Gender Theory as Philosophical Superstition.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-021-00406-7
As I argued before, Gender Theory is false because it gives rise to Contradictions in Law.
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 any law 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 only in virtue of having a female body (Cisgender).
Premise 2: Gender-identity of Y consists in being a Woman with a male body (Transgender).
Consequence 1: For X to recognise Y as a Woman entails invalidation of X’s own gender identity.
Consequence 2: For X to preserve X’s own gender identity entails invalidation of Y’s 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 gender identity of one person may thus discriminate against gender identity of another; the exercise of the law violates itself, which is absurd.
This problem can be approached from another angle. The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity Or sex; these categories are considered on par, equally protected, but this leads to practical contradictions. If a male who identifies as a woman is refused entry to female-only changerooms this qualifies as discrimination on the basis of gender identity (notwistanding the objection raised above, regarding conflicting gender identities), but if females are forced to strip before a male in their female-only changerooms this qualifies as discrimination on the basis of sex. This anomaly is even more apparent in sports, because inclusion of males in female competition categories essentially eliminates the right of females to have their own competition category. This disadvantages females on account of advantageous physiological characteristics of males in relation to certain sports. Most human rights organisations and even legislators seem to arbitrarily and perhaps unwittingly discriminate in favour of gender identity over sex.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-021-00406-7
As I argued before, Gender Theory is false because it gives rise to Contradictions in Law.
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 any law 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 only in virtue of having a female body (Cisgender).
Premise 2: Gender-identity of Y consists in being a Woman with a male body (Transgender).
Consequence 1: For X to recognise Y as a Woman entails invalidation of X’s own gender identity.
Consequence 2: For X to preserve X’s own gender identity entails invalidation of Y’s 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 gender identity of one person may thus discriminate against gender identity of another; the exercise of the law violates itself, which is absurd.
This problem can be approached from another angle. The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity Or sex; these categories are considered on par, equally protected, but this leads to practical contradictions. If a male who identifies as a woman is refused entry to female-only changerooms this qualifies as discrimination on the basis of gender identity (notwistanding the objection raised above, regarding conflicting gender identities), but if females are forced to strip before a male in their female-only changerooms this qualifies as discrimination on the basis of sex. This anomaly is even more apparent in sports, because inclusion of males in female competition categories essentially eliminates the right of females to have their own competition category. This disadvantages females on account of advantageous physiological characteristics of males in relation to certain sports. Most human rights organisations and even legislators seem to arbitrarily and perhaps unwittingly discriminate in favour of gender identity over sex.
Philosophia
Assessment of the Rationality of Gender Studies from the Perspective of Bocheński’s Concept of Philosophical Superstition
Philosophia - In recent years, the issue of the determinants of human gender identity has been lively discussed. In such discussions, there are numerous supporters of the belief that a...
Contemporary political power depends primarily on maintaining Face; the guise of the good. Challenge the Face, allow the opportunity for the Face to be Saved by a pre-determined official re-action, and Power can be (to a degree) mitigated, directed, controlled. Power consists in permanent tension, reciprocity, and collusion between the controllers and the controlled, and this dynamic equation can be augmented by the third pillar of humanity.
Who Owns You?
Have you ever considered why the government borrows money at interest to cover any shortfall in its budget, instead of just printing the same amount, interest free to the public? Can the government be trusted to borrow unlimited money, created by the banks, at interest (to be paid by you), but the Parliament cannot be trusted to authorise creation of the same amount of money interest free?
This is a great question to ask all those defenders of your freedom who are so so anti-establishment. Great way to unmask their true allegiance and know who is just controlled opposition. And this rabbit hole goes much deeper: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3737447
Have you ever considered why the government borrows money at interest to cover any shortfall in its budget, instead of just printing the same amount, interest free to the public? Can the government be trusted to borrow unlimited money, created by the banks, at interest (to be paid by you), but the Parliament cannot be trusted to authorise creation of the same amount of money interest free?
