Carl-Richard

Is the vaccine a natural phenomena? Please.

Oh so you're saying you're above survival? Why do you eat in the morning? Yes, please run for president with that slogan. Very appealing! Then manifest a fucking spaceship and beam our asses off this stupid rock.

On nature's terms, why should humans deserve to live and viruses deserve to die? There is no such promise. That is only the narcissism of the human condition.

Even if you respected nature, COVID-19 would still kill your dumb ass. To think otherwise would be extremely arrogant, entitled and self-centered.

Reality is not anthropocentric and evolution is a rivalrous game. That is nature. Reality doesn't care whether humans exist or viruses exist. It only cares about the integrity of the whole. Lmao. I'm so done.

Death, disease and suffering is completely natural. Nature is not on Team Human. Nature is completely neutral and unbiased. If you let the virus win, then the virus wins.

Just one problem: look at Sadhguru. Maybe it's because you're not actually selfless yet.

Only if we half-ass the vaccinations. He even specifically said it: "imperfect vaccination can enhance the transmission of virulent pathogens".

It's a joke, buddy.

You have to view global pandemics like COVID-19 like a cancer. If it isn't stopped in the early stages, it could eventually doom the entire system. I keep talking about the possibility of it spawning more lethal variants who are just as much if not more contagious, and while I have no idea of the actual probability of such an event, just the mere possibility of it should scare the shit out of you. Even so, such a scenario is only the worst case. There are many other ways that could make everything go to shit.

It's Mount Kailash – a holy mountain That's Sadhguru sitting there btw.

Real dictator: kill as many people as possible. Covid dictator: kill as few people as possible. ?

The process of overcoming the fear of standing up for yourself and overcoming the fear of dogs is the same.

He is also pro-Trump lol

Sounds like it's not much of a choice. Dogs are everywhere.

Meditate in the mountains.

Reminds me of the Ford Pinto scandal in the 1970s. Ford found out that it would be more profitable to design cars with fuel tanks that increased the chances of irreversible damage in an eventual rear-crash by a fiery explosion. This is because the cost of a brand new car was lower than the cost of spare parts and repairman labour. However, this plan would of course increase the amount of lethal car accidents. https://www.hotcars.com/biggest-automotive-scandals/ In this case, business was indeed destroyed over car accidents

It's possible to question authority and science and also perform utility calculations that say we should consider collectively sanctioned measures. If your skepticism comes at the cost of practical and cognitive flexibility (or other handicaps), you should maybe consider calling it dogmatism. Dissection should be done carefully and with the right tools, or you might lose an arm. The main point about questioning authority is to discover the mechanisms of bias and self-deception within not just other minds, but your own mind; that you're in fact helplessly relying on the words of other people to make sense of the world and that you should be sharply aware of the ramifications of that fact. That is not an invitation to abolish all forms of externally contigent sensemaking or instinctively place a minus sign in front of whatever the mainstream narrative is pushing. It's rather about not fooling yourself about the nature of that process. In short, strategic pragmatism is your hammer, epistemic self-awareness is your shield. Does that mean you should swallow whatever they feed you? Not at all. In fact, be more ruthless, just don't be a dork.

Wtf is an egregore?

What about if it hurts other people? If a violent psychopath refuses to undergo a medical procedure that decreases his homicidal tendencies, then he'll just end up in jail anyway. Viruses hurt other people, not just yourself or your unborn baby.

I could probably use that book as a citation for my lethal virus claims and show that you haven't actually read it. The rest are not books on virology. 1. It's a calculation not a simulation. Every utility calculation is limited. 2. "Show me studies" is not an argument. You keep bringing that up as if it isn't completely irrelevant. We're talking about vaccine mandates.

Yet you avoid utility calculations at all costs when it comes to vaccines ?

You're reaching so hard here. A privileged white kid who reads about the downsides of GMO and decides to not eat them can at the same time do the utility calculation that GMO could save millions of unprivileged lives. No contradiction there.

Not eating GMOs doesn't give you and other people respiratory infections.

@BadHippie So here you have someone who has read up on some basic virology. What books have you read exactly since you mention it? (not you Gesundheit).