The doctrine of subjectively determined gender identity, exemplified by the slogan "trans-women are women", discriminates against and invalidates the identity of those whose gender and gender expression are based on the innate sense of difference from the opposite sex. In essence, proponents of 'gender theory' are implicitly invalidating the gender identity of most people by insisting that males can be women and females can be men. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/gender-identity-on-trial

Gender and racial equality are not virtues in a corrupt, abusive system. They amount to equal oppression, equal injustice.

It is prudent to assume that every media event that provokes strong emotions is an intentional provocation. This may not always be the case, but it is always a good practice to consider how our emotional reactions can be exploited to subvert our reasoning and cause us to act contrary to our best interest.

Plastics have the same energy content per mass as petrol. Our landfills are full of recoverable energy. Instead of dumping plastic in the ground we should be burning it to generate electricity. This would also prevent this waste permeating the environment as micro-plastics.

This is going on my reading list. Looks sensible. Partitioning of people into groups and deciding whom to save on the basis of the kind of group they belong to contradicts the premise that we ought to have equal concern for each individual of equal moral status. https://philpapers.org/rec/MUOECF

The problem with the epistemic logic of Randomised Controlled Trials is that it concludes that a drug is effective based on its average effect on many different people, assuming that the ‘many people’ is analogous to any prospective individual who may be prescribed the drug in the future. In essence, it treats all humans bodies as fungible, as bio-medically identical, which is of course just a commercially convenient fiction; an ecological fallacy. It is therefore false to claim that a particular drug is safe and effective FOR YOU. The most that can be inferred from RCTs, assuming it is an honest and well designed RCT, is that a drug is effective for most people in particular circumstances in a given time frame. This does not tell us anything about the overall health outcomes of the ‘most’ patients, unless the RCT continued to the end of their life.

There is no War, just friends in high places moving their pawns. It is a friendly game, but not from the perspective of the pawns.

The corporate media will never publicly call me an antivaxxer because it would have the effect of popularising ideas that delegitimise them.

Opinions (professional or not) are a confession of ignorance. We have opinions only when we do not know, cannot approximate or prove.

Forgiveness without repentance and atonement is like forgiving a herd of cows for blocking traffic, ‘for they do not know what they do’. It holds the offender to a lower moral standard than the forgiver. In some cases this may be the right attitude, but it is not Love. When unwarranted, it is contempt; denying the capacity of the offender to redeem himself, it denies his honour. Alternatively, it is a euphemism for “henceforth, I do not hate you”, which in turn implies that “hitherto, I did hate you”.

I regard as proven that if such entities exist they must be biologically related to humans, they must be part of our common evolution of meaning, therefore always in some kind of ‘social’ and reciprocal relationship with the ‘common’ humanity. In short, they are human, conscious rational beings related to all of us, but more developed in their degree of consciousness than an average punter (“angels” etc). The demonic forces, on the other hand, are not conscious beings but forces of nature, even if they manifest thought human-like bodies.

News media is now basically a continuous process of outrage/provocation and sedation/release. Keeps you busy and dictates your emotional life.

The obviously irrational and unjust actions of the government are done not because the government believes they are rational and just, but to be seen as irrational and unjust, to make you angry, frustrated and to motivate you to argue about it, to protest, to resist and then be also frustrated by your failure to persuade them about something that obvious.

This does not let the government off the hook for mandating a vaccine that was expected to kill a percentage of people. Intentionally killing a minority for the alleged benefit of the majority is still just plain murder. The claim that the vaccine overall saved lives is a lie, since its net impact on longevity was not proven. Presenting unproven claims as proven facts is a lie.

The principle of Proportionality may apply to resolving conflicts between different rights. It cannot justify taking away the same right from one person in order to secure it for another; this is not proportionality, not discrimination between different rights, but discrimination between different people.

“The view that constitutional rights are nothing but private interests whose protection depends, on each occasion, on being balanced with competing public interests, in fact, renders the Constitution futile. Indeed, if constitutional rights protect the same kind of interests as those of the government, and if the protection depends on considerations of some kind of relative “ weight ” given to the confl icting interests, it follows that the protection accorded by the Constitution can never be stable but is always conditional on various circumstances and depends on the outcome of balancing. On this view, not only is it doubtful whether the Constitution is the kind of law that includes stable and knowable propositions, but it also renders the very idea of such a constitution futile.” https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/7/3/468/703178

The right to life cannot even hypothetically be “proportionally” restricted, unlike the freedom of movement or expression. A person is either alive or dead; you can’t be slightly dead but mostly alive in a “balanced” way.