Why Be Moral?

[RCSaunders]

And a new thought, RC:

The Coronavirus.

I'm a healthy, young, individual, let's say. I may or may not be carrying the virus. If I am, I may have no symptoms at all, ever. Or perhaps I may have a few, but not badly. At worst, I will have a period of flu-like sickness, from which I will recover.

I'm an "independent individual." I am bored at home. Economically, I am hurt by the slowdown, and can't go to work or the shops, or sporting events, or social gatherings. Getting out and around would do me good.

I also have no elderly relatives who are not locked up in "rest" homes. These currently have no visitors. And only old people die from this virus.

Advise the "independent individual": what's right for him to do? Why?

An, "independent individual," needs no such advice. There is no dilemma here except to the gullible collectivists and the paranoid. My wife and I went shopping yesterday and today in very large grocery stores. As for those who let the popular media terrify them, I can only suggest Robert Heinlein's recommendation, "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout." That's what most of the gullible are doing. Oh yes, and buy lots of toilet paper.

You weren't serious, were you?

[RCSaunders]

Why did you not see that I actually did clearly distinguish what is percepts from concepts?

Because, in your entire post you never used the word, "concepts," and I'm not a mind reader.

... No amount of knowledge changes what we perceive.

I agree. ... Of course no amount of knowledge changes what we perceive. I NEVER said it did nor would.

Which contradicts:

Therefore, what is actually seen, heard, et cetera/experienced was effected by 'our already gained knowledge'. And, now this new knowledge, which was just seen and gained, will effect the way we look at and see things from now on.

Until you've decided which it is, there is not much point in continuing this part of our discussion.

Seeing a so called "apple" only happens to those bodies who have previously experienced the English language.

What does someone who only speaks Greek, or Thai, or Spanish see when they look at what I call an apple. Do they see a pickle, a worm, a duck? Do you mean a baby that has never heard the English word apple cannot see one?

Does this make this any clearer, to you?

Oh yes, but probably not in a way that you hoped.

You are just not understanding what I am saying.

You are right about that.

[Age]

And a new thought, RC:

The Coronavirus.

I'm a healthy, young, individual, let's say. I may or may not be carrying the virus. If I am, I may have no symptoms at all, ever. Or perhaps I may have a few, but not badly. At worst, I will have a period of flu-like sickness, from which I will recover.

I'm an "independent individual." I am bored at home. Economically, I am hurt by the slowdown, and can't go to work or the shops, or sporting events, or social gatherings. Getting out and around would do me good.

I also have no elderly relatives who are not locked up in "rest" homes. These currently have no visitors. And only old people die from this virus.

Advise the "independent individual": what's right for him to do? Why?

'What is right' is not given to you.

'What is right' is within you.

'What is the right thing to do in Life' is KNOWN within you. You just need to discover or learn how to find this KNOWledge.

[Immanuel Can]

And a new thought, RC:

The Coronavirus.

I'm a healthy, young, individual, let's say. I may or may not be carrying the virus. If I am, I may have no symptoms at all, ever. Or perhaps I may have a few, but not badly. At worst, I will have a period of flu-like sickness, from which I will recover.

I'm an "independent individual." I am bored at home. Economically, I am hurt by the slowdown, and can't go to work or the shops, or sporting events, or social gatherings. Getting out and around would do me good.

I also have no elderly relatives who are not locked up in "rest" homes. These currently have no visitors. And only old people die from this virus.

Advise the "independent individual": what's right for him to do? Why?

An, "independent individual," needs no such advice.

Ah.

You're dodging again, RC. You know what the issue is here. The "independent individual" will spread the disease to those who are susceptible to it.

Why should he care? But if he does not, how is his callous indifference to the suffering and death of others a "moral" thing?

[Immanuel Can]

That is, if you believe there are any "oughts" in the world.

"Ought," like a value term requires an objective, goal, or purpose.

But "ought" means more. It means "owe it." But the independent individual thinks he owes nothing to anyone.

As for "goals" and "purposes," he has no reason to consider the good of his friend, his neighbour or his countryman, except to the extent that his myopic vision will allow him to believe his personal interest are being served thereby. For others, whose interests he does not see as ever serving his own, he cares nothing at all.

Hence he is, at best, an amoral being. At worst, an immoral one by way of negligence, if not by active participation in the suffering and evil committed upon others...for whom he feels no pity and takes no thought.

