The highlighted claim is false. I personally know several people who did not want to get vaccinated but did it, after resisting as much as they could endure, because they were about to go bankrupt and would not be able to feed their kids. The article also omits be biggest, most critical piece of disinformation, which was the WHO’s definition of “Covid Deaths”, which intentionally misrepresented death with Covid (a positive PCR test) as deaths FROM Covid, and thus created the illusion of a global emergency. Another pieces of disinformation would be the denial of cheap, over-the-counter anti-malaria drugs as effective treatments for Covid; the recommended use of harmful intubation, Remdesivir and permanent sedation (Midazolam) of hospitalised patients causing them to be, in effect, euthanised. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/10-myths-told-by-covid-experts-now-debunked/news-story/d414984470291668356217f4b3fa1f9c
This study is already being cited in the mainstream media as proof that vaccine mandates had no effect on vaccination uptake, but this conclusion is misleading, since the present paper considers only one kind of a mandate (not the federally imposed employment mandates), which could be easily evaded in the studied cities. The author acknowledges that vaccine mandates in Europe and on the country level did cause a significantly higher uptake. The kind of mandates we had in Australia were radically stronger then city-level indoor mandates for going to museums or restaurants, which could be evaded by going to nearby places where mandates did not apply; this was not allowed either in EU or Australia. So why is the corporate media misrepresenting the results of this study as if it were applicable to all vaccine mandates everywhere? I suggest it is because this misleading conclusion implies that nobody was killed by the mandates because the mandates did not manage to coerce anybody to take the vaccine against their voluntary consent. It is their get out of jail card. https://www.mercatus.org/media/161606/download?attachment
On Disagreement
The mutual recognition of an ‘irresolvable disagreement’ presupposes a common framework for identifying and making sense of mutual disagreements, which includes the law of non-contradiction, and therefore a common and objective basis for rationally resolving the disagreement as a case of contradiction. Consequently, the premise of ‘irresolvable disagreement’ is false. That a disagreement remains unresolved does not imply that the disagreement is irresolvable, but that a disagreement exists (is mutually identified) implies that it is resolvable.
Adherence to the law of non-contradiction has the following logical consequences:
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/derivation-of-the-principle-of-sufficient-reason-from-the-law-of-non-contradiction
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-structure-of-knowledge
The mutual recognition of an ‘irresolvable disagreement’ presupposes a common framework for identifying and making sense of mutual disagreements, which includes the law of non-contradiction, and therefore a common and objective basis for rationally resolving the disagreement as a case of contradiction. Consequently, the premise of ‘irresolvable disagreement’ is false. That a disagreement remains unresolved does not imply that the disagreement is irresolvable, but that a disagreement exists (is mutually identified) implies that it is resolvable.
Adherence to the law of non-contradiction has the following logical consequences:
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/derivation-of-the-principle-of-sufficient-reason-from-the-law-of-non-contradiction
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-structure-of-knowledge
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Digital Idenity is not YOUR identity
The claim that the ability to prove who you are is a “fundamental and universal human right” is absurd and false. It is false because it is not on the list of ratified human rights. It is absurd because there is no possible universal standard for expressing a “true” identity apart from just being yourself, which is trivially true for everyone and everything. Everything is alway only identical to itself (the Law of Identity), and any additional feature (like a number, microchip, tattoo etc is necessarily not you), nor is any part or feature of your body (like fingerprints or a retina scan) your identity. What the authors of the linked page are trying to assert is that there is a human right to assume a false identity, which is a very strange (insane) proposition. In short, a Digital or biometric ID is a false identity, a fundamental lie, a violation of the law of identity, therefore nonsense.
https://id2020.org/digital-identity
The claim that the ability to prove who you are is a “fundamental and universal human right” is absurd and false. It is false because it is not on the list of ratified human rights. It is absurd because there is no possible universal standard for expressing a “true” identity apart from just being yourself, which is trivially true for everyone and everything. Everything is alway only identical to itself (the Law of Identity), and any additional feature (like a number, microchip, tattoo etc is necessarily not you), nor is any part or feature of your body (like fingerprints or a retina scan) your identity. What the authors of the linked page are trying to assert is that there is a human right to assume a false identity, which is a very strange (insane) proposition. In short, a Digital or biometric ID is a false identity, a fundamental lie, a violation of the law of identity, therefore nonsense.
https://id2020.org/digital-identity
ID2020
ID2020 | Digital Identity Alliance
The ID2020 Alliance is a global partnership maximizing the potential of digital ID to improve lives.
I asked OpenAI for the strongest argument against vaccine mandates. OpenAI initially responded with the vague argument that vaccine mandates could exacerbate social inequalities between the underprivileged and the privileged (due to unequal access to vaccines), so I questioned it explicitly about my published arguments. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/openai-on-the-question-of-vaccine
Good politicians come and go. They declare their advocacy for some issues, they cast their vote, then their term expires and their advocacy is displaced by that of other politicians. In contrast, fundamental, logically consistent arguments are eternal; their term does not expire and once realised cannot be erased either by time or by destructive actions of Man. It is only a matter of time that a logically consistent argument must prevail over logical errors and moral wrongs, and will become the new norm. In the end, the justice of reason always gets its man. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical
Substack
Why Vaccine Mandates are Unethical
Summary of the strongest ethical arguments against vaccine mandates
Carbon credits are now “nature based” and “assets”, not an arbitrary abstraction like ‘victimhood’ or the length of facial hair as a measure of economic value:) Just because the abstraction relates to nature does not not make it “nature based”, let alone an “asset”. There are of course deeper implications to “carbon based economy”; it is a cost/tax imposed on energetic consumption, on mere existence, premised on penalising any ‘useless’ expenditure of energy (ie. human existence or behaviour that does not generate more economic or social value than then the energy expanded to sustain it, so it is in effect a tax on underachievers). I guess they gave up on the prospect of improving human rationality through education and settled instead on economic eugenics. The lack of constructive imagination and strategic originality behind this project is so astounding that one may justifiably doubt the evolutionary fitness of the advocates of this ‘solution’. Ruled by apes.
A worthwhile story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdcYW2iHKm0 It fits with my story: https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-alien-life-forms-are-impossible
YouTube
The Science of Ad Astra - Alone in the Universe for a Loner
The Science of Ad Astra - Alone in the Universe ?
Audio Commentary by James Gray
AD ASTRA - Directed by James Gray
I'm focused here on Science but there are lot of thematics in Ad Astra"s Audio Commentary like Masculanity, Artistic Liberty, Genesis of…
Audio Commentary by James Gray
AD ASTRA - Directed by James Gray
I'm focused here on Science but there are lot of thematics in Ad Astra"s Audio Commentary like Masculanity, Artistic Liberty, Genesis of…
Email to UN Women (04.04.2023)
In anticipation of the day of celebration of women I want to share with you an important logical and legal insight that may assist you in rationally, respectfully and ethically approaching any conflict of identity associated with womanhood.
Gender identity is typically defined as the personal sense of one’s own gender. I argue that this conception of gender identity, once generalised as a social principle, leads to legal contradictions. In summary, if your gender identity rests on certain premises, and if you must contradict those premises to recognise the gender identity of another, then anyone compelling you to do so would entail discrimination against your own gender identity, therefore contradiction.
Premise 1: Gender-identity of X consists in being a Woman in virtue of her sense of having a female body, different from a male body. Her deeply felt sense of being different from the male sex is part of her gender identity.
Premise 2: Gender-identity of Y consists in being a Woman with a male body (Transgender).
Consequence 1: For X to recognise Y (a male) as a Woman entails invalidation of X’s own gender identity. Specifically, X’s acceptance of Premise 2 would amount to denying her ‘deeply felt sense of difference from the male sex’ being part of her gender identity.
Consequence 2: For X to preserve X’s own gender identity necessitates invalidation of Y’s gender identity, because of X’s ‘deeply felt sense of difference from the male sex’ being part of her gender identity.
Informally, what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for Y is logically inconsistent with what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for X, which either invalidates the concept of womanhood (by violating the Law of Identity) or entails that one of the mutually inconsistent identities is false. Legal protection of the gender identity of one person (or any personal demands to that effect) may thus discriminate against the gender identity of another; the exercise of the law (or social principle) violates itself, which is absurd, therefore false.
I hope this will be of assistance going forward.
In anticipation of the day of celebration of women I want to share with you an important logical and legal insight that may assist you in rationally, respectfully and ethically approaching any conflict of identity associated with womanhood.
Gender identity is typically defined as the personal sense of one’s own gender. I argue that this conception of gender identity, once generalised as a social principle, leads to legal contradictions. In summary, if your gender identity rests on certain premises, and if you must contradict those premises to recognise the gender identity of another, then anyone compelling you to do so would entail discrimination against your own gender identity, therefore contradiction.
Premise 1: Gender-identity of X consists in being a Woman in virtue of her sense of having a female body, different from a male body. Her deeply felt sense of being different from the male sex is part of her gender identity.
Premise 2: Gender-identity of Y consists in being a Woman with a male body (Transgender).
Consequence 1: For X to recognise Y (a male) as a Woman entails invalidation of X’s own gender identity. Specifically, X’s acceptance of Premise 2 would amount to denying her ‘deeply felt sense of difference from the male sex’ being part of her gender identity.
Consequence 2: For X to preserve X’s own gender identity necessitates invalidation of Y’s gender identity, because of X’s ‘deeply felt sense of difference from the male sex’ being part of her gender identity.
