Government wants to control your life?

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 231
#181
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
I find this to be such a breathtaking violation of Occam’s razor. Why is it easier to assume such a large swath of our government is doing what they’re doing for sadistic purposes rather than cause they believe it will help protect people?
Like I said, we just disagree. Given the absolutely despicable and disgusting behavior that is endemic among American elites I find the proposition that they are doing what they do to help their political outgroups and enemies to be the breathtaking violation of Occam's razor. Now their behavior isn't 100% based in malice, elites do tend to implement policies that reward their in-groups (mainly other elites, but also enough to placate the masses that allow them to take/remain in power) and they don't make all of their decisions based on what hurts the outgroup. But they don't care if the outgroup is hurt either. And people of all stirpes often take a sadistic pleasure in hurting those they consider to be enemies, but sanctimonious elites most of all.

The idea that someone like Chuck Schumer would even lift a pinky finger to help someone like me is completely laughable--far more likely, someone like that would go out of their way to hurt someone like me. Pretty much everyone on the right recognizes this instinctively, which is why you see the behavior you do regarding stuff like masks and vaccinations. That and the fact that a lot of us have some reflexive anti authoritarian impulses (most white republicans are descended from the most disagreeable people in Europe after all.) For example, at this point the pressure campaign has been so heavy handed and oppressive that I actually regret getting vaccinated lol. My attitude is always "f*ck you" when ordered around lol,  definitely not alone in that either
#182
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
@thett3
I'd absolutely support DeSantis.

Me too.  He is my one and only for 2024.
#183
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@coal
If Biden and Trump don’t run I think he’s a slam dunk to be the next President. I think he could beat Biden but it would be a closer thing than against Harris, who would get thrashed. Even Trump would probably beat Harris 
#184
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
And BTW, people are often too stupid to make their own decisions. That’s just a fact.

I don't disagree that people often make bad choices for themselves.  But this is the fundamental disagreement you and I will likely have on essentially every issue that involves expanding the scope of state power: what is to be done about it?

Shall we expand the power of the state to protect people from the foreseeable consequences of their own stupidity? Or, shall we grant people the dignity of allowing them to make their own choices and stand to account for them?

That's really what it comes down to.  Either we are a society comprised of free people who stand equal before God and the law, or we are not. And when the argument is "the government must protect people from themselves," we are not free at all.  Freedom means the right to do yourself harm, if you so desire.  The state's proper function is not that of a parent, after all. 


#185
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@thett3
If Biden and Trump don’t run I think he’s a slam dunk to be the next President. I think he could beat Biden but it would be a closer thing than against Harris, who would get thrashed. Even Trump would probably beat Harris 

Trump is going to run.  Unless the DOJ locks him in prison first.  Whether Trump could win a primary against DeSantis, I don't know.  DeSantis would look a lot better where Trump is what he's running against.  But Trump had, and still has, tens of millions of supporters who are readily awaiting the chance to vote for him once more.

I don't think Biden could ever beat Trump again.  I know Kamila couldn't.  She could barely even win California.  She is a failed politician so toxic that even left-coast shithole states like California find her intolerable. 
#186
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@coal
She really is remarkably bad. I was shocked Biden chose her, especially given his age she is the heir apparent and is just a bottom tier politician 
#187
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@thett3
She really is remarkably bad. I was shocked Biden chose her, especially given his age she is the heir apparent and is just a bottom tier politician 

I don't know who Biden wanted, if anyone.  But he didn't pick her.  She was picked for him, likely by Pelosi and others in the DNC who are wholly out of touch with reality.  

The argument for picking her is one that makes theoretical sense, if you see the world through the fog of DNC-Twitter-Clown World.  In DNC-Twitter-Clown World, there was a real risk that progressives would sit at home for Joe Biden, frustrate that they couldn't get a movement-leftist type to rally behind, like Bernie Sanders.  So, to ensure that the woke would actually show up to the polls for an old white guy, they had to pick a less-than-ancient (sort of) black (alleged) woman.  In this way, they could make history on the coat-tails of her "identity claims."

