We Can Work It Out - Politics & Philosophy | Page 96 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

lovelyritametermaid said
I definitely have an internal monologue and also have conversations with myself throughout the day in my own head. Though when I think about it too much, I start to have an existential crisis…

Beatlebug said

Same here, I’ve always remembered things better when I could see them as hazy shadows in my mind. It’s how I remember most everything, from concepts and facts to the arrangements and lyrics of songs.

Turn Left At Greenland said

God , the human mind is fascinating.  

  

I also remember things visually. Like when I remember math equations or stuff for physics or chemistry, I remember it as an image of the formula/concept rather than the actual thing. Like when I memorized the unit circle for pre-calculus I memorized the actual image of the unit circle. Or when I try to recall song lyrics I recall an image of those lyrics written out and then sort of just read it from inside my mind…..

It’s very weird and hard to try to put how my brain works into words and explanations…

  

I know what you mean regarding remembering something as an image. In 8th grade the school district here would give each student an IQ test to assist with high school class placement. Since I had good grades my mom assumed I had a high IQ. When the results came back as normal the counselor told her my good grades were probably due to a “photographic memory”, so I guess that has always been in the back of my mind when considering my psyche.  On the other hand, the person interpreting the IQ test never spoke to me so unless he was a mind reader I’m not sure how reliable his judgment was.

I also have different aromas that stimulate memories (citrus blossoms, mowed grass, oh yeah!). There are also some visual ones, like a kite stuck in a tree always throws me right into a springtime state of mind no matter what time of year.

Ron Nasty said

@Dark Overlord said

When it comes to dealing with the coronavirus, i i think those who prefer their freewill should be able to go on with their lives as usual but those who prefer their safety should have the right to sign a contract in which they are confined to their house with either paid leave or work from home (any employer that fails to comply or attempts to fire their employee to circumvent this can get up to a month in jail per person denied this right) and they’d be given food and supplies via drone and they’d put a black towel on their front door to signal that no guests are allowed.

While it’s definitely a crazy idea, i think it’s much better than doing nothing or taking away everyone’s freewill.

So, you think a short term loss of freedom isn’t worth it for preventing thousands of deaths? This isn’t a few weeks and it’s over. This is this year. What you’re suggesting is that even if you carry the virus but show no symptoms it doesn’t bother you how many people die, even if family members you love, because you’d rather passing on the virus than spending a while with restrictions on your freewill?

I wonder whether you’ll feel the same in a month?

  

What i’m trying to say is that those who want safety should get it, but those who want freewill should get it to. It would mean that the quarantine for those who choose safety might last a little longer but as Beatlebug said, those who would sacrifice freewill for safety deserve neither.

Beatlebug said
That’s a dilemma for us more liberty-minded individuals for sure, and a big concern of mine is that, like many so-called “emergency” measures, such things won’t just go back to their prior state after the emergency is over. People like to hang on to power once they’ve got it, and crises are always an excellent opportunity to put things over that would never normally fly.

At the same time, people have been absolutely ridiculous going out and partying like it’s still 2019, and if the government does nothing to protect people who are doing the best they can, but being put at unnecessary risk by other stupid people, then that does seem like a failing and they’ll have to answer to their constituents.

My centrism is hurting my brain I have to stop

  

While there will certainly be permanent effects to the lockdown (businesses are already shutting down permanently, leaving many out of a job), the lockdown is very expensive so it’s very unlikely that the government will continue the lockdown once the virus is over.

I do agree about taking personal responsibility though. While i strongly oppose most government intervention, i also think we should take some basic precautions like washing our hands, staying home if you’re sick, and not creating large crowds.

Turn Left At Greenland said

Beatlebug said

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – a quote I normally agree with, and I think local governments threatening people with flamethrowers is a bit alarming to say the least. But it’s hardly libertarian to put other people at risk. Why can’t people just be responsible and self-isolate, so the government doesn’t have to make them do it at gunpoint?

It’s a dilemma for us more liberty-minded individuals for sure, and a big concern of mine is that, like many so-called “emergency” measures, such things won’t just go back to their prior state after the emergency is over. People like to hang on to power once they’ve got it, and crises are always an excellent opportunity to put things over that would never normally fly.

At the same time, people have been absolutely ridiculous going out and partying like it’s still 2019, and if the government does nothing to protect people who are doing the best they can, but being put at unnecessary risk by other stupid people, then that does seem like a failing and they’ll have to answer to their constituents.

My centrism is hurting my brain I have to stop

  

Your freedom doesn’t matter when you’re dead. But much more to the point than that, your freedom to put others at risk is not genuine freedom. To any libertarians who think that this is a matter of freedom vs. security, I would like to remind you of the harm principle: you can do whatever you want, so long as it doesn’t hurt others. I can’t think of a moral libertarian maxim. But guess what: in a pandemic like this, failing to socially distance actually hurts other people. In perhaps no other situation is a single individual’s actions so consequential for the rest of society. 

Pandemics remind us that we live in a society. We’re not just a bunch of isolated individuals going about our business: we are a giant and complex network of social interactions, and when things like this virus get into that network, everyone’s actions count. 

  

Good point but unless you’re intentionally trying to spread the disease, i don’t think it’s fair to apply the phrase here as there’s no intent to hurt anyone in the same way that you should have the right to do drugs, even if getting high could make you kill someone.

AppleScruffJunior said We are living in unusual, unknown times- the world has never been as connected and as small as it is now. To believe that we can continue living the way we were living a month ago is foolish, naive, selfish and incredibly dangerous. For the benefit of ourselves, our families, friends and the rest of the world- we have to suck it up and listen to what is coming through from the WHO and other organisations- stay indoors. Some people, as proven in every country, won’t listen to that, therefore we have to impose lockdowns.

But the problem with that is the possibility that those who are responsible for the lockdown responding by storming Buckingham Palace and dethroning Boris and the Queen, declaring the UK to be an anarchist state. It might seem crazy but government is worthless if enough people retaliate and groups like ANTIFA are already encouraging crime so it’s very possible, especially considering how many times it’s happened before (US, Russia, Venezuela, India, etc.).