Informally, what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for Y is logically inconsistent with what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for X, which either invalidates the concept of womanhood (by violating the Law of Identity) or entails that one of the mutually inconsistent identities is false. Legal protection of the gender identity of one person (or any personal demands to that effect) may thus discriminate against the gender identity of another; the exercise of the law (or social principle) violates itself, which is absurd, therefore false.
I hope this will be of assistance going forward.
Using the phrase ‘if it was’ (past tense) instead of ‘if it were’ (hypothetical or counterfactual) is possibly the most common error in the english language. Here is a simple explanation of the rule: https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/vs/when-is-it-appropriate-to-use-if-i-were-vs-if-i-was.html. Here is a detailed explanation: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/conditional-sentences-was-instead-of-were/. Here is a related set of rules I just became aware of (fascinating!): https://www.grammarly.com/blog/conditional-sentences/
YourDictionary
If I Was or If I Were: Easy Guide on Appropriate Use
Is it "if I were a rich man" or "if I was a rich man"? Read all about how the subjunctive mood can describe hypothetical situations – and how to choose the best verb form to express your intended meaning.
Those who “trust the science” are implicitly committed to the strange view that, as a mater of principle, science serves their interest. This is as absurd as believing that a hammer (by virtue of being useful) is used in the person’s interest, not for smashing their windows… or heads.
BREAKING NEWS: WEF has revised the concept of ‘15 minute city’ to ‘1.5 meter city’, in order to incorporate the benefits of social distancing. The convenience of ‘1.5 meter city’ will be vastly superior to ‘15 minute city’, as all ratified needs will be available right where you are, typically delivered via a silicone tube, without the need to ever get up.
Amandon Van Andrews, a proud non-binary trans-indigenous and multi-racial spokes-entity from the Urban Inclusion Planing Department of the 1.5 meter City Union of Melbourne has hit out at the “unhinged and hateful” conspiracy theories triggered by the recent announcement of the ‘1.5 meter city’ concept. “These people are deranged. How could anyone misrepresent not having to line up at the checkout at Coles because everything they need is available within arm’s reach, or delivered via a silicone tube right into their digestive orifice, as an evil conspiracy! The 1.5 meter City concept was always only about your convenience.”
Do you believe that Matt Hancock entrusted more than 100,000 of scandalous WhatsApp messages to Isabel Oakeshott, because “he hoped the political journalist would help him write a book to rehabilitate his reputation as a pro-lockdown health secretary during the coronavirus pandemic”, who then inexplicably breached legal confidentiality and published those messages as if Hancock were a petty thief and not an agent of the ruling power? OR, did Matt Hancock entrust more than 100,000 of scandalous WhatsApp messages to Isabel Oakeshott because he was always just a pathetic louse (or worse) hired (or blackmailed) to become a scapegoat for the recent crimes committed by the ruling power, while Isabel’s job was alway just to incriminate him on behalf of the ruling power?
One day, instead of robotic dogs, everyone will have an autonomous, A.I. controlled elephant in their room.
WA government caught selling fake gold. https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/perth-mint-9-billion-australian-gold-bar-purity-scandal/news-story/5335809fb284dba96957c56b68ea8ac9
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Distrust of Authority is Intellectual Humility
Distrusting the authorities and their experts is the most humble intellectual position one can take. You do not claim to know that the government is good, you do not claim to know that the experts are right, you don’t know that, and you know that you don’t know, you admit the limits of your knowledge and the vastness of your ignorance. On the other hand, those who trust the government, those who believe the experts, who repeat the official assertions they cannot possibly know to be true, are dangerously conceited and unhinged, delusional and false, they are political extremists and ideological fanatics, a force of tyranny and evil, the greatest threat to national security and the epitome of inhumanity.
Distrusting the authorities and their experts is the most humble intellectual position one can take. You do not claim to know that the government is good, you do not claim to know that the experts are right, you don’t know that, and you know that you don’t know, you admit the limits of your knowledge and the vastness of your ignorance. On the other hand, those who trust the government, those who believe the experts, who repeat the official assertions they cannot possibly know to be true, are dangerously conceited and unhinged, delusional and false, they are political extremists and ideological fanatics, a force of tyranny and evil, the greatest threat to national security and the epitome of inhumanity.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
One cannot claim ignorance as an excuse for causing harm by acting on the information provided by others if the agent in question did not seek to personally verify that acting on the relevant information will not cause harm. For example, a politician who causes harm by acting on the advice of experts cannot claim that he acted in good faith in trusting the experts; he is personally liable for causing harm because he failed to verify that acting on the relevant information would not cause harm and therefore intentionally acted with indifference to the possibility of harm. Moreover, an agent who affirms and propagates unverified information does so with the intent of propagating it even if it is malicious or false information.