Not a very admirable character, I'm going to suggest.

[Age]

Why did you not see that I actually did clearly distinguish what is percepts from concepts?

Because, in your entire post you never used the word, "concepts," and I'm not a mind reader.

I did not have to, especially considering it was you who has defined 'percepts' and 'concepts'.

I distinguished between the 'information, which is fed through the five senses of the body, or 'directly perceived' (percepts)' from the 'already stored, and/or shared, knowledge, or 'what we perceive' (concepts).

I used the word 'information' for 'that' what comes in or 'perceives', and, the word 'knowledge' for 'that' what is already 'perceived' (concepts) or 'knowledge' that either stays in or goes out and is shared.

See, the incoming 'information' is exactly as 'it' IS, but this 'information' interacts with the already gained 'knowledge', which affects the way that information is received. Whatever way the information is perceived this cannot be changed. Although the way the information is received or perceived could be completely distorted, twisted, false, wrong, or incorrect. This is because the new information gets effected by the already gained knowledge or pre-concepts.

... No amount of knowledge changes what we perceive.

I agree. ... Of course no amount of knowledge changes what we perceive. I NEVER said it did nor would.

Which contradicts:

Therefore, what is actually seen, heard, et cetera/experienced was effected by 'our already gained knowledge'. And, now this new knowledge, which was just seen and gained, will effect the way we look at and see things from now on.

It does NOT contradict this at all.

I really wish people would say what thee actual Truth IS, instead of saying what they assume and/or believe is true.

Thee Truth IS, and I AGREE that; This APPEARS as though I am contradicting "my" self.(After all I do write in a very particular way). But, if anyone wants to look deeper and delve into what I have actually written and am meaning further, from a Truly OPEN perspective, instead of from their already assumed thinking, then I can very simply and very easily SHOW how this is NOT a contradiction at all. This NON-contradiction can be clearly SEEN in the actual words that I have used. But, people do only see things as they want to. As, partly, explained above.

I await for clarifying questions, from those that are Truly interested. As for the rest, just continue believing whatever you want to believe. That is of absolutely no concern to me.

Until you've decided which it is, there is not much point in continuing this part of our discussion.

Well I have ALREADY decided, which can be clearly OBSERVED AND SEEN in the actual words that I have written so far.

Seeing a so called "apple" only happens to those bodies who have previously experienced the English language.

What does someone who only speaks Greek, or Thai, or Spanish see when they look at what I call an apple.

An 'object', which they have and use different labels or names.

Do they see a pickle, a worm, a duck?

Wow, I NEVER imagined someone could misinterpret and misconstrue what I wrote so much.

Thank you for this insight. This SHOWS me and REVEALS so much about how important it is to express and communicate things in and to the most absolute specific detail so that what is actually being said does not get misunderstood in anyway.

Human beings start out in Life after they are born just seeing 'things', (although they do not use that term). These new born human beings just see 'things' as they really ARE. As human beings grow, mature, live, et cetera they start learning words and languages, and then start seeing 'things' by the names or labels that they have LEARNED along the way.

So, NO. Those human beings who only speak greek, thai, or spanish do not see the 'thing' or 'object' known as an "apple" in the english language as a "pickle", a "worm", nor a "duck". What ALL people 'see' are 'things' or 'objects', but what people see when they see what is known as an "apple" in the english language is whatever they call "it" in the language/s they know and want to use.

I really thought that this irrefutable fact would not have needed pointing out and say.

This is just more evidence and proof to NEVER assume absolutely any thing at all.

Do you mean a baby that has never heard the English word apple cannot see one?

Yes. But in a truer sense "a baby that has not yet 'learned' the english word "apple".

I did after all actually say; "new born human" and as far as I am aware, I do not know of any "new born human" that knows any of the english language, yet.

Does this make this any clearer, to you?

Oh yes, but probably not in a way that you hoped.

What way do you assume I was hoping?

Also, what become clearer, and what are you still unclear of, if you are?

You are just not understanding what I am saying.

You are right about that.

Okay. But, do you know what I do when I do not understand "another"?

If no, then,

I ask them clarifying questions, or

I say I do not understand "this part" so are you able to elaborate on it, or explain it further or in another to clear it up for me somehow? Or,

I explain to them that what APPEARS absurd or contradictory to me (so that they are then able to understand exactly WHY I am not understanding), which allows them to re-word it so that they could help me to understand better, if they so wanted to and chose to do so.

