Post Covid 19 beliefs

[ProfessorDavey]

I suppose though that if you believe in reincarnation as Sriram does that it isn't the end but is more like losing a life in a video game.

Even if that is the case (and of course there is no evidence for reincarnation) I think you'd still think someone who deliberately forces you to lose a life to have done something wrong. And in what respect could that reincarnated individual have learnt a lesson themselves - to do so would require us all to have complete knowledge of, and be able to learn from, our previous lives. If that were true there would be evidence of reincarnation as we'd all be clear about those previous lives in the same way as we are about what happened yesterday.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes....you're right, that's where I am coming from. Each life time is like a class where we learn certain lessons and move on to a higher level in the next birth.

But what lesson could a complete innocent person learn from the ill fortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting crushed to death in a football stadium.

I can see how others who had actual responsibility for safety etc may learn a lesson (but none of them died), but I'm completely in the dark as to what lesson 14-year old Philip Hammond could have learned from having his life so cruelly and tragically cut short in April 1989.

[ProfessorDavey]

But even if people don't accept reincarnation, the idea of an after-life is imperative once we talk of a God and of spiritual development.  Death cannot be the end when we talk of spiritual ideas.

Just because you might like something to be true or even need it to be so to fit with your philosophical beliefs, doesn't mean it is so. You can wish and wish and wish as hard as you like for there to be an after-life, but that means not a jot in terms of whether there is or it isn't.

[Nearly Sane]

But what lesson could a complete innocent person learn from the ill fortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting crushed to death in a football stadium.

I can see how others who had actual responsibility for safety etc may learn a lesson (but none of them died), but I'm completely in the dark as to what lesson 14-year old Philip Hammond could have learned from having his life so cruelly and tragically cut short in April 1989.

But then your inability to see that just allows the mysterious ways defence. Don't get me wrong I don't think reincarnation is credible, but at least intellectually it copes with some of the issues of the problem of suffering more easily than the single life option common in the Abrahamic religions.

[ekim]

I think there are a variety of views on the Karmic idea.  One of them is that when you die your 'spirit'  will be coloured by its attachments formed from its living experiences.  When reincarnated those 'colourings' will attract to it learning experiences in the new life to balance the former life.  If your experience, for example, was that of a murderer in a former life, you will attract the circumstances to experience what it is like to be a victim in a later life.  Whatever you sow so shall you also reap, but there is no judging God.  With the Abrahamic religions, there is the afterlife of a Heaven or a Hell and a judgement.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think there are a variety of views on the Karmic idea.  One of them is that when you die your 'spirit'  will be coloured by its attachments formed from its living experiences.  When reincarnated those 'colourings' will attract to it learning experiences in the new life to balance the former life.  If your experience, for example, was that of a murderer in a former life, you will attract the circumstances to experience what it is like to be a victim in a later life.  Whatever you sow so shall you also reap, but there is no judging God.  With the Abrahamic religions, there is the afterlife of a Heaven or a Hell and a judgement.

Yes I'm well aware of the notion, but one has to ask what is the appropriate next life a perfectly innocent 14 year old victim of a tragic crushing at a football match that is 'coloured by its attachments formed from its living experiences'.

More uncomfortable - using your example you'd have to imply that Philip Hammond must have done something truly awful in his previous life to justify such a horrible end - was he a murderer? That seems to me to be the grossest of victim blaming of a completely innocent 14 year old to imply his horrible death was just 'reaping what you sow'. That is grotesque in the extreme.

[Roses]

Yes I'm well aware of the notion, but one has to ask what is the appropriate next life a perfectly innocent 14 year old victim of a tragic crushing at a football match that is 'coloured by its attachments formed from its living experiences'.

More uncomfortable - using your example you'd have to imply that Philip Hammond must have done something truly awful in his previous life to justify such a horrible end - was he a murdered? That seems to me to be the grossest of victim blaming of a completely innocent 14 year old to imply his horrible death was just 'reaping what you sow'. That is grotesque in the extreme.

I agree.

[ProfessorDavey]

But then your inability to see that just allows the mysterious ways defence. Don't get me wrong I don't think reincarnation is credible, but at least intellectually it copes with some of the issues of the problem of suffering more easily than the single life option common in the Abrahamic religions.

I don't think there is much difference intellectually between the reincarnation option and the single life with heaven/hell at the end of it in terms of their challenge. While they are a little different, neither deal effectively with the issue of suffering within the context of a purported omnipotent god. As pointed out upthread the notion that a horrible reincarnated life is somehow punishment for immorality in a previous life is grotesque. But then so is the idea that a completely innocent new-born baby is somehow tarnished with the sins of two people long, long ago disobeying god in a garden.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think there is much difference intellectually between the reincarnation option and the single life with heaven/hell at the end of it in terms of their challenge. While they are a little different, neither deal effectively with the issue of suffering within the context of a purported omnipotent god. As pointed out upthread the notion that a horrible reincarnated life is somehow punishment for immorality in a previous life is grotesque. But then so is the idea that a completely innocent new-born baby is somehow tarnished with the sins of two people long, long ago disobeying god in a garden.

I think your emotions are getting in the way here.

[Udayana]

Overwhelmingly, from the information that's available currently, the people dying from/with Covid-19 are people who might normally be expected to die anyway.  I'm not suggesting that there aren't young, otherwise fit people falling to the disease, but the bulk of the victims are the elderly or otherwise frail.  This is not to diminish that Covid has been involved, but when the excess mortality is determined after the fact it's going to be interesting to see exactly how much of an impact this has actually had to that figure - if 90% of the deaths have happened to people who otherwise would have died in the same period, just from something else, how much of an impact can Covid be said to have actually had?

And then someone needs to go in an try to estimate how much worse it would have been if the measures that have been successfully implemented hadn't been, and what the advise will therefore be for the next time...

O.

We know that there have already been about 55,000 "excess deaths" to last week, and "cautiously estimated" to be over 61,000 to today (Chris Giles FT).

You seem to be saying that these deaths don't matter as many of these people would have died later this year or next year,  so don't have an impact? But everyone is going to die at some time - so does it matter if the figure is 100,000 or 200,000?  Or for that matter, if they are old or young? 

What about people that (though they may be in the 70's now) would have gone on to live another 20 years without covid?
 

[Udayana]

I think there are a variety of views on the Karmic idea.  One of them is that when you die your 'spirit'  will be coloured by its attachments formed from its living experiences.  When reincarnated those 'colourings' will attract to it learning experiences in the new life to balance the former life.  If your experience, for example, was that of a murderer in a former life, you will attract the circumstances to experience what it is like to be a victim in a later life.  Whatever you sow so shall you also reap, but there is no judging God.  With the Abrahamic religions, there is the afterlife of a Heaven or a Hell and a judgement.

Both just seem like metaphysical fantasies really. How about we just see what is going on here and now and try and do something about it one way or another?

[ProfessorDavey]

I think your emotions are getting in the way here.

Not at all - you don't need to be being emotional to feel strongly if someone is inferring that the completely innocent 14-year old victim of a horrible tragedy is somehow reaping what they sow, without a shred of evidence that a) reincarnation actually exists; b) that the reincarnated life somehow corrects the previous life and c) that Philip Hammond did something awful in his previous life to deserve to be crushed to death at a football match.

That view is intellectually flawed (as there is no evidence) and morally bankrupt, as it relies on the grossest form of victim blaming - in other words where you have no evidence whatsoever that Philip Hammond has done anything wrong - let alone so worn as to justify the nature of his death.

[Nearly Sane]

Not at all - you don't need to be being emotional to feel strongly if someone is inferring that the completely innocent 14-year old victim of a horrible tragedy is somehow reaping what they sow, without a shred of evidence that a) reincarnation actually exists; b) that the reincarnated life somehow corrects the previous life and c) that Philip Hammond did something awful in his previous life to deserve to be crushed to death at a football match.

That view is intellectually flawed (as there is no evidence) and morally bankrupt, as it relies on the grossest form of victim blaming - in other words where you have no evidence whatsoever that Philip Hammond has done anything wrong - let alone so worn as to justify the nature of his death.

And here we see the emotion inherent in the system. You are struggling to move from an idea that it's about victims (an emotional term) as opposed to a restriction in how the system works.

[ProfessorDavey]

And here we see the emotion inherent in the system. You are struggling to move from an idea that it's about victims (an emotional term) as opposed to a restriction in how the system works.

NS - I'm afraid it is you who is letting your emotions cloud your rational judgement as you claim that victim is somehow an emotional term - it isn't (unless you yourself want to make it one, in which case you have stayed into territory where your emotions are getting the better of you).

The typical dictionary definition of victim is as follows:

'a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action'

That is a statement of fact, there is no emotion about it. Stating that Philip Hammond was a victim is a statement of fact - what other term would you use to describe someone killed as the result of an accident (or a crime depending on where you see the culpability at Hillsborough) other than the word that is defined as someone killed as a result of an accident or crime.

[Nearly Sane]

NS - I'm afraid it is you who is letting your emotions cloud your rational judgement as you claim that victim is somehow an emotional term - it isn't.

The typical dictionary definition of victim is as follows:

'a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action'

That is a statement of fact, there is no emotion about it. Stating that Philip Hammond was a victim is a statement of fact - what other term would you use to describe someone killed as the result of an accident (or a crime depending on where you see the culpability at Hillsborough) other than the word that is defined as someone killed as a result of an accident or crime.

Dearie me,the idea of a victim to blame is so emotional. You aren't getting the idea of this being the only way but are inventing some 'perfect' for you idea. Which is the ultimate in emotion. You override what must be with a false idea of a utopia. It's very religious.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dearie me,the idea of a victim to blame is so emotional. You aren't getting the idea of this being the only way but are inventing some 'perfect' for you idea. Which is the ultimate in emotion. You override what must be with a false idea of a utopia. It's very religious.

You are doing it again - both victim and blaming are perfectly rational, not emotional terms

Victim: 'a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action'
Blame: 'assign the responsibility for a bad or unfortunate situation or phenomenon to (someone or something)'

Victim blaming is a situation where someone assigns the responsibility for a bad or unfortunate situation to a person who is harmed, injured or killed as a result of that situation. Where is the emotion in that - it is merely a statement of fact where someone suggests the responsibility for an accident (for example) lies with a person who is also a victim of that accident.

[Nearly Sane]

You are doing it again - both victim and blaming are perfectly rational, not emotional terms

Victim: 'a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action'
Blame: 'assign the responsibility for a bad or unfortunate situation or phenomenon to (someone or something)'

Victim blaming is a situation where someone assigns the responsibility for a bad or unfortunate situation to a person who is harmed, injured or killed as a result of that situation. Where is the emotion in that - it is merely a statement of fact where someone suggests the responsibility for an accident (for example) lies with a person who is also a victim of that accident.

Blaming is precisely not an emotion free term. And seeing someone as a victim is not a factual judgement. Who are the victims in the Israel/Palestine dispute. You drip with emotion, and ignore intellect.

[ProfessorDavey]

Blaming is precisely not an emotion free term. And seeing someone as a victim is not a factual judgement.

Only if you see things through your emotion-tinted specs, as you seem to do NS. Take away that emotion and you use the terms correctly and appropriately, which is what I was doing.

Who are the victims in the Israel/Palestine dispute.

All the people who have been harmed, injured or killed as a result of that conflict, which is obvious unless you feel the need to apply an emotion-tinged right vs wrong, good vs bad judgement-clouding layer to your thinking. Serious question NS - who else would you consider to be the victims of the Israel/Palestine dispute other than everyone harmed, injured or killed as a result of that conflict.

[Nearly Sane]

Only if you see things through your emotion-tinted specs, as you seem to do NS. Take away that emotion and you use the terms correctly and appropriately, which is what I was doing.
All the people who have been harmed, injured or killed as a result of that conflict, which is obvious unless you feel the need to apply an emotion-tinged right vs wrong, good vs bad judgement-clouding layer to your thinking. Serious question NS - who else would you consider to be the victims of the Israel/Palestine dispute other than everyone harmed, injured or killed as a result of that conflict.

How do you make a judgement without emotion?

[Owlswing]

That is like a school child cribbing that the Principal is a tyrant.  The child is not seeing the big picture in terms of his own future development.

With this nasty disease a lot of children are likely not to have any future development!

NO it not

like a school child cribbing that the Principal is a tyrant.

because the tyrant teacher does not impose his tyranny on the whole world!

[Owlswing]

Overwhelmingly, from the information that's available currently, the people dying from/with Covid-19 are people who might normally be expected to die anyway.  I'm not suggesting that there aren't young, otherwise fit people falling to the disease, but the bulk of the victims are the elderly or otherwise frail.  This is not to diminish that Covid has been involved, but when the excess mortality is determined after the fact it's going to be interesting to see exactly how much of an impact this has actually had to that figure - if 90% of the deaths have happened to people who otherwise would have died in the same period, just from something else, how much of an impact can Covid be said to have actually had?

And then someone needs to go in an try to estimate how much worse it would have been if the measures that have been successfully implemented hadn't been, and what the advise will therefore be for the next time...

O.

Oh well, if you are right, that is me fucked well and truly! 73 asthmatic and diabetic! All I need for the full set is Covid 19 - you have truly made my day Outrider!

[ProfessorDavey]

How do you make a judgement without emotion?

By using evidence and a rational decision making approach.

By definition judgement shouldn't be based on emotion.

All I can say is I hope you never considered becoming a magistrate - as I'd be a bit worried if you were making judgements based on emotion.

[Nearly Sane]

By using evidence and a rational decision making approach.

By definition judgement shouldn't be based on emotion.

All I can say is I hope you never considered becoming a magistrate - as I'd be a bit worried if you were making judgements based on emotion.

You can't get an ought from an is. All i can say is i hope you  aren't a magistrate, if you have no idea of how you make judgements.

[Owlswing]

 You can't get an ought from an is. All i can say is i hope you  aren't a magistrate, if you have no idea of how you make judgements.

On facts presented - or statements presented as facts? On oath, of course.

[ProfessorDavey]

On facts presented - or statements presented as facts? On oath, of course.

Indeed - what you certainly do not do is base your judgements on emotion.