Total posts: 14,582
-->
@BearMan
For example, a virus is small enough to pass into the air in droplets as small as 1 micron (through normal breath, not just a sneeze or a cough).
These contagious particles settle on hands, hair, clothes, doors, chairs, tables and other items.
These contagious particles might be prevented from entering directly into someone's lungs if that person happens to be wearing an AIR-TIGHT mask.
However, an ear-loop mask is not AIR-TIGHT and will not stop these airborne particles.
Furthermore, even if someone was wearing an AIR-TIGHT mask, when that person touches the mask to remove it, or touches their hair, or touches their clothes, or touches any door or chair or pretty much anything, that person will become contaminated.
Anything short of a 100% LOCK-DOWN is pointless.
Created:
-->
@BearMan
From your own source,
Ironically, if the aim is to divert breath to protect other people, a second argument against wearing face masks designed for PPE becomes relevant. Rather than diverting breath, FFP masks with valves direct the breath out in a specific direction through the valve. As a result, protecting the wearer could come at the expense of those standing in front of the valve. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
How does a mob make anything right or good?
Brass tacks.
"YHWH" IS REAL AND THE HOLY-WORD IS 100% TRUE.
Now what?
You live in a city swarming with heavily armed mafiosos.
But you know that "YHWH" is real and morality is objective, not relative or contextual.
These mafiosos demand that you pay tax to them.
If you refuse to pay your tax, your land will be seized and you will be incarcerated (without medical care).
Every store you visit gives 12% of their gross sales revenue to these heavily armed mafiosos.
You know for a fact that these heavily armed mafiosos commit horrifying atrocities.
They don't even try and hide it most of the time.
Does "YHWH" allow you to contribute your hard-earned cash (taxes) to support these horrifying atrocities?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Thou shalt not kill (murder).
This is a perfect example of a QUALITATIVE moral standard.
An unjustified kill is murder.
What is a justifiable kill?
And please try to avoid any "appeal to authority".
Imagine you and I are on a remote island.
Two of our friends go hunting in the forest.
Only one of them comes back.
Our friend who comes back says the missing friend tried to kill them and so they pushed the missing friend off a cliff.
PLEASE EXPLAIN THE OBJECTIVE, QUANTIFIABLE MORALITY OF THIS SITUATION.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
They must have a different standard of measure from quantitative values which are empirically measured.
Please QUANTIFY empirically measurable MORAL AXIOMS.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Doesn't mean 'everything the USA government is saying is a lie though,
I agree.
However, if the official recommendations contradict the preponderance of historical scientific data, some skepticism is due.
For example, a virus is small enough to pass into the air in droplets as small as 1 micron (through normal breath, not just a sneeze or a cough).
These contagious particles settle on hands, hair, clothes, doors, chairs, tables and other items.
These contagious particles might be prevented from entering directly into someone's lungs if that person happens to be wearing an AIR-TIGHT mask.
However, an ear-loop mask is not AIR-TIGHT and will not stop these airborne particles.
Furthermore, even if someone was wearing an AIR-TIGHT mask, when that person touches the mask to remove it, or touches their hair, or touches their clothes, or touches any door or chair or pretty much anything, that person will become contaminated.
Anything short of a 100% LOCK-DOWN is pointless.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
For example, HUME'S GUILLOTINE [LINKI listened to the whole thing and agree with some of it. What is the main point that you want me to glean from it?
(IFF) morality is "objective" and "universal" and a logical extension of the "IS" of "YHWH" (THEN) you must be able to program your PRIMARY MORAL AXIOMS into a computer and it would be forced to compute MORAL MATHEMATICS (perfectly moral, unambiguous, moral judgements)
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I can choose to eat or not eat sugar (my preference) at my own peril, but should I also be allowed to kill innocent people if that was my preference?
Unless you can grow and refine your own sugar for your own personal use, your purchase of refined sugar contributes to a system that causes QUANTIFIABLE damage to the health of OTHER PEOPLE.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Through a stated revelation. God chose to reveal. Someone who is more than descriptive chose to reveal.
Please reveal "YHWH"s PRIMARY MORAL AXIOMS.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
All your claim does is make one society or culture prefer one thing and another the opposite. In some countries abortion is illegal and others it is legal. What is your preference? The problem is that two societies, groups, or individuals who advocate opposite standards as good cannot both be correct in their thinking at the same time.
Morality is like language.
Each geographical area implicitly agrees on a "standard" and that "standard" evolves over time.
There is no "universal" "one-true" language.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
So, do you believe that it is okay for soldiers to kill civilians for fun by your approval?
My personal preference would be for everyone to stop killing each other.
However, more to the point of the question, THERE IS NO LAW THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T ENJOY AN AUTHORIZED LEGAL SHOOTING.
And naturally, you'd expect the people who are repulsed by killing to do much less of it, leaving the doors wide for those eager to send their fellows through the gates of hell.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
A preference is a like or desire for or against something held by an individual or group. How does a preference (I like ice-cream) make that anything other than a personal taste or a group of people all liking the same thing? They like the taste. How does that make tasting ice-cream morally right? That would be equivocating to different things that are not related.
You're drawing a distinction without a difference.
You say that you have moral preferences.
And then you say that your personal moral preferences are not "preferences".
You're basically saying your moral preferences are universal and authoritative.
That would be like someone declaring that french or chinese is "the world's best and most objective language" and then forcing everyone to use it exclusively.
Created:
-->
@BearMan
A mask barely helps protect you. It protects other people from you.
The recommended N95 masks have an open valve for outbound air, so NO, no, they absolutely do NOT "protect others".
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Are you saying that a supernatural Being can't choose to speak through a donkey?
Not at all. I'm saying that "YHWH" CAN DO ANYTHING!!! INCLUDING STOP ALL CRIME AND END ALL SUFFERING!!!
If I can prevent a murder, and I just stand there and do nothing, am I not morally culpable?Yes.
Why does "YHWH" stand by and do nothing while countless people die every single day?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The instruction manual is called instinct, protection for survival, plus trial and error.
Same for humans, same for wolves.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, another appeal to ridicule and indirect ad hom.
Nope, honest question.
What about your god? What kind of puppet-master is he/she/it? (favour returned)
THE (great and mighty all holy and most honorable) NOUMENON is quite inscrutable (one might even say "incomprehensible").
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
How long does your god believe exclusive copyright protections should last?No idea of what you mean or the significance of the question.
If your "YHWH" holds the secret keys to universal justice, what does it say about how long exclusive copyright protections should last?
If our laws are supposedly based on the principles of "YHWH", then we need to identify the core principles (PRIMARY AXIOMS) and use them to eradicate all legal contradictions and miscarriages of justice.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Wearing a mask to go into a restaurant to be seated and then taking it off to eat is the same as a pissing section in a swimming pool
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
How is the atheist position objective, universal, absolute, unchangeable?
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
How do atheists justify something as good or bad from where they would necessarily start?
Exactly the same way you do.
Moral impulse.
Sense of fairness.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, what does a rabbit have to do with the derivation of morality?
(IFF) morality is truly "objective" and "universal" (THEN) it must apply equally to all things (not just humans)
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
My goodness, you are a Kantian.
My general impression is that while Kant may have stumbled upon at least one logical necessity, I can't vouch for anything else.
And I certainly wouldn't marry the guy.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
What does stamp collecting have to do with origins or the existence of life?
It's an example of a similar logical structure intended to highlight the absurdity of defining a person by what they don't do or by what they don't believe in.
AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A DEIST. TECHNICALLY STILL "NOT A THEIST".
AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE AN ANIMIST. TECHNICALLY STILL "NOT A THEIST".
AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A SPIRITUALIST.
AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A UNIVERSALIST, SYNCRETIST, AND OR MONIST.
AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A GNOSTIC.
AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A TAOIST.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I do not believe you understand the significance of worldviews in how they influence your thinking and your post demonstrates this.
ATHEISM IS NOT A WORLDVIEW.
ATHEISM IS MERELY A LABEL FOR "NOT A THEIST".
ATHESIM HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO SAY ABOUT "THE ORIGINS OF LIFE".
NOT EVEN SCIENCE SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT "THE ORIGINS OF LIFE".
SCIENCE MERELY PRESENTS EVIDENCE OF WHAT IS EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE.
THE "BIG BANG" IS MERELY A DURABLE HYPOTHESIS (WHICH DOESN'T EVEN NECESSARILY CONTRADICT THEISM).
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
The judiciary even periodically suggested that public health regulation was immune from constitutional review. [LINK]
Imagine for a moment that I secretly wish to impose a police state on a "free" society.
(1) DECLARE AN EMERGENCY
Preferably something indistinguishable from common experience, like "no symptoms".
It's almost as good as declaring someone a "secret commie" except with the added benefit that you can "test for it with science".
Immediately shut down businesses you disapprove of, the threat of shut-down will encourage businesses to declare their support.
(2) CENSOR ALL DISSENTERS
Make sure to enrage the sheeple so they lash out blindly at anyone who doesn't toe the official line, this will save you tons of money.
(3) MANDATE A SHOW OF LOYALTY
Traditionally this would be a badge of some sort, or an arm band, but a (pointless) mask also accomplishes the same ends.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
And as I've said before, if me not wearing a mask violates another person's right to life, my right to "wear what I want" goes away in response.
I'm sure you realize that nearly everything you do directly or indirectly endangers the life of someone.
650,000 people die from the flu every year. Why no lock-downs?
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Ghandi? And the list goes on and on and on.......
We will not give them our fingerprints. Not one of us. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@Vader
I personally agree. We should all wear masks no matter what, and that is on protecting people.
What scientific data are you basing this claim on?
Created:
-->
@lady3keys
Have we really become so stupid as a country, that we will take the word of any credentialed authority, doctors, scientists and experts that have spent their lives specializing in their fields?
Even when they start spouting "recommendations" that contradict volumes of historical data?
Created:
-->
@lady3keys
Wearing masks, saves others as well.
Based on what data?
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Also, I agree that it's not unconstitutional to enforce masks in a crisis situation.
Which part of the constitution allows mask enforcement?
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
But yes, wearing not a mask outside, where environment of contact will be prone to make you sick is real, would make you ignorant of the outdoor problems.
Is your mask airtight?
Do you touch your mask when you put it on and take it off?
Do you wash your hair and clothing every time you touch them?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Not sure I think people not on board yet are Absolute Morons, maybe just need to be convinced in the right manner,
Perhaps with a preponderance of historical scientific data?
...and need our government leading correctly.
Maintaining government credibility is a fools-errand after of a century of lies. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@BearMan
No it doesn't violate your rights.
Don't forget to pin that pink triangle and yellow star to your jacket.
Created:
-->
@BearMan
Stop thinking you are smarter than guys who have actually researched for years,
The data on virus propagation is not NEW.
The data on virus propagation is AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
The 98% will wear their masks until the same jack wagon that told them to wear it tells them they can stop wearing it. Which of course will be never.
NEW NORMAL = POLICE STATE
Created:
-->
@sadolite
UM none of these links show any scientific evidence that wearing a face mask and then taking it off in the same room reduces or prevents the spread of a virus. They are all just govt regulation suggestions. They show no scientific proof of anything.
100% THIS.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You have committed to deity but which one(s)?
NOUMENON.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Truth is not neutral. It takes a position that is very narrow. That can be easily demonstrated with mathematics as an example.
You're conflating QUANTA with QUALIA.
1 + 1 = 2 therefore I love you.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I find on almost every page of Scripture in the OT a typological revelation of Jesus Christ
What's your impression of Numbers 31:15-18 [LINK]
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Two other questions, what deity do you believe in or are you unsure and what do you know about your said deity?
As a GNOSTIC DEIST, my direct-experiential-communion is a somewhat private affair.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Actually, I have only posted to you four times, this is my fifth. You have added so many posts (15 more addressed to me which makes 45 in total) I find it dizzy trying to keep up with them all.
I'm including our previous conversations.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
A trickster. How can I trust such a deity?
Are you perhaps familiar with the story of JOB? [LINK]
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You are right, I am not neutral. I do reject "YHWH" on the basis that I believe NANABOZHO is the ONE true God.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You are recycling my posts with minor adjustments.
If your logic is sound, the words should be interchangeable.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Such a god seems not be the Creator or Originator, perhaps just one of a myriad of created beings.
Perhaps an aspect of a superhyper-natural-god-made-flesh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
...the point of their religion is to get back to Nirvana, into the nothingness of life - It resists absolute truth.
NIRVANA = ONENESS WITH THE ESSENCE OF THE COSMOS
Christians say they believe in UNIFICATION WITH GOD after death.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME GOAL.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Great point.
MYTH =/= SCIENCE
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
New Age philosophy,
PHILOSOPHY =/= RELIGION
wicca,
Unincorporated eclectic rituals and traditions with no formal DOGMA.
Hinduism,
Certainly has rules and specific punishments in the afterlife.
Buddhism,
Certainly has rules and specific punishments in the afterlife.
All the liberal forms of Christianity, such as Unitarianism.
Certainly has rules and specific punishments in the afterlife.
Cults of Christianity like the Mormons.
Certainly has (even more) rules and specific punishments in the afterlife.
Atheism.
ATHEISM =/= RELIGION
Most forms of animalism, the Asian forms of religion based on worship of ancestors, etc etc.
Most primal spiritual traditions (like SHINTO) have rituals and traditions for morality and a strong belief in specific punishments in the afterlife.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
If you are an atheist you explain these things without God or gods usually by naturalism and humanism.
or not at all.
ATHEIST =/= HUMANIST
ATHEIST =/= NATURALIST
ATHEIST =/= CREED
Created: