Page 2 of 501

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:16 pm
by Estanglia
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
Andsed wrote:Only for a temporary period. Death is permanent. Freedom cannot always be the top priority. Sometimes during an extreme crisis we have to look past them to take action to save lives.

Freedom must always be the top priority because life without freedom isn't worth living.


Life without freedom isn't worth living, therefore you're gonna end the lives of people living with freedom, which is presumably worth living.

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:17 pm
by Nakena
Thermodolia wrote:What about “May the 4th be with you” for a title


But Comrade,

what if we would take some "contributions" of the community into account and...

Image

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:17 pm
by Luminesa
Estanglia wrote:
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Freedom must always be the top priority because life without freedom isn't worth living.


Life without freedom isn't worth living, therefore you're gonna end the lives of people living with freedom, which is presumably worth living.

Freedom is nothing without responsibility.

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:18 pm
by Pilipinas and Malaya
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
Andsed wrote:Only for a temporary period. Death is permanent. Freedom cannot always be the top priority. Sometimes during an extreme crisis we have to look past them to take action to save lives.

Freedom must always be the top priority because life without freedom isn't worth living.


Yeah, but life without actually living is literally nothing. What’s the point of freedom when life is absent? Life without the freedoms for a while is better than not experiencing life at all.

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:18 pm
by Post War America
San Lumen wrote:
Andsed wrote:Freedom sometimes has to be sacrificed to deal with a crisis. Avoiding taking action to avoid a pandemic for "freedom" is just bad governance.

Those that would give a little liberty for temporary safety deserve neither and lose both. Ben Franklin said. Was he wrong?


Absolutely, about a great many things.

Sacrificing liberty for safety is literally the definition of society.

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:18 pm
by Andsed
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
Andsed wrote:Only for a temporary period. Death is permanent. Freedom cannot always be the top priority. Sometimes during an extreme crisis we have to look past them to take action to save lives.

Freedom must always be the top priority because life without freedom isn't worth living.

Stop being dramatic. This is not some 1984 thought police shit. This is temporary restrictions to prevent a full blown pandemic.

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:19 pm
by Greater vakolicci haven
Pilipinas and Malaya wrote:
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Freedom must always be the top priority because life without freedom isn't worth living.


Yeah, but life without actually living is literally nothing. What’s the point of freedom when life is absent? Life without the freedoms for a while is better than not experiencing life at all.

Will it kill the majority?

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:19 pm
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
Pilipinas and Malaya wrote:
Yeah, but life without actually living is literally nothing. What’s the point of freedom when life is absent? Life without the freedoms for a while is better than not experiencing life at all.

Will it kill the majority?

How many did the last major worldwide unbridled flu pandemic kill?

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:20 pm
by Andsed
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
Pilipinas and Malaya wrote:
Yeah, but life without actually living is literally nothing. What’s the point of freedom when life is absent? Life without the freedoms for a while is better than not experiencing life at all.

Will it kill the majority?

No. But that does not mean we should let hundreds of thousands die just to uphold "freedom."

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:22 pm
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Andsed wrote:
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Will it kill the majority?

No. But that does not mean we should let hundreds of thousands die just to uphold "freedom."

If we let it get to Spanish Flu levels, i.e. let it claim 1-6% of the world population (probably more in our case if we let it run rampant)... 90 to 540 million people die. The world calamity that ended with atom bombs in 1945 "only" killed 85 million people.

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:25 pm
by Rojava Free State
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
San Lumen wrote:And restrictions on restaurants for example of kept to long will put them out of business because they can’t make any money

Is this what this is about? Being unable to go to Mcdonalds for your daily sustenance people?


Risking death from COVID to die from junk food.

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:27 pm
by The New California Republic
Rojava Free State wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Is this what this is about? Being unable to go to Mcdonalds for your daily sustenance people?


Risking death from COVID to die from junk food.

McDonald's in the UK are going to try to start opening for deliveries only.

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:27 pm
by Rojava Free State
Post War America wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Those that would give a little liberty for temporary safety deserve neither and lose both. Ben Franklin said. Was he wrong?


Absolutely, about a great many things.

Sacrificing liberty for safety is literally the definition of society.


Sacrifice too much liberty for safety and there will be no safety from the government. Most governments in the past, present and likely in the future don't usually do something without the ulterior motive of expanding their power or protecting themselves, and already tyrants worldwide are using COVID to expand their power (Orban, dutuerte, etc).

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:27 pm
by Theodosiya
Luminesa wrote:
Estanglia wrote:
Life without freedom isn't worth living, therefore you're gonna end the lives of people living with freedom, which is presumably worth living.

Freedom is nothing without responsibility.

I don't think GVH understand it, or would ever accept. What could be expected, given the way he had, how to explain it, his position throughout the threads?

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:34 pm
by Nakena
Next poll is going to be this, but the wording and phrasing might need some big improvement:

Question: Do you know some people who have been infected

Answers:

I have been infected myself in the past or present
Members of my family have been infected in the past or present
There have been cases amongst friends and acquaintances of mine
No known cases in my social circles so far
My area is relatively little affected by Covid-19
I don't know/Not sure
Other (please share below)

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:39 pm
by Kowani
Rojava Free State wrote:
Post War America wrote:
Absolutely, about a great many things.

Sacrificing liberty for safety is literally the definition of society.


Sacrifice too much liberty for safety and there will be no safety from the government. Most governments in the past, present and likely in the future don't usually do something without the ulterior motive of expanding their power or protecting themselves, and already tyrants worldwide are using COVID to expand their power (Orban, dutuerte, etc).

