How to teach a child to be rational from an early age
Humans (especially children) are motivated less by gifts/rewards/trophies than by internal accomplishments of their will. Any reward for obedience is a lesser motivation than the power to respectfully disobey.
The formula I am proposing:
A) Set your rules and expectations applicable to a child.
B) If the child does not want to do something that is expected of them, ask them to give you reasons why the expectation is unreasonable at this time. If the reason given is unsatisfactory, explain why it failed. This way you are adhering to the same rules of argumentation that are expected from the child, and this imprints a principle.
C) If at the end of this process the child would demonstrate a reasonable effort to argue consistently and on relevant merits, a concession to the rules/expectations should be granted. The reward of ‘respectful disobedience’ then becomes a powerful incentive to argue more consistently, identify relevant merits, and (in time) to develop sufficient understanding not to dissent on inadequate merits.
Humans (especially children) are motivated less by gifts/rewards/trophies than by internal accomplishments of their will. Any reward for obedience is a lesser motivation than the power to respectfully disobey.
The formula I am proposing:
A) Set your rules and expectations applicable to a child.
B) If the child does not want to do something that is expected of them, ask them to give you reasons why the expectation is unreasonable at this time. If the reason given is unsatisfactory, explain why it failed. This way you are adhering to the same rules of argumentation that are expected from the child, and this imprints a principle.
C) If at the end of this process the child would demonstrate a reasonable effort to argue consistently and on relevant merits, a concession to the rules/expectations should be granted. The reward of ‘respectful disobedience’ then becomes a powerful incentive to argue more consistently, identify relevant merits, and (in time) to develop sufficient understanding not to dissent on inadequate merits.
Thanks to Dan Andrews, the waning Freedom Movement is now officially back in business. With an impending hustle for donations for hopeless court cases, quagmire class actions and electoral ambitions, I will humbly try to stay ahead of the curve:) https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/about
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
There is one question you can (and should) ask any online personality to determine whether they are genuine defenders of human rights or just fence-sitters playing both sides: ‘Do you support vaccine mandates for Measles or any other fully approved and extensively tested vaccines?’ Please let us know their views on this question.
Animals can be trained to act in a particular manner in familiar circumstance. Similarly, Homo sapiens can be trained to act as-if “morally” in familiar circumstances. The true test of morality is whether an individual would act morally in unfamiliar circumstances. Covid was an unfamiliar situation that exposed most individuals as incapable of moral discernment, trained animals (Homo sapiens) but not yet Human (Anthropos).
Individuals who fake the moral conscience by having learned what is morally expected by Humans in particular situations tend to ‘virtue signal’ and extrapolate their moral demands in order to validate their pretence. ‘Virtue signalling’ and the extrapolation of moral demands according to a fixed formula that disregards circumstantial differences or logical inconsistencies is the hallmark of fake moral conscience.
Forwarded from Dreary Munich
the flu vax was the gateway drug for my loved one... they offered it at work and it was free, and she got a lollipop, which all the partakers joked about as it was good clean corporate humour for adults, like giving a 50 year old employee of the month a certificate with a gold star and plastic medal. she was first in line every year when flu season rolled around, and every year flu season seemed to begin earlier and earlier. Then her best friend had a baby and convinced my loved one to get a boostrix before she would let her hold it. My loved one became more and more comfortable with sharps, and her innate aversion to injecting substances into her deltoid was slowly replaced by a love of immune enhancers. Then covid hit. She promised me she would stop at 1. 1 became 2 became 4 and then one day I found her slumped in an alleyway in a stained respirator crushing up and shooting lead pencils into her foot. She later confessed she had been jonesing for more graphene but her doctor refused to give her a script for a 2nd bivalent and threatened to call the police when she reacted. She spent the rest of her life chasing that ecstatic high she got from covid shot #1. She described it as feeling like she was the best person on the planet, anointed by the Creator, an avenging angel stamping out all human suffering through this one glorious act of taking a part of science itself into her body, allowing it to penetrate her, cleanse her and elevate her to a newly created class of human superior to all others in intelligence, health, cleanliness and love for humanity. In the last days, whenever I found her slumped on the floor after a heart attack I would demand to check her vaccine passport but she could only answer through the non-paralysed side of the mouth. She started coming up with the most unbelievable excuses as to why she started having mini-strokes, seizures, and lost the use of her legs at age 27. All the while she begged me not to get within 1.5 metres of her unless I was wearing an n95, as air with fewer than 1000ppm microplastics caused her throat to constrict. She was my love. She was a vax addict. We need DETOX, REHAB and COUNSELLING services for vax addicts NOW
There is a silver lining to Dan Andrews’ electoral “victory”: he won’t be able to vanish into affluent obscurity just yet, giving the justice system another 4 years to prosecute him in person for crimes against humanity.
The corporate media attacks and ridicules anti-vaccine-mandate arguments only when they sense weakness, for example, too many speculative claims and exaggerations, logical errors. They never refer to my arguments against vaccine mandates, even though they were published in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics. They don't want any attention (even negative attention) directed to rigorous and irrefutable arguments that defeat their agenda. They like cannon fodder kind of opposition. In fact easy targets who oppose the official policies, presenting arguments with plenty of holes for the media to exploit, are essential for the corporate media to create the impression that there is no legitimate opposition. Weak, irrational opposition is necessary for the status quo; it is even better if the opposition entity does not realise they are being harmful to their cause.
Canceling Covid fines (issued under emergency powers) by means of a “technicality” is just a way of saving face for the government. They know it was all unlawful, and this is how they are getting away with terrorism after the fact. The kind of defence lawyers who “win” on a technicality but ignore the elephant in the room are probably not really working for you (even when you pay them).
Many people think that killing the enemy soldiers during war is morally right. This is a false view, if my understanding of the structure of consciousness is correct; intentional killing in any circumstances has negative moral consequences for the killer. Killing in self-defence or in defence of others has an obvious upside (increases the likelihood of survival and may overall ‘save lives’), but it also has a metaphysical downside that is not negated by our reasons for the killing, even if our reasons are mitigating the moral consequences (‘mercy killing’). The only moral solution is to practice self-defence and protection of others with the absolute commitment not to kill anyone.
Freedom and the Security State
The individual freedom to realise intentions is an intrinsic property of rational consciousness (of being Human). It is the source of all good things but also of all the troubles, so when an average individual demands more freedom, the rulers (those who enforce the rule-set by which social order is maintained) may ask: if we would allow you more freedom, how would you use it? Would you act destructively or constructively, rationally or irrationally? But governments cannot negotiate and evaluate motivations with every person individually, so they come up with methods of generalising this evaluation of responsibility on global scale. If they think that human freedom is used increasingly unwisely, destructively, or is simply wasted (at some non-trivial cost to others) they may come up with a narrative that purports to apply universally in order to justify general restrictions on freedom, for example Anthropogenic Climate Change, which reduces the problem of the harmful use of freedom to a single parameter: energy use. If a social trend of increasing irrationalism (nihilism, radicalism, hedonism) were detected, accelerationist strategies may be used to exemplify the destructive aspect of irrationality and thus manufacture consent for more restrictions and licensing of freedoms. This makes sense from the perspective of a global security strategist. You can explain everything from Covid and Ukraine to Dan Andrews and ‘drag queen story-time’ through this lens (although not everything that fits necessarily belongs). There is no escape from the security sphere of the world, there is no possibility of maintaining order or a rule-set independent from the prevailing rule-set, because by doing so you would be not only escaping the problem rather than fixing it (globally) but creating a threat to the global system of interdependencies - a prospective source of instability. For this reason any alternative community will be conquered, indigenous separatism will be used strategically and then annihilated, blood&soil nationalism of many colours will be used strategically to annihilate one another. The solution to the problem of freedom is not a revolution, nor to become more isolated, more disconnected from the dominant rule-set, but to become more rational within the global rule-set and feed that rationality back into the global system of relations. The highest level of security and trust in a deeply interdependent social system is accomplished by reason (Logos: the ultimate and universal rule-set) underpinning freedom, not by freedom for its own sake (which is intrinsically nihilistic).
The individual freedom to realise intentions is an intrinsic property of rational consciousness (of being Human). It is the source of all good things but also of all the troubles, so when an average individual demands more freedom, the rulers (those who enforce the rule-set by which social order is maintained) may ask: if we would allow you more freedom, how would you use it? Would you act destructively or constructively, rationally or irrationally? But governments cannot negotiate and evaluate motivations with every person individually, so they come up with methods of generalising this evaluation of responsibility on global scale. If they think that human freedom is used increasingly unwisely, destructively, or is simply wasted (at some non-trivial cost to others) they may come up with a narrative that purports to apply universally in order to justify general restrictions on freedom, for example Anthropogenic Climate Change, which reduces the problem of the harmful use of freedom to a single parameter: energy use. If a social trend of increasing irrationalism (nihilism, radicalism, hedonism) were detected, accelerationist strategies may be used to exemplify the destructive aspect of irrationality and thus manufacture consent for more restrictions and licensing of freedoms. This makes sense from the perspective of a global security strategist. You can explain everything from Covid and Ukraine to Dan Andrews and ‘drag queen story-time’ through this lens (although not everything that fits necessarily belongs). There is no escape from the security sphere of the world, there is no possibility of maintaining order or a rule-set independent from the prevailing rule-set, because by doing so you would be not only escaping the problem rather than fixing it (globally) but creating a threat to the global system of interdependencies - a prospective source of instability. For this reason any alternative community will be conquered, indigenous separatism will be used strategically and then annihilated, blood&soil nationalism of many colours will be used strategically to annihilate one another. The solution to the problem of freedom is not a revolution, nor to become more isolated, more disconnected from the dominant rule-set, but to become more rational within the global rule-set and feed that rationality back into the global system of relations. The highest level of security and trust in a deeply interdependent social system is accomplished by reason (Logos: the ultimate and universal rule-set) underpinning freedom, not by freedom for its own sake (which is intrinsically nihilistic).
I propose that all products sold in a country should be, by law, manufactured only in that country if they can be manufactured in that country, unless the manufacturing country has equivalent or stronger labour rights and environmental protection laws and practices. Any ‘offshoring’ of production bypasses the national environmental and labour laws (this is how costs are “saved”), and as such facilitates human exploitation in other countries.