Picasso's artwork pretty eh. BUT that doesn't mean I consider it meaningless in the history of art. That's a separate issue. More deflecting. Emotions are not reasons. Emotions are not reasons? So, essentially, you're saying you cannot not justify the feelings you have for your spouse? (Assuming you have one.) Do you really want to go down that route? And now you live inside my head and you know my thoughts and intentions, although according to you, you do not do that. Quite contradictory. More emotions no, please! You're getting more and more strange in your statements. And more and more fascinated by my opinions on things like necrophilia. Perhaps you should really stand back and consider your seeming obsessions.JVL_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

PAV https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/17/influential-covid-19-model-uses-flawed-methods-shouldnt-guide-policies-critics-say/ It is interesting to notice how the philosophical divide on other things percolate down to other areas of thought as well. No surprise that one side trusts experts the other side not so much. One side trusts governments and want more of it the other side doesn’t . One sides policy proposals it seems in every case includes restrictions on liberty the other side resists. I believe inside the heart of every progressive is a tyrant just dying to get out and inside the heart of every far right extremist is an anarchist dying to get out. Vividvividbleau_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

We've been at this for a month now. My predictions have been wrong, but not wildly wrong. My concerns have, for the most part, all been borne out. There is very little left to be said. Now, death figures and cases of Covid-19 are faulty, unreliable, and probably being maniuplated for political (money) purposes. There's no sense even trying to make sense of the numbers with the craziness that has entered the system: people trying to justify what was done and trying to hurt Trump politically because the lockdown hurts his chances in November. Alas. Heaven help us. A few articles: (1) A rundown on how unreliable models have been in the past (especially Neil Ferguson's) and how we should have never relied on them for forming policy. (2) This faulty models include that of Washington's IHME model. (3) The WHO told us that this virus was as virulent as the Spanish Flu. They are way, way wrong. This was exactly the point I was making from the start and for which abuse was hurled my way. Does anybody regret that now? Should we not have tried to reason our way through things instead of panicking? (4) From the beginning, I questioned whether the "shelter-in-place" shutdown of our economy was wise. With hindsight, it looks more and more to have been unwise, but, with the ill-informed 'opinons' of our 'experts' flying around, it was necessary. New York City is a complete outlier to what happened in the USA. New York City should have been shutdown early, but it's so wise mayor, Bill de Blasio, instead told the citizens of his city to go out and have fun. Has a liberal done anything wise in the last century? Nope, I didn't think so either. (5) As to the unreliability of present-day science, you can read >here. And, lastly, (6) For perspective: the Hong Kong Flu from the late 60's killed an equivalent (with today's US population) of 165,000 people. This virus hasn't reached the level of an average world-wide flu season. Should we blame the media for the panic that has set in? Are they completely incapable of sorting through things? As I predicted nearly a week ago, liberal governors are loathe to "set their people free." Liberalism is the enemy of wisdom; it sees only one "good" at a time--the one that liberalism chooses to look at at that particular moment. And to this "good," all else must be subservient. Evil is not the absence of good, it is the choice of a lesser good when greater goods are options. In this sense, liberals are evil. They're fanatics. They will pound you over the head with their "good" until you cry "uncle." And, if you resist them, this makes you the evil one. Heaven help us. How do we know that the Pharisees of Jesus' time were liberals? Because Jesus says of them: "You say you see, and so your blindness remains." I can only hope that this sad moment in our history serves to make clear the totalitarian instincts of those who are left of center. We can now see that socialism and totalitarianism are but a breath away. As Reagan said (to paraphrase) tyranny is only a generation away. Can you say, "AOC"?PaV_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

@ Kairosfocus: Ok. :)Truthfreedom_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

@JVL
I probably should have just said “you should try and represent what I have said”. But, of course, you will interpret anything I say in the way that best reflects on your view instead of trying to be respectful and sincere and actually wanting to have a dialogue.
And now you live inside my head and you know my thoughts and intentions, although according to you, you do not do that. Quite contradictory. More emotions no, please!Truthfreedom_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