This is a great question to ask all those defenders of your freedom who are so so anti-establishment. Great way to unmask their true allegiance and know who is just controlled opposition. And this rabbit hole goes much deeper: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3737447
Ssrn
A Monetary Case for Value-added Negative Tax
I address the most fundamental yet routinely ignored issue in economics: that of distributive impact of the monetary system on the real economy. By reexamining
Those who agreed to wearing a face mask, despite everyone being able to claim a health-exemption, will now agree to anything. And that was the purpose of the mask mandate, to unmask and quantify the weakness of character in our population. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3840787
Sign and Share. This is a powerful message, not just a petition. Tell them that you understand the law of this State: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374
The following is a description of my digital currency concept, based on the principle of fair money; the only non-parasitic currency ever designed. https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2018/12/04/introduction-to-robust-secured-crypto-currency/
Cultural Analysis & Philosophy
Introduction to Robust Secured Crypto-Currency
Proponents of decentralised blockchain technology like to emphasise its alleged anti-financial-establishment, economically liberating potential. Nevertheless, all the libertarian promises of crypto…
Federal Petition drafted by an expert in medical ethics to prohibit vaccine passports or any discrimination on the basis of vaccination status. SIGN and SHARE: https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN2939
My Second Email to SPC regarding mandatory Covid vaccination of employees.
Good Morning,
Requiring your employees to participate in a vaccine death-lottery is not compatible with human rights and safety of those who would die because of this injection.
Even if more lives would be saved on account of universal Covid vaccination, mandating human sacrifice of the unlucky few for the benefit of the many is a direct violation of the fundamental human right: the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life. Any law that would purport to legitimise such an action is void, because it undermines the conditions of its own authority.
Ignorance of this fundamental ethic was never considered a valid excuse, and extreme punitive measures were historically applied in response, irrespective of what the perpetrators believed to be ‘legal’.
As I said before, as a subject-matter expert, you are on the verge of becoming complicit in a crime against humanity.
Please choose wisely,
Michael Kowalik
On 8 Aug 2021, at 10:38 am, SPC Customer Care <customercare@spc.com.au> wrote:
Hi,
Thank you for sharing your concerns.
We remain committed to aligning our practices with the Human Rights Act and Federal and State Discrimination Laws and will review any employee requests for exemptions regarding vaccination on a case-by-case basis.
We are encouraging all our SPC staff to have a discussion with their GP about the best choice for them. If any staff member has a pre-existing condition that may affect their vaccine eligibility, they are encouraged to discuss this with our people and culture team.
At SPC we ensure our people’s health and safety, job security, as well as business continuity for the essential service we provide to the broader community and the country.
We hope you and your family stay safe.
Best wishes,
SPC Customer Care
Good Morning,
Requiring your employees to participate in a vaccine death-lottery is not compatible with human rights and safety of those who would die because of this injection.
Even if more lives would be saved on account of universal Covid vaccination, mandating human sacrifice of the unlucky few for the benefit of the many is a direct violation of the fundamental human right: the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life. Any law that would purport to legitimise such an action is void, because it undermines the conditions of its own authority.
Ignorance of this fundamental ethic was never considered a valid excuse, and extreme punitive measures were historically applied in response, irrespective of what the perpetrators believed to be ‘legal’.
As I said before, as a subject-matter expert, you are on the verge of becoming complicit in a crime against humanity.
Please choose wisely,
Michael Kowalik
On 8 Aug 2021, at 10:38 am, SPC Customer Care <customercare@spc.com.au> wrote:
Hi,
Thank you for sharing your concerns.
We remain committed to aligning our practices with the Human Rights Act and Federal and State Discrimination Laws and will review any employee requests for exemptions regarding vaccination on a case-by-case basis.
We are encouraging all our SPC staff to have a discussion with their GP about the best choice for them. If any staff member has a pre-existing condition that may affect their vaccine eligibility, they are encouraged to discuss this with our people and culture team.