See, just telling me; "I do not understand you", does not help me in any way at all in what exactly, and in which way exactly, I NEED to explain things more or better for you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

double posting

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is more critical with 'without the species, tribe and collective' the individual and individuality will not survive rather the other way round.
Note examples like insects that need to colony to sustain itself and this principle is sustain throughout the animal world.

Thank you for the very entertaining comments. I certainly don't mind if your ideal is to live like an insect or herd animal. I suppose you cannot help it.

You don't know the meaning of "analogy"?

The principle to learn from the colony of insects and other groups is the Principle of Synergy generated from groups and teams which is not available from individual primarily driven by independence.

Here is an example of Team versus Independent Individual[s];

• Say there are 100 sacks [10 kg or 25 lbs] of goods to move 5 meters away to a store.
  There are 5 men [all same abilities] available to move the goods, therefore each man will have to carry 20 sacks of goods.
  Now consider this if you are the supervisor fighting for time;
  • 1. Would it be faster if 5 men were to more the goods individually i.e. each carry 20 sacks to the store,
    or
    2. The 5 men standing side by side and passing the 100 sacks from one to the next person to the store.
  Experiments has shown method 2 is more faster than method 1 due to synergy,
  i.e. Synergy is the creation of a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts - wiki.

As I had stated your thinking is very narrow, shallow and not intelligent. You don't seem to be able to learn from knowledge of external events like teamwork within a colony.

You said: "Tribalism [us versus them] as encoded in the DNA/RNA and embedded deep in the brain ... therefore by our inherent human nature, you cannot demand the individual to be ultimately independent."

I take your word for it that it applies to you and that you can't help writing this nonsense. It's just that DNA/RNA embedded deep in your brain, making you think and write these things. There is hope for you though.
Scientists are making great strides in dealing with genetic disorders, such as yours, and may be able provide you with a full human capacity to choose what you think and do and no longer be driven by these evolutionary demons, "deep in your brain," that are controlling you. Good luck!

How can you be so ignorant?
The DNA generate the basic parts, i.e. the arms, fingers, body, the brain, the neo-cortex [& prefrontal].
The RNA assists in generating basic traits [instincts like Tribalism] and competences human had inherited from their ancestors and previous generations.
With the above and the database of knowledge we have established, you and I are able to write these things.

RCSaunders: these evolutionary demons, "deep in your brain,"
Note 'demons' if I agree to your use is only metaphorical.
Again you are so ignorant in this case of neuroscience and neuro-anatomy.
I suggest you research on neuro-anatomy especially on the brain stem and the 'lower' brain on this issue.
https://www.brainhq.com/wp-content/uplo ... /brain.png
https://www.brainhq.com/brain-resources ... /brain-101

You should not be too arrogant when you are ignorant of the subject.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Justified moral oughts

THIS is the problem. There are no "justifiable moral secular oughts."

can only be used as GUIDES

More than that. Not just "guides" but standards. And the standards themselves don't produce moral improvement, anymore than a thermometer could "produce" the temperature of the atmosphere; the standards can only tell us when we have obtained or located the right actions...it cannot make them happen.

You are too rhetorical here by sliding to a thermometer.
Morality do not work like thermometer with variable standards that are set by humans subjectively.

As I had argued, within Morality [Pure] we justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning the absolute ideal of the Highest Good.

Such an ideal is impossible to be achieved in practice but nevertheless we are using it a GUIDE only or ideal standard [not the typical standard].
When one is strictly aligned [locked on] to the absolute Highest Good from one's current state, the only path is only toward progressive continuous improvements when the appropriate actions are taken.
At times one may regress but the trend is always progressive towards the impossible ideal that is pulling one towards it.

.. the standards themselves don't produce moral improvement,

Why not? You are too ignorant of this possibility.

Let say,

• the absolute Moral Ought is,
  "no human shall kill another human" - as justified empirically & philosophically.
  which is translated to ZERO death target via killing.
  this is not likely to be possible in practice to the inherent human nature.
  Thus one of the moral GUIDE to be adopted is;
  There shall be ZERO death re murder in one year.
  
  In practice, there were 405,000 homicides in 2017.
  Because the Moral absolute is ZERO, this generate a negative variance of 405,000 homicides.
  When the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics is established, effective strategies will be establish to reduce this negative of 405,000 downward.
  
