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:
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.
And what about those who don't? Force them to get it? Force them to social distance? Force them to stay home? Or allow them to kill grandma because "freedom"?
Maybe so. It would be hard to actually know who has it or not, and fuck some kind of gay ass "registry". Privacy is important, and privacy doesn't mesh well with detailed tracking of every citizen, obviously.
Though I'd say, it's absolutely possible to identify people who are going out in public with symptoms and tell them to go home, somewhere alone, somewhere with other sick people, or somewhere with people who don't mind. It'd be no different from the police booting someone out of Walmart for indecent exposure. They address it when they see it, but don't go to nude beaches and start making mass arrests.
There can absolutely be a middle ground between freedom to do what you want during an alleged pandemic and a medical tyranny. It shouldn't be a free-for-all if an actual deadly disease appears, but we don't need to lock down the world and force inject people, either.
The option shouldn't be "let me do whatever I want, or you might as well shoot me". It should be "let me take my unvaxxed grandma who isn't afraid of dying of the coof to the empty beach near my house". That's freedom properly understood.
I think it's less than half. They like to make it seem like it's half or a majority, though.
And the difference would be that, while in my thought experiment the coof was deadly and the vax is safe, in reality, the coof is benign and the vax is deadly, so they can feel how they want, but it's not just and righteous to reimplement their bullshit.
Their feelings don't matter. Just like feelings don't matter in science, feelings don't matter when determining the right course of action in government. It's about what is true, and that CAN be discovered.