@JVL
I wouldn’t say so. But I’ll wait and see if you really want to have a serious and respectful conversation about that topic instead of just scoring points. Your call.
More deflecting. Emotions are not reasons.Truthfreedom_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

@JVL
I try not to; I like to respect other people’s privacy. It seems like you’d rather peer into everyone’s bedroom and cast judgement on them.
Huh? Lol. You say incest and necrophilia are 'repulsive' and against the law but you are not casting judgement?Truthfreedom_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

TF & JVL (etc), I will simply note I have already suggested need to tone down rhetorical voltage. Beyond, I note on roots of law by citing a classic discussion:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . the subject of our present discussion . . . comprehends the universal principles of equity and law. In such a discussion therefore on the great moral law of nature, the practice of the civil law can occupy but an insignificant and subordinate station. For according to our idea, we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man.
[--> Note, how justice and our built in nature as a morally governed class of creatures are highlighted; thus framing the natural law frame: recognising built-in law that we do not create nor can we repeal, which then frames a sound understanding of justice. Without such an anchor, law inevitably reduces to the sort of ruthless, nihilistic might- and- manipulation- make- "right,"- "truth,"- "knowledge,"- "law"- and- "justice"- etc power struggle and chaos Plato warned against in The Laws Bk X.]
We shall have to examine those principles of legislation by which all political states should be governed. And last of all, shall we have to speak of those laws and customs which are framed for the use and convenience of particular peoples, which regulate the civic and municipal affairs of the citizens, and which are known by the title of civil laws. Quintus [his real-life brother]. —You take a noble view of the subject, my brother, and go to the fountain–head of moral truth, in order to throw light on the whole science of jurisprudence: while those who confine their legal studies to the civil law too often grow less familiar with the arts of justice than with those of litigation. Marcus. —Your observation, my Quintus, is not quite correct. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it, (potius ignoratio juris litigiosa est quam scientia) . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions. They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones. They think, too, that the Greek name for law (NOMOS), which is derived from NEMO, to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. [--> this implies a definition of justice as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities] For my part, I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
KFkairosfocus_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

@JVL
Gosh, you’ve really thought this through. I haven’t given it much thought, not nearly so much as you have clearly.
So you can not support your argument and are deflecting.Truthfreedom_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

@130 JVL
True, or they might find the subject as fascinating as you do.
So you can not support your argument and are deflecting.Truthfreedom_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Truthfreedom: Disgusting: according to you. Other people may like/ enjoy it. True, or they might find the subject as fascinating as you do. Unsanitary: not if you wear protective clothes. Gosh, you've really thought this through. I haven't given it much thought, not nearly so much as you have clearly. Against the law: appeal to the law fallacy (again)` Well, it is against the law. By the way, you haven't said why you find it verboten. Just saying. I've asked you several times and you keep ignoring the query. Violates people’s privacy. Lol. Dead people care about their privacy? I did say later they cannot give their consent but you conveniently ignored that comment. Sex between consenting adults. Your logic. Who are you to tell other people how to live their sexuality. I try not to; I like to respect other people's privacy. It seems like you'd rather peer into everyone's bedroom and cast judgement on them. And cultural norms change, so please do not be so archaic. Do sex between siblings hurt you? No. Between parents and (adult) children? No. None of your business. According to you, morals are subjective. Gosh, you seem to have figured this all out really well. So what are the arguments against the case you have presented so succinctly? Yes, laws are created and implemented. The important question is: where is the basis for those laws? Is there any or are they created capriciously? Randomly as in ‘evolution’? Like mutations? I wouldn't say so. But I'll wait and see if you really want to have a serious and respectful conversation about that topic instead of just scoring points. Your call. Ohh. Cute! So you KNOW what other UD members think and you can correctly interpret what they write but I do not understand them? I probably should have just said "you should try and represent what I have said". But, of course, you will interpret anything I say in the way that best reflects on your view instead of trying to be respectful and sincere and actually wanting to have a dialogue. Do you live inside other people’s heads? Again you are sounding quite totalitarian. Omniscient even. Gosh no. I never, ever pretend to speak for other people. Nor do I attempt to tell other people they are wrong and I am right because of some old book or liturgical practice. I understand you feel that you have some God-given and immutable moral standard that guides you and that everything else must be wrong and stupid. I get that. But what I don't get is that I hear lots of Christians making that claim and yet they disagree with each other. So, as an outsider, how can I judge wether or not there is an eternal objective standard or not? If there is no general agreement on what it says then does it really exist?JVL_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

