Have we here in Agnostic got ANY right to tell other people what they SHOULD do in any situation? I suspect but do not know that your answers will largely be almost the shortest in history. But how then will we influence people to do what we may WANT others to do? e.g self isolate?
I just want to influence people to stay back 2 meters at all times, I find if you yell very loudly at them 'BACK THE FUCK UP!' that you can influence people in a highly effective manner.
Wish i could do that!
I suppose nobody has an implicit "right" to force you to isolate for the safety of the community. But then I suppose nobody has the right to stop somebody from tazing you and putting you in a cage for our health.
Yes, it is right to legislate, and enforce regulations like the "stay at home" or "social distancing." It's just common sense. If we want to get a handle on the spread of the virus and minimize the ultimate impact, then yes it is necessary.
Viruses need hosts. If you deprive the virus of potential hosts, it will die back giving the population an opportunity to develop a herd immunity. The other choices are; 1) to send everybody out, infect as many possible, allow large numbers to die until hard immunity is achieved, or 2) keep re-circulating the disease as islands of population appear to develop immunity, only to have someone travel into the area and re-introduce it in the population and infect those who it missed the first round.
Like the Black Plague, this is bigger than any one individuals desire not to be told what to do. As much as these selfish persons believe, they do have a redponsibility to the larger community which supercede their own percieved inconvenience.
Ummmm, that would be Public Health experts begging everybody to stay home......and it is the law now in a lot of places. Do not understand your post At All!
Sorry to be misunderstood again, but you do help by saying so. I am wondering what will control morals in the future and what will control diseases in the near future. Morals one would hope will be controlled by the individuals themselves without having to be told [following good self explaining example] and diseases by more infomation provided by science but better explained.
Of course we do have the right... and we have for thousands of years. Since the dawn of civilization when groups banded together for safety and survival. Individuals were expected to follow rules or laws to ensure the survival of the tribe, klan, or village... and those who refused to support the greater public welfare were banished.
My mother always said "my right to swing my arm ends at your nose." well, your right to go to a party ends at my lungs. Yeah, as a group we have a right to insist on a few things. It's called having a society and even a culture instead of chaos.
g
REASON should come into play to decide whether you should go to a party or not ... FROM BOTH SIDES THAT IS. But experience which backs up ANY points will win the day ... often for MUM.
@Mcflewster reason says covid-19 is spread easily from person to person and isolation is being shown to help flatten the curve of the spread. reason says you shouldn't spread a pandemic because killing people is, in general, wrong. there are no two sides. you kill people or you don't, and your personal freedom has nothing to do with it, no more than someone who rapes babies can claim his personal freedom permits him to do that.
g
this is the internet. we are all (i think) humans just screaming into the void. except that some of it is recorded here, and shared.
Trouble shared means trouble halved?
By example and then answer any questions.
Best and shortest answer IMO.
@Mcflewster Thanks, just getting too old to argue with people who do not have at least a curiosity about anything.
You can't make anybody do anything. There will always be those who will do the exact opposite of what they "should" do out of stubbornness or spite. We're watching it happen on a national level right now. As much as my heart aches for the innocents who will suffer and die in the crossfire, we may see the average IQ of our species rise a few points simply due to natural selection, before this ends.
Thinning the herd, where the more intelligent survive....The rich will mostly survive because they can afford servants to go fetch for them and risk infection, as well as having everything delivered and brought in by servants. Unlike us, they can also get tested anytime they want. Most of them have probably left the US in their yachts and private planes to somewhere safe where they can wait this out in isolation.
If we are telling people what they should do we are setting ourselves up as an authority. Never a good look, even in chinos and a safari jacket!
What we want others to do is irrelevant. Perhaps look after our own backyard before setting up a little dictatorship with a pencil and crayon flag and rousing anthem.
Do we not need some people e.g the services and police to do exactly what we are told and they in turn tell us.
@Mcflewster youre assuming people 1- listen 2- understand 3- decide to do what you think is intelligent.
driving around today, im seeing all sorts of things that shouldnt be happening. these are not isolated incidents, they are part of a larger pattern. i understand why thats something some people are concerned about, and talk about.
@MarkiusMahamius You are right.
@TheMiddleWay If you are in authority it is an imperative and should or shouldn’t is irrelevant other than in an ethical context
@MarkiusMahamius That is why society is built around legislative and executive forces.
When law breaks down society reverts to a herd/jungle mentality.
@Geoffrey51 you think people just accept the law? theres way more to humanity than you think. but you do you. everyone else is exactly the reason these discussions are happening
@MarkiusMahamius No they don’t and quite frequently laws are seen to be outdated along with new laws that are introduced.
Humanity is always looking for an advantage, this is bluntly, ‘survival of the fittest’. The rule of law protects,in principle, the vulnerable from being taken advantage of. The challenge is the executive forces, I.e. police, border forces being able to protect those principles.
In its natural state man is predatory, in its evolved state it is philanthropic. Which way we fall depends upon the ability of society to contain the former and enhance tha latter. Law and order is a part of this process.
No. We have no rights except to own ourselves and do the best we can. Why are you interested in trying to influence people?
Anyone has the right to suggest what they think is proper. I personally don't try to influence anyone to think what I think. I would like people to practice physical distancing because it affects the spread of a virus that threatens my life. As far as my opinions, they're mine, others are entitled to their own. Don't infringe on my rights in the process. I say live and let live.
Some people have said that we should not have opinions any more just provable facts which show the best way forward logically. I am not ready to take sides on that one.
@Mcflewster you just did
@barjoe Exactly where? (please). I can repeat points from both sides of an argument without taking sides? "I am not ready to take sides on that one" means that not enough people have verifed the "people have said that we should not have opinions any more just provable facts " line.
@Mcflewster When you make any post, you're expressing an opinion of sorts so you just did again
@barjoe I am willing to accept that
" means that not enough people have verifed the "people have said that we should not have opinions any more just provable facts " line"
IS an opinion but still valuable I hope. Was that the one that you picked out? Just asking.
Only if they’re our children or loved ones. Randoms on the internet probably not.
How will we influence them? By directing them to factual information from experts in their field.
Is there anyone more appropriate to refer people to?
I do so agree with Sam Harris."He then argues that, problems with philosophy of science and reason in general notwithstanding, 'moral questions' will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish".
Tell them no but give logical advice yes
if the circumstances deserve?
@Mcflewster yup
I only try to influence others by bombardment of information, and trying my best to choose the best information. Don't really think being agnostic or not has anything to do with it.
We have as much right to do so as Theist's have always done and I'm sure will continue to do so.
I too am for equality leaving out the definite mistakes like encouraging people to accept miracles?
Self isolation is a choice. I was practicing it way before the virus threat came roaring onto the scene. I agree with KKGator in that the best we can do is hope to influence others. We do not always get what we want.
Do you not think scientifically produced information [Which can still be wrong e.g wearing masks is controversial] helps NOT to make it a choice. Well I know some people hate science anyway.
Not sure I really understand your post.
However, one thing I do know is that we can only control our own actions.
We are fairly incapable of controlling the actions of others.
Case in point, laws meant to control us are broken all the time.
Influence is another matter entirely. Some people are more susceptible to
influencing than others.
If I haven't answered your question, please rephrase.
To be clear, as some below have attempted::: there is no RIGHT to anything on AG. It is a privately owned interface. The owners, and some moderators, can ban you from posting here if they think you have violated AG's terms of service.
I have had posts deleted mostly because my words hurt some SJW's feelings. But mostly it is other members who are most stupid about FEELING offended, usually on the part of someone who doesn't care.
So, have at it. Write what you want. Tell us how we should behave. And do not FEEL offended when one of the miscreants spew vile crap in your general direction.
As we say in gut disorders "Better out than in"