Yeah, but it’s GVH. Mate probably thinks speed limits are tyranny.

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:40 pm
by Rojava Free State
Theodosiya wrote:
Luminesa wrote:Freedom is nothing without responsibility.

I don't think GVH understand it, or would ever accept. What could be expected, given the way he had, how to explain it, his position throughout the threads?


I think GVH is an Ancap, although I'm not sure. I think he or someone else said he is and if that is true, HOLY FUCK that's the definition of unchecked freedom without social responsibility.

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:40 pm
by Estanglia
Rojava Free State wrote:
Post War America wrote:
Absolutely, about a great many things.

Sacrificing liberty for safety is literally the definition of society.


Sacrifice too much liberty for safety and there will be no safety from the government. Most governments in the past, present and likely in the future don't usually do something without the ulterior motive of expanding their power or protecting themselves, and already tyrants worldwide are using COVID to expand their power (Orban, dutuerte, etc).


Basically any organisation with power will attempt to extend it.

Sadly, there isn't really much we can do in the middle of this pandemic to deal with that. Protests could give the government an excuse to extend the measures using the argument that these protests endanger the public/spread the virus more, warranting further measures. Also, this is one of the few cases where the government(s) have legitimate reasons for these measures, rather than something baseless and trumped-up that is of no actual danger (or the danger is overstated).

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:41 pm
by Rojava Free State
Kowani wrote:
Rojava Free State wrote:
Sacrifice too much liberty for safety and there will be no safety from the government. Most governments in the past, present and likely in the future don't usually do something without the ulterior motive of expanding their power or protecting themselves, and already tyrants worldwide are using COVID to expand their power (Orban, dutuerte, etc).

Yeah, but it’s GVH. Mate probably thinks speed limits are tyranny.


GVH thinks Michael Bloomberg worked too hard to spare money for us lowly peasants. I find that funny since bloomberg could live without 90% of his money while we are struggling to get by.

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:41 pm
by Fartsniffage
Kowani wrote:
Rojava Free State wrote:
Sacrifice too much liberty for safety and there will be no safety from the government. Most governments in the past, present and likely in the future don't usually do something without the ulterior motive of expanding their power or protecting themselves, and already tyrants worldwide are using COVID to expand their power (Orban, dutuerte, etc).

Yeah, but it’s GVH. Mate probably thinks speed limits are tyranny.


He has previously argued that blind people should be allowed to drive and preventing them was an unreasonable restriction on their freedom.

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:42 pm
by Rojava Free State
Estanglia wrote:
Rojava Free State wrote:
Sacrifice too much liberty for safety and there will be no safety from the government. Most governments in the past, present and likely in the future don't usually do something without the ulterior motive of expanding their power or protecting themselves, and already tyrants worldwide are using COVID to expand their power (Orban, dutuerte, etc).


Basically any organisation with power will attempt to extend it.

Sadly, there isn't really much we can do in the middle of this pandemic to deal with that. Protests could give the government an excuse to extend the measures using the argument that these protests endanger the public/spread the virus more, warranting further measures. Also, this is one of the few cases where the government(s) have legitimate reasons for these measures, rather than something baseless and trumped-up that is of no actual danger (or the danger is overstated).


There will be alot of social consequences because of COVID. It's hard to tell if we are doing everything right now, and that'll only be truly known years from now when COVID no longer exists.

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:43 pm
by Rojava Free State
Fartsniffage wrote:
Kowani wrote:Yeah, but it’s GVH. Mate probably thinks speed limits are tyranny.


He has previously argued that blind people should be allowed to drive and preventing them was an unreasonable restriction on their freedom.


Once, I saw a commercial for the Sam Bernstein lawfirm in which Richard Bernstein was driving a bus. I didn't sleep at all that night because all I could think was oh dear God, Richard's blind and there were children on that bus.

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:44 pm
by Ifreann
San Lumen wrote:
Andsed wrote:Freedom sometimes has to be sacrificed to deal with a crisis. Avoiding taking action to avoid a pandemic for "freedom" is just bad governance.

Those that would give a little liberty for temporary safety deserve neither and lose both. Ben Franklin said. Was he wrong?

Yes.

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:46 pm
by San Lumen
Ifreann wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Those that would give a little liberty for temporary safety deserve neither and lose both. Ben Franklin said. Was he wrong?

Yes.

Why?

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:46 pm
by Estanglia
Rojava Free State wrote:
Estanglia wrote:
Basically any organisation with power will attempt to extend it.

Sadly, there isn't really much we can do in the middle of this pandemic to deal with that. Protests could give the government an excuse to extend the measures using the argument that these protests endanger the public/spread the virus more, warranting further measures. Also, this is one of the few cases where the government(s) have legitimate reasons for these measures, rather than something baseless and trumped-up that is of no actual danger (or the danger is overstated).


There will be alot of social consequences because of COVID. It's hard to tell if we are doing everything right now, and that'll only be truly known years from now when COVID no longer exists.


Indeed.

My best-case scenario is that this situation exposes the complete incompetence and in some cases evil of modern governments, people get sick of it and want change, and leads to some long-term positive changes (even if in the short term it worsens).

My worst-case scenario is that in a few years, Coronavirus (or at least the significant threat it poses) is gone, nobody gives a shit about changing anything, and we go right back to pre-pandemic conditions, just with more authoritarian laws slipped through during the pandemic that nobody cares to remove (or, if a state goes full authoritarian, can remove).