Jump to content

pogi

Contributor
  • Posts

    11,067
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pogi

  1. I think you are reading far beyond what I said in my post, Juliann. "Forget the content"? I am trying to give voice to the author of the study who is being drowned out be these so called "idiots". What is wrong with that? How is that "ad hominem" exactly? You are the one who called them "idiots", not me. I am not the one attacking them...you are the one doing that with personal attacks - "idiots". I am so confused how you can say that while accusing me of "ad hominem". I truly don't know what your problem is with my post. Do you think the author doesn't deserve a voice in contextualizing the study and defending it against people who want to twist it and manipulate the words? I am DEFENDING the content, not dismissing it. I love how antivaxers and covid deniers are using an article which actually promotes masks and shutdowns in conjunction with vaccines. That is hilarious! So, I (or my approach) is the reason "we aren't making good headway with covid"? That is out of line and unfair Juliann. You seem to be implying that I am not open to anything that has legitimate promise to treat or protect against Covid. Why, because I didn't buy into the Ivermectin and hydrochloroquin nonsense being promoted by antivaxers? Seriously, you are being too edgy and unfair with me. I have nothing against Mercks new drug to treat Covid, I have nothing against steroids used to treat it, I have nothing against anti-coagulants, I have nothing against monoclonal antibody treatments, I have nothing against anything that is demonstrated to actually work. I applaud all effort to find new treatments and effective prophylactics. The reason we aren't making good headway is because people won't listen to science and the medical field and wear appropriate masks, social distance, or get vaccinated. Instead, lets attack and blame nurses like me who promote such preventive measures as outlined in this study and have personally vaccinated countless thousand of people against Covid.
  2. Yes, that's my point. Just giving context from the author in response to how it is being used online.
  3. This study is going viral among anti-vexers. Here is the proper perspective of the author:
  4. I'm glad to hear your brother is doing well. Be cautious with aspirin though. Long-term aspirin use is not without its own very serious risks. I personally think it is probably a good idea to use with active infection, as it is very short term, or if you have a personal history of stroke or heart attack, otherwise it is important to be aware of the potential risks. Coincidentally, this was just published the other day and addresses how recommendations for low-dose aspirin use to prevent blood clots are changing in light of new evidence and studies - a few snippets from the article:
  5. Sorry to hear that. Was he vaccinated after the first infection?
  6. Just as Pinker argues that Hume is standing on narrow grounds of reason, I could just as easily argue that Pinkers grounds are narrow. His own morality which you claim is based on reason is really just based on "irationally, whimsically, mulishly, for no-good reason" assumption. I know he is saying that tongue in cheek, but it honestly is without reason that his foundation is objectively sustainable. What does this even mean? He claims that "I, me, mine have no logical heft", yet he sets up self interest as one of the very core principles of morality. Where is the reason there? Seems like he is all tangled in reason. How can you trust his reason after such a blunder? If it has no logical heft, why should we appeal to it and include in the holy secular trinity of self-interest, sociality, and impartiality that makes the core of morality? Sociality? What does he mean by this? Isn't sociality entirely molded by culture and changes with time? What is objective about it? Does morality change with it? What if two different cultures have very differing views of sociality? Even within a culture, each individual is different in terms of social needs and preferences. Impartiality? What a myth! If morality cannot be achieved without objective impartiality, then morality is a myth too. Humanism itself is grounded in partiality towards its own philosophical assumptions. You can't escape it. It views itself as superior. How is impartiality even possible with such a view? It falls victim to the same circular logic that fundamental Christians find themselves in wherein they claim that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. The same circular logic can be found here wherein humanists claim that their logic is the only true logic because their logic says it is. The fact is that there is no such thing as objective morality. Sorry. Whatever morality exists, be it from God or reason, is subject to our interpretation and personal perspectives based on cultural narratives, personal perspectives, and philosophical beliefs which we cannot escape. I have no reason to accept humanism as the one true morality. I don't see objective reason for it. Why is humanism so human centric (anthropocentric)? Why does humanistic morality only deal with human-well being? How is its very foundation not based in that philosophical assumption that humans are more deserving of well-being than all other creatures? How is that an objective fact? How many humanists own pets I wonder. Aren't we just animals too? If human slavery is immoral, why not animal slavery? If morality is objective in the universe, then it should apply to all animals alike, right? If it is immoral to kill and eat other humans, than surely it is immoral to kill and eat other animals too, right? I mean, anthropocentrism kind of makes sense in a religious creationist narrative, but if our morality is going to be based on pure objective reason, I don't see any reason for it? The foundation is not objective at all and without good reason. How can we say that foundation is objective in any way? It is based on made up assumptions from an anthropocentric partiality. Impartiality, you say is needed for morality. Then morality doesn't exist.
  7. If morality is determined by humanistic rationality, what determines if humanistic rationality is good or evil, or even reliable?
  8. Absolutely. Taking such a valuable item to a pawn shop is a sign of desperation, for that reason. A pawn shop is no place for a rare Book of Mormon. It shows that the seller doesn't truly value the book or just really needed quick money - and a lot of it. For just a little more effort, he could have easily sold it for the appraised value - I am sure the increased effort would have been well worth the extra $16K
  9. The dude musts have been desperate to pawn a $40,000 book for $24,000
  10. So the Judeo-Christian belief that a people is chosen by God is not "evil" after all? Because that is what you said. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that humanist ethics are just de facto Christian ethics - it being the original/originator and all? That is what I have been trying to say all along, but you kept insisting that I was wrong, that humanist ethics are indeed different and in fact superior to Christian ethics (but humanists don't place themselves above others, right? That's a "lie" right?). They have chosen themselves as superior ethical beings because they are superior beings of reason. They faculties of reason are objectively better. I see, so anyone who disagrees with your philosophy or morality is simply an unreasonable person. But humanists don't place themselves above others. What question am I dodging, by the way? So, there is only one objective morality that is "right"? Hmmm.... Can't I use the same argument for the question you asked me? "Just because two people don't agree doesn't mean one isn't right?" All the arguments that you are using to uphold reason as the more reliable foundation of morality, can be used in religion too. I don't see a difference. You say that religion is unreliable because no one agrees. The same is true for philosophy - which is all humanism is based on. It is not just Osama bin Laden, it is anyone who believes in the Bible or believes that they are chosen by God. You are superior to them, correct? You are self-chosen to be the arbiter of morality based on your own faculties of reason, which are fallible. And anyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable, because there can only be one right. Which is obviously you. Any reasonable person could see that.
  11. Nope, that is a form of animal slavery. Curse you and your morals.
  12. The problem is that you have clearly set up all Judeo-Christian religion as the enemy of humanists with their "evil" beliefs that they are chosen. I mean, who can argue that the Bible is not evil after all the passages you have shared, right? Either you are doing a terrible job of representing their values and beliefs, or the manifesto is just a bunch of empty words. I love how you deconstruct God as being an unreliable source of morality because no one can agree with each other. You then continue to uphold "reason" as the foundation of humanism. You say, "because of reason they know they are right". All we have to do is "reason" together as humans and we will all agree with what is moral and will all get along right? Reason is the foundation for philosophy. Do you see much agreement there? How can you claim to "know" that you are right based on "reason" and assumptions? Philosophy can't even agree on what it means to know anything, let alone being a reliable and stable foundation for one superior version of morality that all will agree with because it is reasonable. You claim that humanism doesn't place themselves above those who disagree with them. That is manifestly untrue. Believing that your morality is right while others is wrong is a form of placing yourself above them. Promoting your morals above another's is doing the same. Shaming religion is the same. It is just another form of ethnocentrism. It is the, "we are tolerant - so long as you agree with our version of morality, otherwise, we are better than you and your morals should be extinguished from humanity" whitewash.
  13. The article is clearly being used to uphold vaccination as a good model for living with endemic Covid. I can respect this approach so much more than other approaches which rely on dangerous downplay of the virus and vaccines and rely largely on conspiracy theories in an effort to bolster up agency. That approach is reckless and dangerous. I think the agency argument is appealing, especially as a Latter-day Saints, but I think there is a counter argument to be made, even from a Latter-day Saint perspective. We do not believe in unbridled liberty - anarchy. While we believe in agency, we don't believe that agency is without consequence. If it harms others - even unintentionally - we believe that it should be regulated with consequences by law. There are boundaries to agency/liberty.
  14. Is it a lie? It sounds like a great accepting and tolerant manifesto, unless you believe in God (if I understand you correctly - an unreliable source of evil), or if you believe "the evil Judeo-Christian teaching about chosen people and promised lands" - it being the "root cause" of so much evil in the world today. I truly want to understand how you think they are not the self-proclaimed chosen ones. Why do they get to be the arbiters of morality? Why do they get to judge those who believe they are chosen by God to be lower then themselves? You never answered my question. Honestly, why does humanism get to dictate morality? Aren't they self-chosen to do so? Either humanism is intolerant of different views, or you are just doing a really bad job at representing their views. You are clearly intolerant of religion.
  15. In humanism, they don't need a God to proclaim them as chosen. They simply forgo God and choose themselves above all others. They are the self-proclaimed chosen ones - placing themselves above those who disagree with them or don't subscribe to their views. They believe that their chosen status makes them the worthy inhabitants of this land, nay, all lands, with the self-righteous goal of abolishing all religious people and people who view things differently. It is just another form of religion and ethnocentrism with the goal of whitewashing all other beliefs from the earth. It's quite simple explanation. We are a mortal and fallen people capable of great atrocities in the name of God. If God is the elephant, we are the blind-men arguing and fighting about what an elephant even is. Some Christians lean on the extreme pacifist side (even more so than humanists do) while others lean to the war-hawk side of things. While no one can agree with each other, because their perceptions of the elephant are subjective, the fact remains that the elephant exists and is palpable and uniquely experienced by each hand, based on previous perceptions and world-views. While God may be the source of all good and all morality, our interpretations of it are entirely subjective and relative to our lived-experience. We make mistakes. Some may argue that we should do away with religion because of their mistakes, fallible, and even unreliable perceptions, but to throw out the good elephant which formed the basis and foundation of humanism, simply because humans can't agree what it is would be an incalculable mistake. The elephant is the reason that good on earth even exists. Removing religion from the earth won't remove the rationalization of evil. It will compound it. Greed, pride, power, and ethnocentrism will always exist within or without religion. What if I disagree with those morals and believe that the fittest are deserving of the land and its spoils? Who is to say I am wrong? Biology and evolution certainly won't disagree. We are animals, lets start acting like them - lawless.
  16. You can largely thank Christianity for ending an institution that has existed from the beginning of time. The Bible is not so clear cut. As you know, it can be interpreted many different ways. The Bible was used to both justify and end slavery. The abolitionist movement was indeed inspired by "Christian principles". While slavery existed within Christian culture and the Bible has been used to justify it, Christian Bible based principles was responsible for changing a culture and institution that has existed from the beginning of time. Humanists want to deny credit to Christianity for ending slavery and take credit themselves for being more righteous? They are standing on the shoulders of Christian abolitionists. Many Christian sects have no problem with homosexuality. I am a Christian and believe that homosexuals should be allowed to form romantic relationships just like straight people. I would suggest that most Christians probably feel the same way. To suggest that homosexual relationships are morally good or evil cannot be based in scientific objectivity, however. To suggest that humanist morality on this matter is better or more righteous, is really just a claim based on a core assumption. Nothing scientific/objective about it at its core. It is a fairly religious sort of belief. While Christianity evolved out of this, these certainly are not Christian values. Christ clearly put an end to it. Once again, humanism is born of Christian values which are progressive and evolved over thousands of years and humanism is simply plucking of the modern fruit.
  17. Can you share specific morals in humanism that do not exist in Christianity? Which ones are "different" or even "better"? You are making me a "hypocrite" based on assumptions you are making about me. Where have I denied any relationship between Christianity and its heritage? I happily credit other religions, especially Judaism, as the foundation for Christian ethics. We fully acknowledge Judaism as our mother. All good morals come from God, one way or another though. In Mormonism, we happily pluck the good fruit from other sources. We are not quite as arrogant as humanism is in refusing credit to other sources though, especially our mother. I think this must be from a discussion with someone else. I never said that science has precious little to say on aspects of morality. But ultimately, all science based morality is based on core assumptions of what is "good". Science can't tell you what is "good". There is no objective good for science to observe or decipher. All science can do is say "if ____ is good, then the most efficient way to create good is to _____."
  18. According to the lesson I linked to above, they do. And this: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-b/priesthood-and-church-government/lesson-2-the-keys-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng Apparently, mission presidents hold the keys for district presidents, but branch presidents hold their own keys. That's one theory, I guess. Any reference? Would it need to happen that way though? If all the keys exist on the earth, I don't see the need for Peter, James, and John to restore the keys again.
  19. Exactly! I would in no way recommend that people start taking this as a preventative measure for Covid (even at the low dose) without further study. This is just one small study in Israel with meager results as a prophylactic. As we can see with Ivermectin, one small study with meager results is not enough to justify its use. Many other studies showed no benefit whatsoever with Ivermectin. We have to look at the comprehensive picture and one small study is not enough. It needs to be replicated in larger studies, preferably in the states. I hope people don't run with it quite yet. For prevention of blood clots with active Covid though, I personally would probably take it if I tested positive. Everyone should talk to their own PCP though. It would only need to be taken short-term (max - 2 weeks) and there is more than enough data to know that it can reduce clotting risk.
  20. This is what I was thinking about: Maybe I am wrong about the keys. It does make one wonder what would happen in the event of a tragic bombing of conference where all apostles and first presidency are killed. How would all the keys be conferred to a new President? What are all the offices which hold keys? I can think of: Mission presidents Stake presidents Branch presidents Temple presidents Bishops Melchizedek Priesthood quorum presidents Any other? Do patriarchs hold keys, or are their keys held by the stake president? Would each one of these offices who hold keys have to get together to give their keys to a new president? How would they decide who it would be? As a side note, in reading the following lesson, there seems to be a contradiction. Which statement is true? or: I am assuming the first is true, so why do we so often hear the second taught? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-b/priesthood-and-church-government/lesson-2-the-keys-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng
  21. The benefits of Aspirin are unsurprising considering that micro-clotting is one big culprit of ARDS with Covid. Hospitals have long been using blood-thinners to treat Covid. The good news is that this study showed these significant benefits with only a low-dose (81mg) aspirin regimen. Hopefully more research can duplicate these findings, but with the affordability, safety, and over-the-counter availability of Aspirin, this is promising. I found this part very surprising:
  22. So, you think they don't really care about the health and well-being of the members? Or, perhaps they don't really believe that masks work? All those donations of masks to developing nations were just about appearances?
  23. I never said that reason and logic are not okay.
  24. Yes, it's every mothers dream to have their kid deny them any credit whatsoever for being the source of the fountain of good that flows from their kid. It makes them feel so valued and appreciated when their barely infant child arrogantly takes all the credit for the thousands of years of development and experience of their mother that brought forth the fruits for their child to pluck without labor. They simply pick the apple from the tree and deny credit to their mother who labored diligently in planting, nourishing, watering, pruning, tilling, and grafting the tree for the desired fruit. The child says: "My reason and logic confirms to me this is the most nourishing, delicious, and valuable fruit in the entire field, and because my logic tells me this and because I plucked it from my mother's tree, I deserve all the credit, and I disown my mother and relinquish her to scorn and shame and wish that she were dead and gone!" Every mother's dream!
  25. Hmm... Yet, this: I'm puzzled. Humanism was born out of the evolution of Christianity. Will the child deny the mother that created it? Sure, religion has a lot of baggage. It evolved into what made humanism humanism though.
×
×
  • Create New...