@JVL
Whatever. You should try harder to factually represent what people have actually said.
Ohh. Cute! So you KNOW what other UD members think and you can correctly interpret what they write but I do not understand them? How so? Do you live inside other people's heads? Again you are sounding quite totalitarian. Omniscient even.Truthfreedom_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

@JVL
Yeah, sometimes that happens. Which is why societies produce laws and methods of enforcement.
Yes, laws are created and implemented. The important question is: where is the basis for those laws? Is there any or are they created capriciously? Randomly as in 'evolution'? Like mutations?Truthfreedom_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

@JVL
Except, again, I never said that about siblings.
Sex between consenting adults. Your logic. Who are you to tell other people how to live their sexuality. And cultural norms change, so please do not be so archaic. Do sex between siblings hurt you? No. Between parents and (adult) children? No. None of your business. According to you, morals are subjective.Truthfreedom_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

@JVL
(Necrophilia) It’s disgusting, unsanitary, against the law and violates the person’s privacy. Why do you think it’s wrong?
Disgusting: according to you. Other people may like/ enjoy it. Unsanitary: not if you wear protective clothes. Against the law: appeal to the law fallacy (again) Violates people's privacy. Lol. Dead people care about their privacy?Truthfreedom_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

Folks, First, clusters are expected with this disease. As for the exchanges onward, they simply bring to mind two warnings by Plato i/l/o the collapse of Athens:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
And,
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State [ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. [--> the issue of competence and character as qualifications to rule] The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction [--> the sophists, the Demagogues, Alcibiades and co, etc]; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable [--> implies a need for a corruption-restraining minority providing proverbial salt and light, cf. Ac 27, as well as justifying a governing structure turning on separation of powers, checks and balances], and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
If we refuse to learn from history and cling to the sort of evolutionary materialism, linked relativism, cynicism and factionalism that seems to have swept Athens through the impact of plague from 430 - 426 BC, we doom ourselves to repeat big mistakes with predictably catastrophic consequences. KFkairosfocus_{April 18, 2020
April
04
Apr
18
18
2020
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT}

Truthfreedom: According to you, having sex with your relatives and dead people is ok. Except, of course, I never said so. That's what Kairosfocus calls agi-prop strawman tactics. You can not offer any logical explanation as to why it is not It's disgusting, unsanitary, against the law and violates the person's privacy. Why do you think it's wrong? Following your mantra, as long as it ‘consensual and between adults’, it is fine. With your siblings too I suppose Except, again, I never said that about siblings. ‘Consensual and between adults’. Silly logic to support homosexuality leads to silly outcomes. How does that lead to necrophilia? Can a corpse give consent? Not that I've noticed. Speaking of silly, you are a grown-up who admits darwinism is a stupid fairy-tale but you like ridiculous fairy-tales, so who cares. Except, of course, I never said 'darwinism' is a stupid fairy-tale. Ah. And according to you, killing your children ‘enhances your reproductive success’ is a ‘scientific’ explanation. Except, of course, I didn't say so. I pointed out that someone else said it was AN explanation but I didn't support the statement. Now cry while you eat your birdseed. And do not fart too much, please. Your attempts at logic are enough. Whatever. You should try harder to factually represent what people have actually said. A stupid assertion with no proof. Typical, you commit all the logical fallacies available. And who are you to dictate what is Denyse’s role? And to dictate what we should agree on or not? Heil JVL! Having an opinion is NOT dictating! Geeze. Justify (not assert) why incest and necrophilia are ‘hideous’ and ‘awful’. You first. Show me where your objective moral code says so. Was not everything part of the ‘cultural context and relative’? What you find ‘awful’, other people might find it ‘fantastic’. Yeah, sometimes that happens. Which is why societies produce laws and methods of enforcement. Hitler found ‘fantastic’ killing millions of jews. So good that he labelled it ‘the final solution’. And Stalin killing millions of his citizens. And Pol Pot. And Mao…Nothing ‘hideous’ for them. And they're all gone and their regimes are (almost) universally condemned. So . . . I do not understand why you insist on carrying on a conversation about things we agree on. You seem to think that if you can 'prove' my values are inconsistent you've won somehow. Why you don't want to accentuate our common ground and find ways we can work together to solve some of the problems society faces is beyond me.JVL_{April 17, 2020
April
04
Apr
17
17
2020
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

Tyson has confirmed some of its employees have tested positive for COVID-19 at its plant in Perry, IA. "For privacy out of our team members, we are not disclosing the number of confirmed cases," said Liz Croston, a spokesperson for Tyson. "We're working hard to protect our team members during this ever-changing situation, while also ensuring we continue fulfilling our critical role of helping feed people across the country."rhampton7_{April 17, 2020
April
04
Apr
17
17
2020
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

The situation facing workers at the Cargill Protein facility in High River, Alta. has gotten much worse, officials confirmed Friday. The province announced there are now 358 confirmed cases of coronavirus among the workers and their households throughout southern Alberta.rhampton7_{April 17, 2020
April
04
Apr
17
17
2020
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

Good finance people at an import dealership can make $250-300k, which is about 10x what you make as a STEM grad student.Jim Thibodeau_{April 17, 2020
April
04
Apr
17
17
2020
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

If you graduate from a good STEM program, after about 15 years in the world you’re invited back for an alumnI dinner with the graduating seniors of your STEM program, so you can give them wisdom about the world. I’m going to be getting those emails in about 6 mos and I’m not sure they’re going to like having me back. “Fuck all the AFM stuff and solubility curves and time-dependent protein conformation—go sell expensive shit to people who are impressed by good clothes and good posture. Find an Audi or a Mercedes dealership and explain that you already know basic financing math. You’ll make a fortune!”Jim Thibodeau_{April 17, 2020
April
04
Apr
17
17
2020
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Anybody in commission sales will tell you, it’s the easiest customers you’re most friendly with, that you make the most money from. Honestly I’ve got about 2 more years of learning this trade before I’m going to be over in Jax trying my hand at selling my favorite cars in the world.Jim Thibodeau_{April 17, 2020
April
04
Apr
17
17
2020
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

@rhampton dammit you’re reminding me that I forgot to pick up some burgers at the store today, I meant to because I’m aware of all these plant closures because of the virus. I did get a bunch of turkey, hopefully not from one of those plants. My salary is decent but my big ass commission checks involve the appearance of health and a sparkling personality. On the plus side, a lot of my customers are now wearing masks and declining to sit down at the discussion table so I have to just hold my iPad and do everything standing up. Well that’s OK, if customers are feeling a little time pressured they’re less likely to pull back and say they have to talk to their husband/wife etc. my company is sanitizing all tables chairs and doors between every customer, so I’m not too worried. But we’ve got some new software that allows people to do transactions without me touching their debit card or them signing anything etc. it all involves cell phone timestamped text messages, but it’s kind of tricky to get the hang of. I’m just so used to sliding things across the table, it’s a learning curve.Jim Thibodeau_{April 17, 2020
April
04
Apr
17
17
2020
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply