This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

I have been mute on this thread for a while cause I was busy going to a conference. I'll come back to you soon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/41973119/why-do-people-still-think-the-earth-is-flat

Exactly!

Bogbrush I'm afraid new evidence has come in very recently, and I've had to conclude that NITB is right and you are wrong.

I think it is important to remind some of you that it was exactly that attitude people had towards Galileo, cause of course the world was flat back then...for the "rational, intelligent thinkers".

A real scientist always keeps an open mind. Holding for absolute truth the 1% we now today while dismissing as "waffle" the 99% we don;t know and which could turn our vision of the world completely upside down (literally), is anything but scientific.

Yes, it’s so clear to me now. Galileo was the one using scientific thought to challenge mythology and irrationality, and clearly the people believing in unsubstantiated concepts like spirits and supernatural beings are his heirs in opposing concepts like physics and evolution.

How could I have got it so wrong?

DECIMA wrote:Bogbrush I'm afraid new evidence has come in very recently, and I've had to conclude that NITB is right and you are wrong.

What was that, the Popes farted or something?

bogbrush wrote:

DECIMA wrote:Bogbrush I'm afraid new evidence has come in very recently, and I've had to conclude that NITB is right and you are wrong.

What was that, the Popes farted or something?

I've got tickets for today evening at WTF. After being derisory of NITB's literalist Bible viewpoint the Christian God has punished me by sending Thiem vs Busta.

DECIMA wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

DECIMA wrote:Bogbrush I'm afraid new evidence has come in very recently, and I've had to conclude that NITB is right and you are wrong.

What was that, the Popes farted or something?

I've got tickets for today evening at WTF. After being derisory of NITB's literalist Bible viewpoint the Christian God has punished me by sending Thiem vs Busta.

And there’s people still doubt it! 

bogbrush wrote:Yes, it’s so clear to me now. Galileo was the one using scientific thought to challenge mythology and irrationality, and clearly the people believing in unsubstantiated concepts like spirits and supernatural beings are his heirs in opposing faith based concepts like physics and evolution.

How could I have got it so wrong?

But then again what you do not seem to get is that had Galileo not believed in unsubstantiated concepts at first, he would not even have tried to prove the world was round.

He first thought outside the box and then proved his view.

From what I read so far on this subject, you would be the last to think outside the box.

That must be why I hold completely conventional ideas like tgere is no such thing as consciousness or life that you hear every day. Yes, very orthodox.

bogbrush wrote:That must be why I hold completely conventional ideas like tgere is no such thing as consciousness or life that you hear every day. Yes, very orthodox.

What you call "ideas" are actually kind of religious beliefs based on what science hold so far as reliable theories. Science is still looking at the world in an open mind. Your reasoning, at least of what I understand, is to stick to 2+2, while blocking anything unproven yet, very much like Galileo's ennemies.

This is why you cannot comprehend, for example reports, from the NHS saying the state of mind affects cancer, cause of course matter has no mood.

barrystar wrote:Thanks for this answer - we obviously disagree, I'm not sure whether an element of it is down to terminology, or it is really as fundamental as it appears.

I expect it will be both.  I think we likely have terminology misunderstanding, but based on some of the stuff you have written I suspect that even after we clear that up, we will still disagree in substance.

barrystar wrote:Forgive me if I ask some questions - but could you describe how one gets to 'anything goes', also, can you give an example of a dogmatic rule which work because it is dogmatic, and a non-dogmatic rule which either has been tried and failed?

I am not saying that "non-dogmatic rules fail".  I am saying that "there are no non-dogmatic rules".  So, if anything, I could turn the question around and ask "can you give me an example of a non-dogmatic rule"?  My claim would be that you cannot, because there are no such rules.

Every rule will ultimately have to rely on personal preferences that cannot be further justified, which then have to be accepted "as is" - which is what I would call "dogmatically".

How would you justify, for example, that slavery is wrong?  One can observe that it harms people, that it perhaps invariably also harms economic development of the society etc etc.  But none of that directly leads to "slavery is wrong" unless one accepts "harming people is wrong", or that "harming the economic development is wrong", etc etc.  That is, one has to accept some dogmata, and then can use reason and observation from there.

Regarding "anything goes":  Since I am saying that every non-trivial rule is dogmatic, one gets to "anything goes" by default - all other possible rules are thrown out because they fail to be non-dogmatic.

TBH, I do not think I am really saying all that much here.  I would think this part is the part where we are likely just using different "terminology", and substantive differences between us lie elsewhere.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:That must be why I hold completely conventional ideas like tgere is no such thing as consciousness or life that you hear every day. Yes, very orthodox.

What you call "ideas" are actually kind of religious beliefs based on what science hold so far as reliable theories. Science is still looking at the world in an open mind. Your reasoning, at least of what I understand, is to stick to 2+2, while blocking anything unproven yet, very much like Galileo's ennemies.

This is why you cannot comprehend, for example reports, from the NHS saying the state of mind affects cancer, cause of course matter has no mood.

Nonsense; of course the state of the mind can affect things because the thing we call the mind is a manifestation of the brain structure and is part of the whole entity. This is pretty much what I've been saying for about 10 pages now.

It is not, as you lot seem to think, some metaphysical separate entity that operates on the body, it is a function of cells of the body and as such it would be baffling if it had no effect on the functioning of other parts. There is no metaphysics, there is just atoms and the blind process of evolution.

I tell you what, for such conventional ideas all this seems to take you guys by such surprise you really mustn't be paying attention.

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:That must be why I hold completely conventional ideas like tgere is no such thing as consciousness or life that you hear every day. Yes, very orthodox.

What you call "ideas" are actually kind of religious beliefs based on what science hold so far as reliable theories. Science is still looking at the world in an open mind. Your reasoning, at least of what I understand, is to stick to 2+2, while blocking anything unproven yet, very much like Galileo's ennemies.

This is why you cannot comprehend, for example reports, from the NHS saying the state of mind affects cancer, cause of course matter has no mood.

Nonsense; of course the state of the mind can affect things because the thing we call the mind is a manifestation of the brain structure and is part of the whole entity. This is pretty much what I've been saying for about 10 pages now.

It is not, as you lot seem to think, some metaphysical separate entity that operates on the body, it is a function of cells of the body and as such it would be baffling if it had no effect on the functioning of other parts. There is no metaphysics, there is just atoms and the blind process of evolution.

I tell you what, for such conventional ideas all this seems to take you guys by such surprise you really mustn't be paying attention.

I like the way you say "of course"! Cause before Jan 2017, you could have laughed at me and say waffle waffle waffle....cause there was no proof of it actually. And in fact there are still no proof, it's just a statistical observation.....we certainly cannot identify it in the "brain structure" at this stage. Energy, concepts and images are not metaphysical....just that they are not in a state of solid "dead" matter even if they might be generated from matter, they seem to affect matter in turn.

So now you agree the mind affects "things"....I 'd like you to revisit your famous question: "Do you know if parents can influence the genetics of their children?"

My answer is still an honest "I don;t know"!

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:That must be why I hold completely conventional ideas like tgere is no such thing as consciousness or life that you hear every day. Yes, very orthodox.

What you call "ideas" are actually kind of religious beliefs based on what science hold so far as reliable theories. Science is still looking at the world in an open mind. Your reasoning, at least of what I understand, is to stick to 2+2, while blocking anything unproven yet, very much like Galileo's ennemies.

This is why you cannot comprehend, for example reports, from the NHS saying the state of mind affects cancer, cause of course matter has no mood.

Nonsense; of course the state of the mind can affect things because the thing we call the mind is a manifestation of the brain structure and is part of the whole entity. This is pretty much what I've been saying for about 10 pages now.

It is not, as you lot seem to think, some metaphysical separate entity that operates on the body, it is a function of cells of the body and as such it would be baffling if it had no effect on the functioning of other parts. There is no metaphysics, there is just atoms and the blind process of evolution.

I tell you what, for such conventional ideas all this seems to take you guys by such surprise you really mustn't be paying attention.

I like the way you say "of course"! Cause before Jan 2017, you could have laughed at me and say waffle waffle waffle....cause there was no proof of it actually. And in fact there are still no proof, it's just a statistical observation.....we certainly cannot identify it in the "brain structure" at this stage. Energy, concepts and  images are not metaphysical....just that they are not in a state of solid "dead" matter even if they might be generated from matter, they seem to affect matter in turn.

So now you agree the mind affects "things"....I 'd like you to revisit your famous question: "Do you know if parents can influence the genetics of their children?"

My answer is still an honest "I don;t know"!

No, I wouldn't have, because it's been obvious to me for many years that the mind has no existence beyond the mechanism of the brain, and the brain is just an organ within the body. You might think this is new but I've thought this way for many years.

You can't locate "it" for a very good reason.... "it" doesn't exist! It's the same reason there's zero physical evidence for God, Santa, fairies or the spirit.

No, parents cannot do this. Genetics are fixed by the connection between the sperm and the egg and the correlation of which genes are dominant depends on the chance meeting to whichever sperm, and then further chance.

My answer is an honest "it's bloody obvious"

So much sperm going around here, I'm blushing, this forum is becoming wikipedia on its own, learn from tennis to sperm and inbetween   

You keep contradicting yourself. You talk about "state of the mind affecting things" and then say mind doesn't exist.

Also you keep throwing fairies and santa in when frankly no-one is talking about it bar you but of course in a clear intent is to discredit and avoid proper argumentation. Not the first time.

I am talking about that "very mechanism" of the brain, which can be affected by massless photons, or even tangible as well dreamt images.

How comes the mood of the mind, or brain if you prefer, can affect cancer patient survival? You know what is cancer surely? It is the uncontrolled duplication of cells. So how come your brain mood can affect this very fact?

I am glad it is bloody obvious to you....it;s not for anyone else!

I use words because they have commonly understood meaning. Nothing wrong with that.

I throw in Santa and fairies because they are things that people believe in which are stupid.

The brain directs the release of all sorts of chemicals so why not have an effect? I call gambling firms drug pushers because they deal in dopamine.

I wouldn't mind if BB was basing all of what he said on iron clad or very reliable theories but he isnt.  It's often flimsy theories or science that has a load of questions.  In fact... all of science does. Eventually, the entire model we know today will be thrown out and replaced by something that explains the universe better.  And I am to believe that BB has it all worked out with such a massive lack of knowledge about all the underlying processes we know nothing about.  Many we don't yet even know exist.

Oh hang on, here comes the guy who thinks red is an actual thing. I feel intellectually intimidated.

bogbrush wrote:Oh hang on, here comes the guy who thinks red is an actual thing. I feel intellectually intimidated.

You mean the guys (plural)?  You know, actual scientists who completely disagree with you.  Many prominent ones among them.  As I've repeated now about 20 times - this whole discussion comes under a massive branch of philosophy and science that has been debated centuries.  It isn't solved even slightly.  And you think you know it all.  You think scientists like Hoyle and Penrose and Schrodinger know less than you.  You aren't on their level or any level. The Hard Problem of Conciousness is a serious and unsolved mystery and will remain so long after you are dead.

It's also amusing that you consider Santa to be fake because you can't see him and yet with the colour red - which objectively does exist - you then do the opposite and claim it doesn't exist.  It's such a wank argument - right from the lips of Dawkins and Dennett "If I can't explain it, just say it doesn't exist".  It's not an argument.  You know what red is.  You can name it.  You experience it.  It's not explained by math or by language.

And if you really think everything is math and it's all programmed, nothing at all really worth anything, then why are you even here?  Why don't you just kill yourself?  Why do you go on?  Why do you watch tennis or care about it?  You're simply not consistent to your own beliefs. Someone who thinks that we are just drones in a meaningless universe sure does seem to take Federer winning rather seriously...

You don’t actually know what red is, do you? 

Want me to tell you? I’d consider it a public service.

You didn't answer any question....

I wonder why.

It's amazing that you think you've got worked out what thousands of scientists and philosophers have not.  I'm not interested in your opinion and ego, thanks. 

You want me to answer the question “why don’t you just kill yourself?” Seriously?

You’re kind of odd.

Offers still there if you’d like some education. That’s how generous a type of guy I am.

Bogbrush do you mind if I ask you some tough questions on another topic.

No I want you to answer why you bother with life and tennis and want Federer to win so much when you're entire philosophy (that you think is fact) is that we are all programmed, helpless drones in a meaningless universe.

You aren't making a shred of sense.

Daniel wrote:No I want you to answer why you bother with life and tennis and want Federer to win so much when you're entire philosophy (that you think is fact) is that we are all programmed, helpless drones in a meaningless universe.

You aren't making a shred of sense.

Oh it's obvious if you read the points properly.

We are programmed to compete and the pay-off for successful competition (there has to be a pay-off or the organism doesn't push for it, which is why sex is so much fun) is so strong that we find ways to activate it. People are finding ways to indulge in self-administered drug highs all the time - gambling for one, which is why I regard the big gambling companies as no more than dopamine pushers.

It's completely logically secure, it's there to see if you can drop the mythology and think about it.

DECIMA wrote:Bogbrush do you mind if I ask you some tough questions on another topic.

Hey, go for it. Hope I can live up to the challenge!!

bogbrush wrote:

DECIMA wrote:Bogbrush do you mind if I ask you some tough questions on another topic.

Hey, go for it. Hope I can live up to the challenge!!

Cool. My questions will be based on possible issues on what you described as the ideal way of running a society in a debate we had 2 years ago on 606v2.
I do remember the points you made in some detail, so will point out if your answers now are contradicting what you said in that debate at the time. However don't take that itself as a debating point, as it's completely reasonable to have made a few adjustments to a model in a few years. Even better if you feel midway through this debate that you want to make a few tweaks, that's ok, be open minded to that if you can.

Question Number 1:
Your ideal society described has basically no state authority with power. How would you deal with the issue of childhood vaccinations?

DECIMA wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

DECIMA wrote:Bogbrush do you mind if I ask you some tough questions on another topic.

Hey, go for it. Hope I can live up to the challenge!!

Cool. My questions will be based on possible issues on what you described as the ideal way of running a society in a debate we had 2 years ago on 606v2.
I do remember the points you made in some detail, so will point out if your answers now are contradicting what you said in that debate at the time. However don't take that itself as a debating point, as it's completely reasonable to have made a few adjustments to a model in a few years. Even better if you feel midway through this debate that you want to make a few tweaks, that's ok, be open minded to that if you can.

Question Number 1:
Your ideal society described has basically no state authority with power. How would you deal with the issue of childhood vaccinations?

Great, I love this sort of thing and will be really interested in any holes or contradictions you find!

Ok, so Q1. Firstly, we should recognise that vaccinations (which I unequivocably agree with) are part of a field of authoritative instruction (beyond advice, statements made as fact) with a patchy record; I'm old enough to remember bread being good, then bad, then good again, then back to bad, and now I don't know. I also know that one minute fat is our enemy, then our friend. So the state (and the medical profession) is far from perfect on this and people are right to think twice about their advice - it must sometimes be wrong because it's often contradictory. The question is whether it's always honest (think of corporate interests, patent inspired profits, that sort of thing) and also why, if it's so often wrong, how it is never humble about it's advice. Someone who is often wrong who maintains certainty forfeits confidence.

On vaccinations I guess you mean the behaviour of those parents who withhold them because of fear of autism etc. So we're dealing with loving parents who have their kids interests at heart. Their misgivings arise from various studies which offered contradictory messages. The question is why they believe them and not the weight of advice in favour. Perhaps it's that they are suspicious of the advice that has in other areas been shown to be wrong. Maybe they are wary of the interests of whichever corporation sells the vaccine? Or maybe they're just stupid. 

In the environment I imagine;

- parents would have the responsibility to act in the best interests of their children, as those withholding vaccines appear to be doing.
- people telling others with certainty would be liable for the outcomes of their information (so we could all sue those who told us low fat food would definitely make us slim). This is not the case, the medical professions gets away with literal murder because of it's position of power.
- anyone mischeviously or negligently spreading bad information (like "vaccines are bad" if they can't defend them) would be able to be sued, to the limit of damages which could be to the extent of their entire wealth and more.


What I'm saying is that there are issues of distorted motivations right now. People are acting with impunity because of their authority and as a result confidence in their word is shaken leaving room for (arguably) scoundrels. If integrity was restored throughout then loving parents would be making the best decisions for their children, which is what they are trying to do now.

Just to make clear to others who aren't sure what we're referring to, Bogbrush once indicated that we could have a better society if the state was mostly eradicated; basically 100% libertarian (except people would own land when they were born, but forget that for now). 
My questions now are based on the hypothetical that this society exists; and looking at problems within that society. 

bogbrush wrote:I'm old enough to remember bread being good, then bad, then good again

There are of course different levels of certainty in medicine. There is some disagreement over an ideal diet, but the good vaccines have done in reducing levels of certain diseases in the population is undeniable. 

Your points don't address these issues:
1/ I don't see how your stateless country would have the infrastructure to implement a standardised vaccination scheme. Vaccinations effectiveness increases disproportionately if there's 'herd immunity'. People may be getting vaccines for different diseases, which would mean less chance of this, less effective. 
2/ There are many reasons people don't get their children vaccinated. One of the most powerful reasons is anecdotal cases influencing people. Donald Trump is probably of average IQ in the US, if not slightly below. He stood on debate stage and told a story about how a friend's child got autism after the vaccine. People listened and many would believe him. He can't be sued for an anecdote, and I'm sure it's his genuine belief. 
3/ People also may not be able to afford vaccines. Developing vaccines are expensive because of a high rate of failure, which means the price of vaccines can never match the unit cost of making it, but has to cover the cost of failures. Even if people can afford the vaccines, a combination of a price tag and some doubt may mean parents don't take the hit.

Q's/ Do you agree that if your vision of society was implemented (no centralized authority pushing for vaccination, making it free), there would be an increase in number of unvaccinated children? If so, with a higher prevalence of the disease, do you agree that the lack of herd immunity means other children who are not yet vaccinated (below the age of being fully vaccinated) or adults are now at greater risk due to the decision taken by the parents who don't vaccinate? 
Do be honest and reasonable when answering the above questions, it would be easy for you to just say point blank no to all of them and move on, but it wouldn't be constructive.

Actually, if you do some research, you'll find he is way above average,  You don't keep winning like he does with an average IQ.  He beat the Republicans, the left wing media, and the Dems to win the presidency.  He is a billionaire with land and businesses here there and everywhere.  He is also a successful TV personality. That isn't easy to do.

Just because his politics disagrees with yours does not make him average or stupid. In fact, any right minded person wants border control, controlled immigration, less Islam, and less socialism.

Daniel wrote:Actually, if you do some research, you'll find he is way above average, 

I put in the IQ bit to trigger you on purpose, sorry.
If not anything your point backs me up more, as if someone with higher IQ than average can say genuinely believe vaccines and autism have a link based on an anecdotal case, it strengthens the argument to say MMR vaccines should be pushed more heavily.

It's just I keep seeing the claim that he's stupid everywhere.  I'd love to be as stupid as he is if that's what it gets you haha.

I

DECIMA wrote: 
1/ I don't see how your stateless country would have the infrastructure to implement a standardised vaccination scheme. Vaccinations effectiveness increases disproportionately if there's 'herd immunity'. People may be getting vaccines for different diseases, which would mean less chance of this, less effective. 
2/ There are many reasons people don't get their children vaccinated. One of the most powerful reasons is anecdotal cases influencing people. Donald Trump is probably of average IQ in the US, if not slightly below. He stood on debate stage and told a story about how a friend's child got autism after the vaccine. People listened and many would believe him. He can't be sued for an anecdote, and I'm sure it's his genuine belief. 
3/ People also may not be able to afford vaccines. Developing vaccines are expensive because of a high rate of failure, which means the price of vaccines can never match the unit cost of making it, but has to cover the cost of failures. Even if people can afford the vaccines, a combination of a price tag and some doubt may mean parents don't take the hit.

Q's/ Do you agree that if your vision of society was implemented (no centralized authority pushing for vaccination, making it free), there would be an increase in number of unvaccinated children? If so, with a higher prevalence of the disease, do you agree that the lack of herd immunity means other children who are not yet vaccinated (below the age of being fully vaccinated) or adults are now at greater risk due to the decision taken by the parents who don't vaccinate? 
Do be honest and reasonable when answering the above questions, it would be easy for you to just say point blank no to all of them and move on, but it wouldn't be constructive.

1/ Sure there would, if people want them someone will provide them.
2/ I think people are ready to believe it’s all wrong because they don’t trust the people saying they are right. See above.
3/In selecting the vaccine to buy you’d look for references, anyone trying to sell it would need to provide quality references and you’d be a fool to buy it without one. That’s how cars are sold and people buy them.

There’s no centralised authority making vaccines free. They’re all costing you a fortune, unless you think the big corporations are donating them.

In the end I don’t believe in compulsion. Even if it inhibits herd immunity I see no argument for men with guns to force you to take vaccines, no way. The issue is why perfectly loving parents make this decision. I suggest it’s mostly caused by a breakdown in trust with so-called authorities because of their abuse of power. These parents are trying to protect their children and we don’t fix that by sending in government workers to drag them off with force.

Edit: I’m less that everyone owns land than nobody does, which is kind of the same but much less complicated, and it doesn’t stop all the same trading and home ownership we have now.

A few points you didn't answer. This will be my last post on this topic and I'll move on, those reading can judge if you've answered my points this time.

1/ You didn't address my point about anecdotal evidence like trump aired to millions, ideas like that bring down vaccine uptake.

2/ Do you feel uptake of vaccines would be higher if they were free at the point of use? Yes or no?

Let me answer this one:
In current society, the poorest pay disproportionately less taxes, so they basically don't pay for the vaccines at all. Poorest may not have been able to afford it if not for funding through tax.
As for those who would be able to afford it, there would still be an increase in uptake if it was free. If you have £5, and some bread costs £5, you may buy it. If I take the £5 and offer the bread for free, higher proportion would buy the bread.
Thus for rich and poor, free at the point of use would lead to a higher uptake.

2/ With lower uptake, what are the consequences?
In your ideal society, herd immunity would be gone, meaning deadly diseases previously nearly totally eradicated from the population would be back. Would also affect children of parents who want to vaccinate, as could be infected before fully vaccinated.

I meant to, I never avoid anything.

1/ The issue isn’t that people gives crap advice, it’s why they’re listened to. Remember this crap you’re referring is happening now, not in a libertarian environment. You can’t pin blame on my ideal for stuff that’s happening under the State.

2/ In the end I can’t say. But I make personal choice paramount. It trumps all. I don’t care if it disrupts herd immunity there can be no excuse in my mind for guys with guns coming round to drag families apart and injecting them. And I’m not exaggerating, that’s what it is.

Hell, they’ve been prescribing opiates to people with injuries and fucking up thousands of people’s lives. They are drugging children because they are boisterous under the guise of bullshit psychology. And they do it all under cover of their certainty and rightness.

You know what, these people are monsters and if I’m asked to take sides between a parent trying to wade through misinformation to protect their kids and some wanker who wants to rule everyone’s lives and take no accountability I go with the parent every day and twice on Sunday.

I remember an old conversation with BB, even before v2 I think where we argued about making drugs accessible for all (except for kids of course though if I remember).

I was against it, he was in favour and that kind of fit with his stateless society.

In theory I can understand why we would not need people ruling over us but "we" are not nearly mature enough to permit a society with no state and free access to drugs.

Ok people can read carefully and judge who had the stronger argument there.

Question Set 2:

You said last month you had changed your mind and now supported nation states.
Would you support compulsory taxation to pay for a national defence to protect against other hostile countries?

Q2 Yeah, problem isn’t it? Nation states are silly really and it would be better if we didn’t have them but give me a choice between supra-National corporatism (like the EU), religious illiberalism (like Islam) or simply being dominated by people with no serious heritage of Common Law (like almost everywhere other than Britain, or England to be specific) and I suppose I take it.

If you go along with that then the whole tax for defence kind of follows.

So I suppose I’m stuck. On the one hand nation states are daft and are one root cause but over such a long period of time during which that’s been the model that I don’t see how we get out of it, except to something even worse. Everything else I can see how to dump but on this one I’m stumped.

I’m quite pessimistic on this front. Maybe one day eh?

Tenez wrote:I remember an old conversation with BB, even before v2 I think where we argued about making drugs accessible for all (except for kids of course though if I remember).

I was against it, he was in favour and that kind of fit with his stateless society.

In theory I can understand why we would not need people ruling over us but "we" are not nearly mature enough to permit a society with no state and free access to drugs.

That’s still my view, and certainly not for kids on the basis they aren’t able to make an informed discussion.

It’s about freedom and responsibility. Freedom to do what you want to yourself but responsibility not to harm anyone else and responsibility to take all the consequences for yourself and not impose them on others. Grown up.

Actually one last thing on the vaccine issue, I forgot a crucial point.
Smallpox is an example of a deadly disease which wouldn’t have been eradicated if not for compulsory vaccinations. Under your stateless model... vaccines would be neither compulsory nor free (poor people can test afford it + some may not trust pharma), even around 10% of people not taking the vaccine means no herd immunity, which keeps the disease alive, smallpox would still be present in 2017.
This in turn would put everyone at risk again, for example children who aren’t old enough for vaccines could then die even if their parents wanted to vaccinate them asap.

bogbrush wrote:
If you go along with that then the whole tax for defence kind of follows.

It’s your most up to date model so I’ll question based on this.

A hostile country attacks the UK. They do this by specifically targeting the most impoverished part of the country, and in those places releasing a chemical from a drone. These chemicals are carcinogenic, and cause millions to have a treatable form of cancer.
The poor people can’t afford treatment, do you believe the UK state should use the defence money you spoke off to treat the cancers and stop this hostile country from claiming millions of lives of your citizens?

DECIMA wrote:Actually one last thing on the vaccine issue, I forgot a crucial point.
Smallpox is an example of a deadly disease which wouldn’t have been eradicated if not for compulsory vaccinations. Under your stateless model... vaccines would be neither compulsory nor free (poor people can test afford it + some may not trust pharma), even around 10% of people not taking the vaccine means no herd immunity, which keeps the disease alive, smallpox would still be present in 2017.
This in turn would put everyone at risk again, for example children who aren’t old enough for vaccines could then die even if their parents wanted to vaccinate them asap.

Bottom line, you can’t compel. That’s absolute for me. I think smallpox is a far lesser blight than a dictatorial government forcing you to take injections.

DECIMA wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
If you go along with that then the whole tax for defence kind of follows.

It’s your most up to date model so I’ll question based on this.

A hostile country attacks the UK. They do this by specifically targeting the most impoverished part of the country, and in those places releasing a chemical from a drone. These chemicals are carcinogenic, and cause millions to have a treatable form of cancer.
The poor people can’t afford treatment, do you believe the UK state should use the defence money you spoke off to treat the cancers and stop this hostile country from claiming millions of lives of your citizens?

How do you stop this hostile country attacking you if you’ve just used all your resources handing their latest attack?

bogbrush wrote:

DECIMA wrote:Actually one last thing on the vaccine issue, I forgot a crucial point.
Smallpox is an example of a deadly disease which wouldn’t have been eradicated if not for compulsory vaccinations. Under your stateless model... vaccines would be neither compulsory nor free (poor people can test afford it + some may not trust pharma), even around 10% of people not taking the vaccine means no herd immunity, which keeps the disease alive, smallpox would still be present in 2017.
This in turn would put everyone at risk again, for example children who aren’t old enough for vaccines could then die even if their parents wanted to vaccinate them asap.

Bottom line, you can’t compel. That’s absolute for me. I think smallpox is a far lesser blight than a dictatorial government forcing you to take injections.

Alright, good place to end this specific discussion on vaccines.
In order to be fair, people should consider your sincerely held principles, but also the practical implications in terms of outcome of the quoted discussion above.

bogbrush wrote:

DECIMA wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
If you go along with that then the whole tax for defence kind of follows.

It’s your most up to date model so I’ll question based on this.

A hostile country attacks the UK. They do this by specifically targeting the most impoverished part of the country, and in those places releasing a chemical from a drone. These chemicals are carcinogenic, and cause millions to have a treatable form of cancer.
The poor people can’t afford treatment, do you believe the UK state should use the defence money you spoke off to treat the cancers and stop this hostile country from claiming millions of lives of your citizens?

How do you stop this hostile country attacking you if you’ve just used all your resources handing their latest attack?

Let's say the defence spending, which you advocated, had already been in the process of building defence system to stop all drones and nukes entering the country, but the hostile country had attacked just a day before its completion.
The military has withdrawn from all foreign conflict (as would fit with your model I presume), and bulk buys the treatment so it can get discount, thus defence spending can afford to save these million lives from this attack from a foreign country. Would you use the money to neutralise the attack and guarantee no casualties?

No, you contradict. One moment you say I agreed with the defence the next I advocate desisting from conflict. Which is it?

You told me there was a defence force. Why does it pack up in the face of lethal aggression? In your example the game appears to be quite up unless there’s urgent defensive action taken.

I’m not sure what the purpose of the hypothetical is, it’s not realistic,

bogbrush wrote:No, you contradict. One moment you say I agreed with the defence the next I advocate dismissing from conflict. Which is it?

Sorry that could have been clearer, I meant you wouldn't want troops in places UK had sent troops recently, i.e. middle east wars this century. (if not, then just ignore that point, it's not particularly relevant either way)

bogbrush wrote:
You told me there was a defence force. Why does it pack up in the face of lethal aggression? In your example the game appears to be quite up unless there’s urgent defensive action taken.

Let's just call this 'Country X' rather than any specific country to avoid confusion (like I accidentally created above).
Yes, there's a defence force in country X, but before it could build a full proof defence system, a powerful foreign country attacked with chemicals.

Now, answer the question if you may. Would you spend the defence money to guarantee the saving of these million lives?

I’d do what I could to relieve it but top priority would be preventing more attacks; pretty obvious really, if an enemy is ready to do this then they will clearly do more and it makes no sense to just patch yourself up and await the next one. Not really sure where this one is getting us but I'll answer any question as best as I can.