iNow

Don't worry. It's nothing

And because it depends, I cannot answer your question. It is far from a simple question no matter how forcefully you assert otherwise.

NDE ≠ Death. I know it makes some fragile people uncomfortable, but death is not something from which people “heal” … in any manner and by definition. I guess it’s always easier to dodge the obvious than to answer it, isn't it?

More information needed. Mandatory for whom? Who’s mandating them? Under what conditions does the mandate apply? Are there exceptions? If so, who approves and confirms qualification for exception? What are the penalties for noncompliance? Which vaccine is being mandated? Who pays for them? Is a single does sufficient, or are booster shots mandatory, too?

If it’s nonexistent, there is no quantity. Like I said, absurd

Philosophy annoys me, at least the type of pseudo philosophy we generally see here at SFN. We’re too close to absurdism already for my taste. Define what you mean by “nothing” then work from that. Until then, we’ll spin endlessly in circles, especially since in a physics sense there’s ALWAYS something in that box, even if just probabilistically.

Temperature is a measure of movement. If there’s nothing in the box, then nothing is moving, and if nothing is moving there is no temperature by definition.

I reject the premise. Science is the ONLY process for accurately peeling away the layers of ignorance about our cosmos and it’s origins and we DO have explanatory hypotheses and even conclusions about these subjects. We don’t YET have answers to every question, but with each passing day our knowledge increases, gaps in understanding get filled, and the darkness gets better illuminated with realistic well founded insights, ones which thankfully crowd out the constant stream of inaccurate and amateurish human myths and fictions.

Always enjoy Sean Carroll.

No, there’s air. And subatomic particles. And vacuum fluctuations. Stop thinking of nothing in a philosophical sense and start realizing there’s ALWAYS something in your box. The thought experiment is more useful when realistic.

Nonsense. I see tremendous beauty and feel an immeasurable sense of awe at the cosmos… and all without believing in silly human fairy tales and myths. Why do you keep posting such tripe? It’s not, though. If you’re not intentionally arguing against strawmen, then you’re showing your ignorance and lack of valid understanding of the perspective of others.

Well yeah, sure... I suppose if we ignore the rules of physics as currently understood and rely on fictional communication devices that we've just pulled out of our asses, then anything is possible.

And unless he's challenging the validity of the leading causes of death data, it's all moot anyway. The image is based on death counts and shows how the blood clot issue compares. This is why I said, "for scale and context" when posting it.

Swansont can surely explain better than me, but... The speed of light is the fastest speed there is. Even at that speed, it often takes thousands of years to reach other star systems. If we sent messages, we'd be dead before they were even received, and LONG dead (as would be our great grandchildren, great great grandchildren, and related ancestors) by the time a reply would come. Hence, conversation is more or less prohibited.

https://bfy.tw/RAHz

Source is cited within image. Image also clearly shows risk of death, not risk of clot… which even your own source confirms is low and falling lower.

Context / Sense of Scale:

sarcasm

See now why I was so glad this decade old thread with a ridiculous easily proven wrong opening premise got necro’d?

I can't disagree, and appreciate your clarification, but that's not the argument you were previously making. Thanks.

Not necessarily. Risk taking behavior is often beneficial. If one is starving, taking a risk to get food may be the difference between life and death. If one has an infant being approached by a bear, taking a risk may save the life of the child and consequently the chain of those genes. The abnormality here may actually be your desire to impose your personal opinion about what is a "valid" risk versus what is an "invalid" risk on to others, and to next claim that anyone not following your personal preferences has some sort of problem in their brain.

Of course it is. That does not, however, translate into there being "no difference" between those two events.

Even if so, it's moving the goal posts. I was discussing our understanding of safety and risk. Now Alex is referring to date of first government level approval for widespread human use (which itself only comes after many years of data and study).

Thanks for clarifying, mate. It is appreciated. It feels like maybe you're saying we should always strive to do better and avoid victimhood in all of its many forms. That's a laudable goal for sure! What I struggle with is the suggestion that there are no differences. Of course there are differences. The magnitude of the assault is different. The severity is not the same. The impact and longevity of these events far from equal... Poverty is bad and we should seek to alleviate it wherever we can. It also causes psychological trauma, but not in the same way that a brutal attack or a rape does. Prostitution often results in psychological harm, but again... not for everyone. Some women and men choose to engage in this voluntarily, are quite happy to do so, and reject these paternalistic and condescending notions that they are victims. A great many simply are not. So... we need to avoid grouping all "victims" together in one bucket. The effects a "victim" of eggs being thrown at their house are hardly equivalent in scale or magnitude to the effects of a "victim" of kidnapping, for example... even though both can be lumped into a single label... we should not conflate them all as if they are the same. Anyway... thanks for re-engaging in the discussion with a bit more clarity. It's appreciated, and I hope my post here is received with the comity with which it's intended.