Then there was the process-of-elimination effect, of Amy Kloubachar (Biden's rumored preference) being dinged for so-called "institutional racism," along with the fact that Susan Rice more or less told Biden to get fucked.  I always liked her.  lol  Thus, we are left with that walking antichrist known as Kamila Harris. 

All of this is stupid for all the obvious reasons, though.  
Topic's author
#188
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,269
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
I find the proposition that they are doing what they do to help their political outgroups and enemies to be the breathtaking violation of Occam's razor
Curious, what about the health experts who overwhelmingly agree with everything the “in group” is  doing? Is the proposition that they are doing what they’re doing to help society also equally absurd?

The idea that someone like Chuck Schumer would even lift a pinky finger to help someone like me is completely laughable--far more likely, someone like that would go out of their way to hurt someone like me. Pretty much everyone on the right recognizes this instinctively, which is why you see the behavior you do regarding stuff like masks and vaccinations.
There’sa term for this instinctiveness, it’s called projection.

That and the fact that a lot of us have some reflexive anti authoritarian impulses (most white republicans are descended from the most disagreeable people in Europe after all.) For example, at this point the pressure campaign has been so heavy handed and oppressive that I actually regret getting vaccinated lol. My attitude is always "f*ck you" when ordered around lol,  definitely not alone in that either
How do you not find this to be incredibly childish?
Topic's author
#189
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,269
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@coal
I don't disagree that people often make bad choices for themselves.  But this is the fundamental disagreement you and I will likely have on essentially every issue that involves expanding the scope of state power: what is to be done about it?
I don’t think we have as much disagreement as you think. Regarding the pandemic, my personal attitude is that I’m done with it. This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated, so at this point given that 99% of the deaths from Covid are unvaccinated I say let them die. I take no pleasure in that, but if stupid people are going to continue to be stupid I see no reason to intervene. There are drawbacks to this which I struggle with, the immunocompromised and now children who are not as immune from this variant as the last. But government can only do so much…

And although that’s my position, I understand why people feel differently. You say people have the right to harm themselves. I agree, but that’s not what people are choosing here. Most or at least many of the hospitalized didn’t get vaccinated because they thought this was a hoax. As soon as they learn it wasn’t, they beg for the vaccine. They’re victims of misinformation, and that’s worth considering.

It’s a good debate to sort through - just how far government should go to protect its people, but the problem is that we can’t even get to that debate because people can’t tell the difference between someone trying to protect society (the literal job of an elected official) vs someone trying to control society because they crave power… or something.
#190
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,008
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
trying to protect society (the literal job of an elected official) 
Every politician has only one job. To get re-elected. Protecting people isn't even on the radar if people don't want to be protected.
#191
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
Curious, what about the health experts who overwhelmingly agree with everything the “in group” is  doing? Is the proposition that they are doing what they’re doing to help society also equally absurd?
The "health experts" who bold face lied about the efficacy of masks early on, intentionally suppressed any discussion of the lab leak hypothesis, and justified mass black lives matter protests while telling everyone else to lock down? 

There’sa term for this instinctiveness, it’s called projection.
yea yea "left good right bad" 
#192
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
How do you not find this to be incredibly childish?
The disease poses no threat to me whatsoever. The continuous loss of liberty as the state-corporate merger presses ever forward is an almost existential threat, and I now feel complicit in it. Power isn't just given up after it's seized. Once they normalize having to show your papers to enter a store, to hold a job, or to travel between states, that isn't gonna go away

If you're referring to my instincts I don't really think a reflexive anti authoritarianism is childish, it's just a disposition like any other.
#193
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@coal
I don't know who Biden wanted, if anyone.  But he didn't pick her.  She was picked for him, likely by Pelosi and others in the DNC who are wholly out of touch with reality.  
They must be completely out of touch if they thought she was a remotely compelling candidate lol. Even many liberals hate her
#194
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
I don’t think we have as much disagreement as you think. Regarding the pandemic, my personal attitude is that I’m done with it. This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated, so at this point given that 99% of the deaths from Covid are unvaccinated I say let them die. I take no pleasure in that, but if stupid people are going to continue to be stupid I see no reason to intervene. There are drawbacks to this which I struggle with, the immunocompromised and now children who are not as immune from this variant as the last. But government can only do so much…
Here is my perspective on those issues.  I understand the science and the math involved in consideration of these questions.  I disagree with those who do not want the vaccine, because I understand the clinical trial results and the relative risks involved in the decision not to receive any vaccine to multiple, different patient populations.  I have done what I can to persuade those important to me to get the vaccine and I will share my opinions on it with almost anyone who will ask.  But if people decide they don't want to get vaccinated, I agree it's on them.  