At SPC we ensure our people’s health and safety, job security, as well as business continuity for the essential service we provide to the broader community and the country.
We hope you and your family stay safe.
Best wishes,
SPC Customer Care
The relative risk of death for the vaccinated is 12.5% higher than for the unvaccinated, according to Pfizer’s own 6 month safety and efficacy review. 18 deaths among the vaccinated; vs 16 among the unvaccinated. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1
medRxiv
Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine
Background BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against COVID-19 and is currently authorized for…
Proposed legislation in NSW aims to make anyone imposing the vaccine requirement on their workers to be fully liable for any injury or loss caused by the vaccine. Employers should be cautious, because a law like this passed in the future may apply retrospectively: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bill/files/3835/First%20Print.pdf
Ethics of Vaccine Refusal
Journal of Medical Ethics (2021)
Proponents of vaccine mandates typically claim that everyone who can be vaccinated has a moral or ethical obligation to do so for the sake of those who cannot be vaccinated, or in the interest of public health. I evaluate several previously undertheorised premises implicit to the ‘obligation to vaccinate’ type of arguments and show that the general conclusion is false: there is neither a moral obligation to vaccinate nor a sound ethical basis to mandate vaccination under any circumstances, even for hypothetical vaccines that are medically risk-free. Agent autonomy with respect to self-constitution has absolute normative priority over reduction or elimination of the associated risks to life. In practical terms, mandatory vaccination amounts to discrimination against healthy, innate biological characteristics of the human race.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3793981
Journal of Medical Ethics (2021)
Proponents of vaccine mandates typically claim that everyone who can be vaccinated has a moral or ethical obligation to do so for the sake of those who cannot be vaccinated, or in the interest of public health. I evaluate several previously undertheorised premises implicit to the ‘obligation to vaccinate’ type of arguments and show that the general conclusion is false: there is neither a moral obligation to vaccinate nor a sound ethical basis to mandate vaccination under any circumstances, even for hypothetical vaccines that are medically risk-free. Agent autonomy with respect to self-constitution has absolute normative priority over reduction or elimination of the associated risks to life. In practical terms, mandatory vaccination amounts to discrimination against healthy, innate biological characteristics of the human race.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3793981
Ssrn
Ethics of Vaccine Refusal
Proponents of vaccine mandates typically claim that everyone who can be vaccinated has a moral or ethical obligation to do so for the sake of those who cannot b
My opinion on vaccines.
Vaccines are irreversible, biotechnological enhancements intended for healthy people that could never occur naturally (more on this below) and therefore not healthcare (or healthy) but transhumanism. Transhumanism is in principle unhealthy, because it aims to alter the species-typical characterises on which the medical standard of human health is based. https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/30/is-transhumanism-a-health-problem/
Apart from the above, a typical vaccine consists of the target antigen/protein and an adjuvant (intended to activate the immune system to the target antigen), plus some non-target antigens - proteins retained as impurities from the manufacturing process. Any injection through the skin stimulates at least two distinct immune responses: IgE (anti-partistic) and IgG (antibodies that fight the target pathogen). IgE sensitisation can be induced by trace amounts of the antigen and typically lasts for life; IgG is relatively short lived and is induced only by higher doses of the antigen. IgE never occurs naturally to respiratory viruses, because it is an anti-parasitic, allergic immune response evolved for insect bites (injections are like insect bites). In the case of natural infection with a respiratory antigen you typically develop IgG antibodies plus T-cells (which extend the capacity to generate IgG). After receiving a vaccine that includes the same antigen, you get IgE + IgG; that is, allergic sensitisation to the viral protein (and to any other protein in the vaccine) plus some short lived IgG immunity that has to counter both the allergy and the virus itself, at the same time. These two contradictory reactions ensure that vaccines can never achieve as good immunity as a natural infection, and may also induce allergic sensitivity to any non-target antigens, including the possibility of auto-immunity. Injectable vaccines are inherently dangerous; bad medicine.