  As the numbers move downward, there will be improvements as driven by the absolute Moral Ought and Standard of ZERO homicide.
  With the fixed ZERO homicide target, humanity will be able to achieve more and more reduction in homicides around the world - thus generating improvements re morality and ethics.

How can one be so ignorant justified moral absolute [oughts and standards] cannot make improvement within morality and ethics.

• Note the current COVID19 pandemic is a micro example of the absolute moral standard as a guide that is working unconsciously [not explicitly] within humanity at present.
  There is no doubt from humanity activities around the world, there is an implied absolute moral ought i.e.
  "No humans ought to be killed by the COVID19-virus"
  this grounded on;
  "No human ought to be killed prematurely or by another human"
  
  Thus the moral target is ZERO death by the virus causing COVID-19.
  But at present the infections and mortality rate are going up in total with China in control of the situation and some are struggling to fight the disease.
  In time there will be reduction in infection and deaths within each country and the world in total.
  So can one be so ignorant there cannot be moral improvements that is driven by justified moral absolutes.
  
  However I am optimistic there will be ZERO death by COVID-19 when the vaccine against the virus of COVID19 is discovered by scientists like what we have done for previous viruses.

There is no doubt from humanity activities around the world, there is an implied absolute moral ought i.e.
"No humans ought to be killed by the COVID19-virus"
this grounded on;
"No human ought to be killed prematurely or by another human"

The current activities taken to fight the COVID19 pandemic is a case of applying justified moral absolute or standards in action, whilst it is not sytematized as a Moral Framework and System.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is, if you believe there are any "oughts" in the world.

"Ought," like a value term requires an objective, goal, or purpose. Reality determines what is possible and what is not. If any objective is to reached, what, "ought," to be done to reach it is determined by what is possible, because what is not possible cannot achieve the objective. Where there are no objectives, there are no oughts.

Again you are ignorant of much on this matter re morality.
It is because there are justified oughts that there are objectives which then generate secondary oughts.

Within Morality and Ethics, what 'ought' is always a secular objective absolute, i.e. it is never expected to be possible in reality. It should not be enforced but merely to be used as an ideal Standard to guide progress in good human behavior.
Withing Morality and Ethics, the moral absolute ought is merely an objective moral standard to guide and aligns the individual ethically towards the impossible ideal.
This is this alignment and drive toward the ideal that promote a trend of progress and restraint any regress in practice.

The 'ought' you mentioned above is perhaps confined to Politics [collective governance] which is independent of Morality [individual to collective teamwork]. These 'oughts' are the subjective laws from a political government or specific groups.

[Veritas Aequitas]

RCSauders,

From your posting I gathered you have been brainwashed promoting Ayn Rand's [despite your negative attitude of her] view of individualism;

Ayn Rand burst onto America's literary scene in 1943 with her novel "The Fountainhead" and its unforgettable hero, Howard Roark, a paragon of manly independence and rugged individualism.

The other hero of Rand's individual is John Galt.

The theme of Atlas Shrugged, as Rand described it, is "the role of man's mind in existence". The book explores a number of philosophical themes from which Rand would subsequently develop Objectivism. In doing so, it expresses the advocacy of reason, individualism, and capitalism, and depicts what Rand saw to be the failures of governmental coercion.
link

There are tons of criticism of the ideas of "individualism" associated with Rand.

Note this where independence is indispensable;

• Discovering individualism's limits was something each objectivist would have to do alone.
  link

As I had stated, I have great respect for individualism in its appropriate context but 'individualism' cannot override 'teamwork' as in TEAM-HUMANITY and inherent within the DNA/RNA of humans.
One example of TEAM-HUMANITY in real action [not explicit and formalized] is the current fight against the COVID19 pandemic.
If we were to abstract the principles involved within this current fight with COVID19 pandemic, it will be exactly like how I have formalized the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

[Immanuel Can]

Justified moral oughts

THIS is the problem. There are no "justifiable moral secular oughts."

can only be used as GUIDES

More than that. Not just "guides" but standards. And the standards themselves don't produce moral improvement, anymore than a thermometer could "produce" the temperature of the atmosphere; the standards can only tell us when we have obtained or located the right actions...it cannot make them happen.

You are too rhetorical here by sliding to a thermometer.
Morality do not work like thermometer with variable standards that are set by humans subjectively.

Thermometers are not arbitrary. If they were, no two would agree.

They are oriented to things like absolute zero, or to O Celsius, the freezing point of water. But they do have to be calibrated; and that means we have to know a fixed point, like absolute zero, in order to know when the level of mercury indicates anything. Otherwise, all we have is a tube with liquid metal in it.

But for secular morality, we have no such marks. We can't calibrate our moral-ometer from the natural world, because the natural world contains no moral marking points like "absolute morality, and in any case, an "is" does not give us an "ought"; and we can't calibrate our moral-ometer by universal consensus, because for any point we choose, people disagree.

As I had argued, within Morality [Pure] we justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning the absolute ideal of the Highest Good.

You keep saying this.

But you can't list the empirical evidence you think justifies morality, and tell me what the absolute ideal of the Highest Good is. We don't have what you are claiming we have.

Prove me wrong, if you think I am: just list these "empirical evidences" you think give us morality, and tell me what "the Highest Good" is, so we can all aim at it.

If you can't, then you're just talking about what you WISH we had, but we do not have.

.. the standards themselves don't produce moral improvement,

Why not?

Easy. Take an easy standard, such as "The purest gold must be 99.9999% free of other metals," say. That's a very empirical standard. It is, in fact, the standard for Perth gold, the purest gold ever minted.

Now, how many gold bars has that standard MADE pure? Not one. The standard itself never smelted a single bar. Rather, it was the standard or "thermometer," if you like, used to decide when the Perth bar had already been smelted by someone. A standard never MADE anything happen, not in all of human history. Rather, human beings referred to that standard to decide whether or not they had arrived at some particular point. That's all.

Morality is a set of standards. It is not a magical "human improvement" machine. Knowing that, say, giving charity to orphans is good, does not prize one single pound, dollar or shekel out of your pocket. It feeds no empty bellies, and provides neither clothing nor shelter.

Let say,

• the absolute Moral Ought is,
  "no human shall kill another human"

But that isn't true. So we can't "say" that without being arbitrary, and, in fact, wrong.

First of all, people (empirically speaking) kill all the time. You need an "ought." But you aren't going to be able to get one from any reference to empirical situations ("is" situations) and you certainly don't have one in this case. People DO kill.

Secondly, it's not at all true that killing is always bad. If a man breaks into another's house, with the aim of stealing his possessions, harming his children and raping his wife, and the man fights back, and in the course of the struggle kills the home-invader, he's not a murderer...he's a hero.

[RCSaunders]

Why did you not see that I actually did clearly distinguish what is percepts from concepts?

Because, in your entire post you never used the word, "concepts," and I'm not a mind reader.

I did not have to, especially considering it was you who has defined 'percepts' and 'concepts'.

I had not used those words until responding to your post here. Even after I used those words, you equivocated, and used the word, "perceive," for two different concepts, that is, two different meanings. You do the same thing here:

I distinguished between the 'information, which is fed through the five senses of the body, or 'directly perceived' (percepts)' from the 'already stored, and/or shared, knowledge, or 'what we perceive' (concepts).

You have used the word, "percieve," in the first instance to mean direct conscious perception, what is seen, hear, felt, smelled, or tasted, but have use the word, "perceive," in the second instance with a totally different meaning, that which one knows or thinks, which is by means of concepts. It is not possible to, "perceive," (see, hear, feel, taste, or smell) concepts. The confusion comes from the fact that, in everyday language, the word perceive is used to identify two totally different things: the first being direct conscious perception, the second how one thinks, evaluates, or regards things. You have confused these two meanings.

From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

1. To become aware of (something) directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing: "We could perceive three figures in the fog."
2.To regard or consider; deem: an old technology that is still perceived as useful; "a politician who is perceived to be a dissembler."

It is exactly what you have done here:

For example: A new born human body will see, hear, feel, smell, and taste ONLY what actually exists, and ONLY 'that'. Whereas, a much older human body will see, hear, feel, smell, and taste absolutely ANY THING, which the 'you' (the person) inside assumes or believes exists, and ONLY 'that'.

Perception, in philosophy, pertains only to direct conscious perception. No amount of experience or knowledge changes how one sees, hears, feels, smells, or tastes thing.

