For the 🐑🐑 Bleating about “The Greater Good”… HERES YOUR SIGN !!!
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (17)
sorted by:
Freedom isn’t a virtue.
It’s a means to an end and I know everyone here doesn’t believe in total freedom—unless you’re cool with murder and rape and theft?
Glad to see someone point this out. Usually this goes unsaid and everyone just, sorry to say it, bleats along in agreement at the notion of freedom being the greatest thing to exist.
Also, all laws exist to legislate morality. All of them. So unless anyone here supports total anarchy with zero government of any kind, freedom is not the ultimate goal nor is it "the greater good".
The greater good is a just and righteous society. This necessarily involves hampering freedom, but also protecting freedom.
Those are such broad terms they can be used for everything. Your average covid believer thinks it is just and righteous to vaccinate yourself with hell knows what they designed and produced in one year, as you are righteously protecting others.
If freedom is a means to an end, you basically have social-democratic-whatever hell where stuff is allowed if it makes State/Gov richer or more powerful.
Except objective reality shows us that the COVID vaccine is complete bullshit.
So it doesn't really mesh the way you say. Sure, the COVID crazies can apply the terms to that topic, but they're simply wrong.
Saying something is just and righteous doesn't make it just and righteous. Just like calling something freedom doesn't make it freedom (i.e. freedom to infringe on other people's rights).
And freedom has to be a mean to an end. If it's the end, it will always result in social decay and societal collapse, since society operates on the rule of law, and not freedom.
You know this, I know this. However, unless you go pure math, objective reality can be hard to observe or not even exist. From PoV of your average covidiot, the objective reality was that we are dealing with an ebola level outbreak, as they were told that by the mainstream. So, if it is OK to throw away freedom for noble causes, it is OK to do so now. No higher principle.
Yes, it would be nice to know when you can intervene and when not; however, apart for reasons like stated above you'd need a crystal ball to predict what will the outcome be, was it ever worth the price. Also, do this a few times and nobody will even bother with freedom anymore, as precedent has been set.
Nobody is arguing you should be free to break neighbour's windows because you are free. That's the argument of the left, and why you can do less and less shit, all for noble causes.
I feel that for last couple for decades, freedom didn't have the best press. Actually, people insisted on being the smarter, righteous and other nice sounding adjectives, freedom was for rednecks or other local slur.
How's the social decay going?
The divine masculine archetype is universal rights, and the divine feminine archetype is universal caring. The covidiots believe they are representing the divine feminine by getting inoculated and coercing everyone else into taking the injection "for the greater good."
A just and righteous society needs an integration of masculine and feminine principles. This does involve hampering freedom for the greater good, but absolutely not when the loss of freedom is based on lies.
The truth will determine the proper approach to a just and righteous society. Injecting everyone with poison isn't the right answer even if germ theory was correct. There is no way to protect others from a fake "virus," so it is each individual's responsibility to decide how to protect themselves from that thing on the news.
All covid related policies that restrict freedom are unjust. Since legacy media is perpetuating the false belief that illness is caused by a "virus," in this case, freedom is the greater good.
Certainly, the truth determines the approach.
However, if the truth of covid was exactly as they claimed, it would be immoral to not do what would protect everybody.
In the hypothetical case where the vaccine is 100% safe and effective, and covid is real and highly lethal, claiming "freedom" actually does just mean "freedom to kill grandma".
If abortion is murder, and it 100% is, it should be illegal, because it's wrong. So why should going out with hypothetical super deadly covid while taking zero extra precautions not also be illegal? If someone wants to do nothing and stay in their house or go be in nature, that's one thing, but forcefully exposing others to super deadly covid is more akin to spitting on people, which is illegal, than it is exercising any supposed "rights".
To be clear, I'm not saying in this hypothetical that the government should send the goony squad to force inject anyone or lock people in their houses. If someone wants to go to an abandoned lake and fish, or meet up with other people who are aware of the risk, that's fine. But if someone wants to waltz into the store with a bunch of people who aren't fine with being near someone with super deadly covid, why should that not be disallowed in a moral and just society? There is no "right to go into the local Walmart and buy a can of tuna", nor is there a "right to cough up a massive loogie in the town square".
Now luckily, everything they say about covid is nonsense, so this is nothing more than a thought experiment.
And, to be fair, I'd be hesitant to actually apply this hypothetical in a medical scenario. Big pharma are mass murderers. I very much don't like the idea of the government regulating medical decisions. I simply stuck with the covid example for the consistency of the discussion.
So, I suppose the gist of my argument is this: Even just 100 years ago, "freedom" was not understood as the satanic "do what thou wilt" kind of freedom.
In this case, you'd have people lining up for their mRNA shot absolutely freewillingly, even if the thing would be 100% optional and there was actual scarcity. Hell, if the supply was actually low in this situation, the gov would probably push out some propaganda to make sure some get the shot earlier than others.
It is synonymous though, and honestly, would actually be reasonable in this line of thought: if you enforced a hidden mandate, because you can avoid it only if you go absolutely outcast, vast majority would comply. Next logical step is getting rid of the control system a la China; it does not make sense to keep the expensive and extensive mRNA certificate check infrastructure just for a percent of so purebloods. However, you can't have police check if some anti-vaxxer is going to Walmart constantly - so to save these resources, we go Greater Good and force-vaxx the remaining.
if I understand right, around half your country, and all of blue cities, would gladly feel righteous and just again, drowning in tingles as they are better than those grandma murdering freedom lovers, so this thought experiment may materialize faster than anybody of us would want.
I chose this as covid unfolded right in front of our eyes. Sam stuff can be applied to everything where you have lobby groups, big industry and so on. Freedom as a value creates natural opposition to using emergency laws whenever the current gov feels to.