This paper includes a reasonably comprehensive bibliography on IgE sensitisation: https://www.longdom.org/open-access/evidence-that-food-proteins-in-vaccines-cause-the-development-of-food-allergies-and-its-implications-for-vaccine-policy-12461.html
Vaccines are irreversible, biotechnological enhancements intended for healthy people that could never occur naturally (more on this below) and therefore not healthcare (or healthy) but transhumanism. Transhumanism is in principle unhealthy, because it aims to alter the species-typical characterises on which the medical standard of human health is based. https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/30/is-transhumanism-a-health-problem/
Apart from the above, a typical vaccine consists of the target antigen/protein and an adjuvant (intended to activate the immune system to the target antigen), plus some non-target antigens - proteins retained as impurities from the manufacturing process. Any injection through the skin stimulates at least two distinct immune responses: IgE (anti-partistic) and IgG (antibodies that fight the target pathogen). IgE sensitisation can be induced by trace amounts of the antigen and typically lasts for life; IgG is relatively short lived and is induced only by higher doses of the antigen. IgE never occurs naturally to respiratory viruses, because it is an anti-parasitic, allergic immune response evolved for insect bites (injections are like insect bites). In the case of natural infection with a respiratory antigen you typically develop IgG antibodies plus T-cells (which extend the capacity to generate IgG). After receiving a vaccine that includes the same antigen, you get IgE + IgG; that is, allergic sensitisation to the viral protein (and to any other protein in the vaccine) plus some short lived IgG immunity that has to counter both the allergy and the virus itself, at the same time. These two contradictory reactions ensure that vaccines can never achieve as good immunity as a natural infection, and may also induce allergic sensitivity to any non-target antigens, including the possibility of auto-immunity. Injectable vaccines are inherently dangerous; bad medicine.
This paper includes a reasonably comprehensive bibliography on IgE sensitisation: https://www.longdom.org/open-access/evidence-that-food-proteins-in-vaccines-cause-the-development-of-food-allergies-and-its-implications-for-vaccine-policy-12461.html
Pfizer Vaccine Safety Review
I just had another read of the Pfizer/BioNTech-funded vaccine safety and efficacy review, and it turns out that all 5 additional deaths following the unblinding were among the vaccinated; 3 previously vaccinated and 2 from the placebo arm but then died only after being vaccinated. We now have 20 dead after the vaccine and 14 among the unvaccinated. The Relative Risk of Death for the Vaccinated post unblinding is (20-14)/14 = 43% more than for the unvaccinated. This is staggering, a veritable poison; its emergency authorisation should be immediately cancelled.
No wonder Pfizer were eager to destroy the control by injecting everyone; they could surely see how bad the results would look for them if they had the study going for another couple of months. But what alarms me the most is how all of a sudden some scientists ‘forgot’ what RCTs are designed to prove, and engage in speculation about various uncontrolled factors but dismiss the only controlled variable in this study (intervention vs no-intervention).
See the comments below the article; upvote the good ones; downvote the propaganda. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1
I just had another read of the Pfizer/BioNTech-funded vaccine safety and efficacy review, and it turns out that all 5 additional deaths following the unblinding were among the vaccinated; 3 previously vaccinated and 2 from the placebo arm but then died only after being vaccinated. We now have 20 dead after the vaccine and 14 among the unvaccinated. The Relative Risk of Death for the Vaccinated post unblinding is (20-14)/14 = 43% more than for the unvaccinated. This is staggering, a veritable poison; its emergency authorisation should be immediately cancelled.
No wonder Pfizer were eager to destroy the control by injecting everyone; they could surely see how bad the results would look for them if they had the study going for another couple of months. But what alarms me the most is how all of a sudden some scientists ‘forgot’ what RCTs are designed to prove, and engage in speculation about various uncontrolled factors but dismiss the only controlled variable in this study (intervention vs no-intervention).
See the comments below the article; upvote the good ones; downvote the propaganda. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1
medRxiv
Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine
Background BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against COVID-19 and is currently authorized for…