A concept is the identification of some existent. For example, the concept indicated by the word, "apple," means the kind of fruit one sees we all call an apple. When a young boy looks at an apple and calls it an apple and when a botanist looks at an apple and calls it an apple, they both see exactly the same thing and mean that same thing when they call it an apple. The boy's little knowledge about an apple, and the botanist's extensive knowledge about apples does not change how an apple is perceived (they both perceive the apple in exactly the same way) and does not change what either means by the word apple. All of the botanist's knowledge is ABOUT apples, and none of that knowledge changes either how an apple is perceived by the botanist or what he means by an apple.

Until you understand this simple epistemological fact, there is really no more to discuss on this issue.

[IvoryBlackBishop]

Have you ever had your reading comprehension tested? What I said was: "But for anyone who wanted more than that, who wanted to fully live as a human being and achieve and be all they could possibly be, only taking full responsibility for one's life and choices, learning all one possibly can, thinking as well as one possibly can, and make choices based on knowledge without contradictions is absolutely necessary."

Do you see the word, "good," anywhere in there. Do you see, "independent individualism," in that sentence. Is it your evaluation that the description I gave describes what is good? I only pointed out what would be necessary for anyone who wanted their life to be more than mere existence.

You believe it's "good" or "better" for a person to live more than "mere existence".

I don't think most people want that.

Yet even though they don't want it, you're attempting to persuade them to your point of view.

It's not true, anyway. There are plenty of things people consider very good that they get from being socially interactive or interdependent.

Who said anything about not being socially interactive--and there is a huge difference between social interaction and mutual parasitism (interdependence). Only those relationships which are entered into willingly by all parties where each regards the relationship a value to himself are benevolent relationships. All other relationships are those between slave owner and slave or criminal and victim. You do not seem to know the difference.
[/quote]
So you believe those things are morally wrong; slave ownership, crime, victimization.

So, the moral dimension means one cannot enjoy what they are doing.

Non sequitur; I'm sure both the Nazis who committed the Holocaust "enjoyed" throwing people into gas chambers and ovens, and the resistance "enjoyed" fighting or killing Nazis; but of course, your argument is that whether or not the "Nazis" enjoyed it or not, it was a morally wrong way of finding "enjoyment" done at the expense of others.

H.L. Mencken was absolutely right. He called them, "puritans," but it applies to all so-called moralists. They are people, "who are terrified that someone, somewhere, might actually be enjoying their life."

Right, you're terrified that a person who decides not to pursue any education or life pursuits, and father 10 children with 10 different partners and letting the taxpayer pick up that tab is "enjoying" life more than your ideal of a "holier than thou hard worker", or whatever.

They cannot image anything moral that does not cause someone some kind of discomfort or suffering. If anyone does anything because they want to do it or enjoy doing it, it is, ipso facto, immoral in your and other moralist's view. How sad!

That runs contrary to your view anyway, since your view was already viewing long-term goals which require self-discipline and self-sacrifice, such as "working hard" to become an independent individual as "better" than pure short-term, impulse or sensory "pleasure", such as leading the life of a heroin addict, or dropping out of HS and fathering 8 children with 8 different partners, even if it means sacrificing "short term" discomforts for longer-term goals and ideals.

Plus you're not simply pursuing your own "independent individuality", but are advocating altruism or attempt to evangelize toward others, such as moralizing about other people "moralizing" or supposedly attempting solely to prevent others from "enjoying life".

[RCSaunders]

An, "independent individual," needs no such advice.

Ah.

You're dodging again, RC.

Ah! You're being dishonest again.

You wrote:

... 'death to the Kulaks,' No pity for them at all? And no condemnation for Joseph Stalin.

... a disgusting and horrible sentiment I could not even think, much less write.

Now you can accuse me of misquoting you, just because I left out some of what you wrote, but you have just done the same thing. You are intentionally distorting the truth, misrepresenting what I wrote.

You know what the issue is here.

I certainly do. You are attempting to twist the truth by asking a question like, "do you still beat your wife, answer yes or no," and then accusing someone who refuses to answer of "dodging" the question.

But, of course I did answer the question, which you conveniently truncated to put over your lying accusation.

I would ask you what you would advise, but of course you won't say. You'll just provide some song and dance about how you will answer when... followed by some disingenuous excuse.

Let me ask you this instead. The government has just mandated that no one be allowed to leave their homes until the corona virus pandemic is over and requires all citizens to report any observed violations of this quarantine. You see your neighbor leaving his home. Do you report him or her to the authorities?