I do not attribute blame to those who chose to not get vaccinated for creating greater levels of risk to the immunocompromised. This is not a situation like with childhood diseases, such as polio, rubella or others, where only those who are medically unable to receive the vaccine are dying as a result of infection.  The non-vaccinated do not cause or contribute to the immunocompromised becoming ill.  After all, just because you're immunocompromised doesn't mean you can't get the vaccine.  You can, and absolutely should.  

On the question of COVID and children (so, pediatric .... age 0-18), according to the data from every country on earth with a reliable infrastructure to produce it (so, the US, UK, Canada, most of the EU and India) children face essentially no risk from COVID infection.  In the first instance, they are appreciably less susceptible to infection and even if they are "infected" they almost never become symptomatic.  Of the incredibly small subset of those who do become symptomatic, essentially none require hospitalization.  Of those even smaller subset who do require hospitalization due to COVID infection, almost 100% of them were (1) over the age of 13 (so, they NOW would be eligible to receive a vaccine), (2) had at least one severe, serious underlying health condition (namely diabetes) and (3) had some form of respiratory complication, in addition to their underlying health condition, such as asthma.  

A tremendous amount of misinformation has circulated on the subject of COVID and pediatric cases.  The main species of that misinformation now is something along the lines of "the United States has the highest levels of pediatric COVID hospitalizations since the pandemic began!"  At some level of analysis, that's literally true but highly misleading because of what is meant by the phrase "pediatric COVID hospitalization."  One egregiously incompetent doctor at Boston University recently issued a tweet that contributed to the spread of that delusion.  

Here is the reality:  Childhood hospitalizations are slightly lower than what they were in 2019 for this time of year.  But they are up relative to 2020, because of the increased incidences of the typical reasons why kids go to the hospital in the summer; things like bike accidents, broken arms and water-related injuries.  Importantly, every kid who is admitted to any hospital for any reason in the United States is tested for COVID.  This is standard operating procedure no matter where you go, to insure against the risks of asymptomatic spread in a medical context.  Shouldn't surprise anyone to learn that hospitals are cautious about that sort of thing.  But the result is that "pediatric hospitalizations WITH COVID" are high; whereas "pediatric hospitalizations DUE TO COVID" are almost non-existent, anywhere in this country.  If you don't believe what I said, go on Mt. Siani's or Presbyterian Hospital's website and look at their COVID testing policies for all admitted patients, or call them and ask what they do.  Then when they get a positive result, regardless of whether it's incidental to the reason for which any kid sought medical treatment, ask them what they have to do with that information.  

That is the process by which these misleading headlines come to suck up all the oxygen in the room.  It's the same level of nonsense they did in the 90s when the media all claimed in unison that vaccines caused autism.  Bottom line is that the media are stupid, scientifically illiterate pornographers of shock and awe.  Whenever anyone in the media, including media doctors who typically are among the most inept in their profession, says anything medically related you should automatically be skeptical.  That includes Fauci, in particular.  And that woman at the CDC, whatever her name is.  Wollensky.

And although that’s my position, I understand why people feel differently. You say people have the right to harm themselves. I agree, but that’s not what people are choosing here. Most or at least many of the hospitalized didn’t get vaccinated because they thought this was a hoax. As soon as they learn it wasn’t, they beg for the vaccine. They’re victims of misinformation, and that’s worth considering.
As I indicated in another context, I have spoken with several people who have declined the vaccine.  One example that stands out to me is a sort of 24-year old gay Freddie Hampton.  His perspective is this: You don't take vaccine skepticism seriously because you do not have something like Tuskegee in your family's living memory.  We remember.  We remember the last time the government tried to give us a free vaccine and what harm it caused.  We'll wait and see how it works for you all, and then maybe we'll get it.  And what am I to say in response to that?  That's not the kind of position I can rebut with "well, if you look at the clinical trial results."  That's a mindset that was borne of the historical mistakes and abuses of so-called medical experts from generations ago that is still around.  The left's response to this is to force society into lockdowns until everyone complies?  No.  That is beyond insanity.  

