Interesting how some people assume what your views are based on you questioning the government, media, un-elected bureaucrats, failed doctors like Fauci, and billionaire college drop outs, over an experimental drug that is one step short of being forced onto the general public, when the general public has not been at risk with this virus, only a small minority, of which an even smaller minority have succumbed to the virus.
I'll be honest; I'm not always down with everything you say (and I'll cop to not always understanding it), but on this you're getting warmer. There are a LOT of assumptions in today's intellectual market, and while that's not bad in and of itself, when it's coupled with the judgement and the de rigeuer partisan ad hominem attacks that invariably go along with it ("deplorable" "radical", "unhinged", "failed") it chills an important essence of what was, at least philosophically, supposed to be an integral part of the American form of democracy.
It is quite interesting to me that you so regularly choose to take the position of defending a post like this that is full of fallacious and false information just because you can glean a little kernel from it and use that to dangle some form of "I'm right about something you all don't see!" over the heads of everyone else. You're a smart guy, but is feeling intellectually one-step ahead of the rest of the forums at all times really that important to you?
I've seen you respond to several interesting, thoughtful posts on this forum (several of them authored by yours truly) by picking out a sentence or two you don't like and using that as an excuse to rationalize throwing out the entirety of someone else's point. Here you quote a post where 3/4ths of the ideas articulated are completely false, and respond with "you're getting warmer, here's how you're right about why everyone else here is being unreasonable!"
Stop. Not "defending" anything, and I'm not "throwing out" anything. Jingle, Cram, and Lonestar do not need more stats from me to make their point. For fuck's sake, read what I wrote about assumptions. That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. DON'T ASSUME YOU KNOW WHAT MY POSITION IS BECAUSE I POINT OUT ONE THING.
I am pro-vax (up to the point of forcing people to take them). I am anti-conspiracy theory. I can't say that enough, and I said it in that post. I am also, first and foremost, against the sort of partisan "you're dumb" back and forth that, supposedly, "delivers". Let's be able to talk about ALL aspects of this without a ton of presupposition. I did not in any way say that the REST of his position is "warmer" because he got close on one thing. I said he's getting warm because THAT point had some truth. Why not look at it that the dude is getting POUNDED by you all - and I threw him a bone, fair is fair. Why are some of you so scared to acknowledge that it's not a matter of "100% right side of history! and 100% bat-shit turbo crazy!" We're ALLOWED to disagree with nuance.
See my above post. Your entire objective with defending darkshade is completely fallacious. There is no "middle ground" and "mutual acceptance" if there is no compromise. All we can do is disagree if both sides are unwilling to change ANY of their behaviors as part of a greater commitment.
Greater commitment to what exactly?
Getting people to change mindsets and how they think about things totally reminds me of "Kill the Indian, save the man."
Are you pro or anti vaccines? Because this is the measure Darkshade suggests is a tool for totalitarianism and unnecessary for "the least deadly pandemic ever".
FORCING each and every person to get a vaccine, without a vote or other means of civil disobedience, and with punishment for non-compliance, is pretty darn close to totalitarianism.
Fair, but (and on this we do not see eye-to-eye), why should someone's decision to not get vaccinated then also put my health at risk? This is what I take issue with. I think public and private institutions should have the ability to limit access to services and/or facilities for those that put others' health at risk because of their decisions / actions. If they want to put their own health at risk - hey, go for it. But don't in turn put mine at risk.
I think we need to develop quick/rapid/instant tests that are accurate for those that refuse to vaccinate. If they have an alternative, then they can get access to services/facilities.
Why? Because you have no "right" to a zero-risk existence. That's the fallacy. You're at risk every single day based on the acts/omissions/decisions of others. Some obvious and direct, others not so obvious and more consequential. No rights are absolute; in a democratic society, rights are relative, relative to those rights of those around you. I don't have the right to kill you... unless you abuse my right to privacy. You have the right to free speech... unless you abuse my right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness (you cannot slander/libel me). All rights have some level of compromise as they butt against someone else's right, and so here with the added proviso that you arguably don't have the "right" that is being compromised to begin with. I've often suggested that when having this conversation, insert "abortion" in with "vaccine" because the premise is the same, the rights in question are the same, and the analysis is the same.
We KNOW that an abortion - by an individual woman - has societal impacts. There is cost, there is impact on things like crime, etc. But do we MANDATE abortions? Absolutely not, and when legislature gets uppity in terms of putting any framework around abortion, WE get uppity (myself included). All on the premise that a woman's rights to privacy are sacrosanct, regardless of the impact to others or society.
To add an example to how others decisions affect our health everyday. All you need to do is look at the decisions made by these companies that are causing toxicity to us humans. Look at how much pollution is in a major city, compared to a rural area.
Honestly, these big cities are too compact, health problems are causes of this condition and environment. It's unhealthy, and the only way people see a better life if to leave those cities. You have people wanting to live off the grid, away from this because they see it as unhealthy and sickening.
You realize how infested and unsanitary cities are? Those actions of every homeless person peeing on the side, the exhaust fumes from the many cars and busses that spread those chemicals that are harmful to the air into a crowd of peoples lungs.
These actions of driving in a congested city, rather than biking, are causing many Health Issues to those whom walk the streets. Yet, they're unaware of it and see no harm. Because it's not immediate harm.
It's still killing you, and other things are still killing you. We are actually dying a little every day.
Topic: Coronavirus Thread v.2 (Read 195522 times)