I raise the above because if you look at the demographics on vaccine hesitancy, sure there are some fairly ridiculous evangelical types in the south who don't want the vaccine; but there are many others who see what is going on and think of Tuskegee.  Without my own background, were I in their shoes, I can't say I'd have a different opinion.  People make judgments based on what they know, and when the best the government can do is put some lying-two-faced fraudster like Fauci who can't even make up his mind on the vaccination threshold required to reach herd immunity, who says "no mask" one day, "one mask yesterday" and "two masks" tomorrow as the nation's so-called "top doc," is their reluctance to trust that system any real surprise?  It isn't to me.  This is what democrats don't comprehend.  

If at the end of the day, people for whatever reason --- whether it's a good reason or not --- don't want to put something in their body, it is neither my place nor that of the government (or, frankly, their employer) to mandate that they do so.  

It’s a good debate to sort through - just how far government should go to protect its people, but the problem is that we can’t even get to that debate because people can’t tell the difference between someone trying to protect society (the literal job of an elected official) vs someone trying to control society because they crave power… or something.
My answer to that set of topics is always going to be the same: under no circumstances should the government be given any more power than it already has, and whatever power it has should be stripped away with all deliberate speed until all that is left is only that which is minimally adequate to provide for the national defense and ensure domestic tranquility.   Nothing else.

I agree that any democracy's strength depends on the capability of the electorate to make rational decisions, and misinformation has impeded their ability to do so.  This trend seems to increase, with alarming rapidity.  The solution, however, is not to censor to tell people what they have to think.  It's to empower them to think for themselves.  Sadly, our educational system has failed to do that at all levels for decades now. 

The problem isn't that we have misinformation in the society.  The problem is that we fail to teach our citizens how to sort fact from bullshit.  More bullshit is never the answer to that problem, but that's all we get from the media and politicians (particularly democrats). 

#195
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@thett3
I agere regarding Harris. 
#196
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,008
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@coal
I highlighted your post.
#197
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
how did you do that?
#198
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,008
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@coal
I am a donor to the site.
#199
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,008
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@coal
What the Democrat governors did in 2020 with the kids and the elderly to score political power proves without any reasonable doubt that politicians don't give a flying fuck about "protecting the people"

Offering Cuomo and Newsome up after the fact doesn't come close for restitution for the destruction and mayhem they caused in 2020.
Topic's author
#200
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,269
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
The "health experts" who bold face lied about the efficacy of masks early on, intentionally suppressed any discussion of the lab leak hypothesis, and justified mass black lives matter protests while telling everyone else to lock down?
So the entire medical industry is “in on it”. Is that correct?

yea yea "left good right bad"
Not all at. Politicians want to be in power and care more about their political careers than they do about what they accomplish for their constituents. We both agree on that. But, unless you are rich, the politicians you cite’s entire agenda is to help people like you. Now you might not believe what they are fighting for is best overall for society, or will have the effects they think it will, but to go from that to them not only being unwilling to lift a finger for you but would rather hurt you? Where does that come from? That’s the kind of  thing that only makes sense if it’s something you can relate to personally. I sure can’t.

If you're referring to my instincts I don't really think a reflexive anti authoritarianism is childish, it's just a disposition like any other.
You literally stated that you regret getting vaccinated because politicians are pushing people to get vaccinated. If you don’t think basing your own health decisions on a disposition to rebel against politicians “telling you what to do” is childish, I don’t know what to tell you. I base my health decisions on what I believe to be best for me and my family, nothing else.

#201
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
So the entire medical industry is “in on it”. Is that correct?
No. Virtually all medical professionals recommended the vaccine, which is part of why I figured it was safe and effective. Not all medical professionals lied about masks, pressured quasi-state companies into suppressing the lab leak hypothesis, publicly lied about gain of function research, justified black lives matter protests, selectively attacked governors based on partisanship etc. Only the media darlings did. But when these people are the faces pushing the vaccination campaign...well, you can think that instructively distrusting repeated bold face liars is foolish or childish but I don't see it that way at all

Now you might not believe what they are fighting for is best overall for society, or will have the effects they think it will, but to go from that to them not only being unwilling to lift a finger for you but would rather hurt you? Where does that come from? That’s the kind of  thing that only makes sense if it’s something you can relate to personally. I sure can’t.
Don't make an accusation like this of me. "Takes one to know one" was always the dumbest grade school comeback and I'm surprised to see it make an appearance here. I have every right to point out the extreme levels of psychopathy and sadism among American elites without being accused of being a psychopath or a sadist myself. 

You literally stated that you regret getting vaccinated because politicians are pushing people to get vaccinated. If you don’t think basing your own health decisions on a disposition to rebel against politicians “telling you what to do” is childish, I don’t know what to tell you. I base my health decisions on what I believe to be best for me and my family, nothing else.
I literally explained my reasoning, about how the continual loss of liberty is a threat to my person greater than that of the virus, right before the portion you quoted, and you cut it out. You aren't having an honest conversation here
#202
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
What the Democrat governors did in 2020 with the kids and the elderly to score political power proves without any reasonable doubt that politicians don't give a flying fuck about "protecting the people"

Offering Cuomo and Newsome up after the fact doesn't come close for restitution for the destruction and mayhem they caused in 2020.
The fact that he went down for frankly dubious sexual assault allegations really bothers me. The dude killed thousands of people!
Topic's author
#203
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,269
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@coal
The non-vaccinated do not cause or contribute to the immunocompromised becoming ill.
That is just factually, mathematically wrong. If you are vaccinated you are far less likely to contact the disease and therefore far less likely to spread it. You don’t even need to read the studies on that, just look around. The virus is surging everywhere where vaccination rates are low.

That's a mindset that was borne of the historical mistakes and abuses of so-called medical experts from generations ago that is still around.  The left's response to this is to force society into lockdowns until everyone complies?  No.  That is beyond insanity.
It is, first of all, a pretty dishonest characterization of what the left is doing. Lockdowns occurred early on before we understood what we were dealing with and how to combat it. No one is seriously talking about that now, except maybe in some pockets of the country where the virus has gotten out of control and ICU’s are full, which would make sense. No one is talking about locking places down until people get vaccinated, it is and has always been about case counts and hospitalizations/deaths. There’s nothing insane about doing what needs to be done to combat that.

Whenever anyone in the media, including media doctors who typically are among the most inept in their profession, says anything medically related you should automatically be skeptical.
So I shouldn’t trust any doctor who explains anything publicly, but if they say nothing publicly then I never hear from them at all. Sounds like heads I win tails you lose.

when the best the government can do is put some lying-two-faced fraudster like Fauci who can't even make up his mind on the vaccination threshold required to reach herd immunity, who says "no mask" one day, "one mask yesterday" and "two masks" tomorrow as the nation's so-called "top doc," is their reluctance to trust that system any real surprise?  It isn't to me.  This is what democrats don't comprehend.
What democrats comprehend is how science works. Changing your position doesn’t mean you are a lying two face or that you can’t make up your mind, it means you are adapting your position to the data, which changes as we learn more. What would be alarming is someone who hasn’t changed their mind on anything despite everything we have learned.

Where I agree with you is that it shouldn’t be surprising, it turns out that it’s very easy to get people to distrust public figures when you have an entire political movement focused on a smear campaign against them. Anyone can have their words taken out of context or pitted against things they’ve said at a time when no one had the answers we do now. Fauci is not a god, he doesn’t have a crystal ball. We take his word as representative of the best available information to date, not as the ultimate truth. It’s not his fault so many are scientifically illiterate and so many other talking heads are willing to prey on that.

The solution, however, is not to censor to tell people what they have to think.  It's to empower them to think for themselves.  Sadly, our educational system has failed to do that at all levels for decades now.
Absolutely agree. We desperately need to teach critical thinking and epistemology, as well as civics and political science. But aside from how realistic it is that we will see a national movement on this anytime soon, even if it happened tomorrow we wouldn’t even begin to see the benefits of that for another 20 years. COVID is not waiting for that.
#204
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,008
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
It takes a person truly partisan to the bone to declare "X" party "really cares about the people"

Stockholm syndrome politics is the rot of America.
#205
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,008
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
We desperately need to teach critical thinking and epistemology, as well as civics and political science. But aside from how realistic it is that we will see a national movement on this anytime soon, even if it happened tomorrow we wouldn’t even begin to see the benefits of that for another 20 years. COVID is not waiting for that.
Teacher Unions don't want that. 
#206
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
It takes a person truly partisan to the bone to declare "X" party "really cares about the people"

Stockholm syndrome politics is the rot of America.
I have my problems with supporters of both parties, but one thing I respect about normie Republicans is that they truly despise the Republican Party lol
#207
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,008
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
one thing I respect about normie Republicans is that they truly despise the Republican Party lol
As any person should. Hatred of establishment elites shouldn't be a radical idea in America of all places.
#208
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm going to need a specific example.
I wouldn't know where to start. Are there any specific behaviors one could attribute to masturbation?

Topic's author
#209
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,269
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
But when these people are the faces pushing the vaccination campaign...well, you can think that instructively distrusting repeated bold face liars is foolish or childish but I don't see it that way at all
Can you just provide one example of a medical health expert turned media darling engaging in repeated bold faced lying?

I have every right to point out the extreme levels of psychopathy and sadism among American elites without being accused of being a psychopath or a sadist myself.
I mean no disrespect, but the literal point of this thread is to discuss why folks on the political right view sadism as the most reasonable explanation for supporting measures that the medical industry almost unanimously agrees would save lives. Nine pages in and I still have not found one viable argument.

Your point earlier was essentially that politicians crave power, which I agree with but that's a non-sequiter here. Being driven by a desire to hold onto political office does not translate into a perceived personal benefit in making people do things they don't want to do.

The truth is that we all project far more than we realize. It is human nature to fill the gaps in our understanding of others by running it through our own filters. It is in fact the only filter we have. So when others are able to make sense of of why someone would do something without actual evidence that the person in question holds these inclinations, projection is often the most reasonable explanation. I'm asking you for another.

I literally explained my reasoning, about how the continual loss of liberty is a threat to my person greater than that of the virus, right before the portion you quoted, and you cut it out. You aren't having an honest conversation here
If I'm being perfectly honest, I don't take the personal liberty argument seriously. First off all, it's an incredibly perverse idea of liberty, as in the liberty to endanger the health and safety of others. That's not the kind of liberty I think the Constitution was talking about.

Second, it's meaningless. It carries no intellectual value, which is why it's been used for nearly every disgusting position under the sun. Remember all those who died fighting to *keep* slavery? No, they we're fighting for "states rights". Remember those who were *for* segregation? No, they were for the "freedom" of businesses to decide.

Third, it's pure paranoia. The entire argument is one big slippery slope. If we allow "them" to take our freedoms now then "they'll" keep doing it. Who's "them" and "they"? The shadowy government people of course. Nevermind that we're in the middle of a pandemic, never mind the loss of 600k Americans, nevermind the threat of a new variant that can bypass the vaccines... This couldn't possibly be about protecting society, no this is a personal attack on me.

Forth, it's amazingly hypocritical. Let's set aside that this all comes from the same side of society that doesn't believe woman have a right to their own body or that gay people should be allowed to marry...

If you fear losing your personal liberties then the best way to ensure it's protected is to fight for the preservation of our democracy. In just the past week we've learned even more about how the former president tried to fraudulently use the Justice department to push states to overthrow the results of the election, caring absolutely nothing about who the people actually voted for. Do you have any criticisms on that which I missed? You talk about erosion of our protections, where does the justice department fit into that since we can now for the first time in our history say that we had a president who believed it could be explicitly used as an arm of his reelection campaign?

Personal liberty advocates seem awfully selective on what they are willing to place under the personal liberty banner.
#210
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,008
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
The truth is that we all project far more than we realize.

What a hilariously ironic statement from a partisan hack.