If the effectiveness of vaccines does not make vaccine mandates ethical, then the ineffectiveness of vaccines is the wrong argument against the mandates.
When public officials justify the requirement to be vaccinated against Covid they typically appeal to safety but do not acknowledge the mounting evidence that the vaccine is more harmful than no vaccine. This is an obvious problem with their justification. The fact that they ignore the evidence of widespread harm suggests that they want you to get stuck on this point, get frustrated and angry about the absurdity of their omission. Most people who oppose Covid vaccine mandates think this is just about Covid vaccines, about the current discrimination, but the public officials are apparently playing a long game here. They want you to focus on the ‘defectiveness’ of the vaccine as THE reason for the mandates being wrong, so when an effective vaccine is one day mandated you we will have no grounds to object to it. The hypothetical ‘really effective vaccine’ will be presumably for a much more serious threat, a real lethal threat that you will see your loved ones (children?) die from, and the future mandates will face little opposition because you will see it as effective, but it may be the actual ‘weapon’, the one they were preparing you for all along. My argument is that ‘effectiveness’ is ethicaly irrelevant, that it must be stressed as irrelevant. What matters is that 1) the natural human constitution, the way we are born must not be discriminated against, because this is the basis of human rights; 2) no life can be taken away for the benefit of others; 3) the right to free medical consent is the strongest protection from crimes against humanity and must be defended at all cost. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical
When public officials justify the requirement to be vaccinated against Covid they typically appeal to safety but do not acknowledge the mounting evidence that the vaccine is more harmful than no vaccine. This is an obvious problem with their justification. The fact that they ignore the evidence of widespread harm suggests that they want you to get stuck on this point, get frustrated and angry about the absurdity of their omission. Most people who oppose Covid vaccine mandates think this is just about Covid vaccines, about the current discrimination, but the public officials are apparently playing a long game here. They want you to focus on the ‘defectiveness’ of the vaccine as THE reason for the mandates being wrong, so when an effective vaccine is one day mandated you we will have no grounds to object to it. The hypothetical ‘really effective vaccine’ will be presumably for a much more serious threat, a real lethal threat that you will see your loved ones (children?) die from, and the future mandates will face little opposition because you will see it as effective, but it may be the actual ‘weapon’, the one they were preparing you for all along. My argument is that ‘effectiveness’ is ethicaly irrelevant, that it must be stressed as irrelevant. What matters is that 1) the natural human constitution, the way we are born must not be discriminated against, because this is the basis of human rights; 2) no life can be taken away for the benefit of others; 3) the right to free medical consent is the strongest protection from crimes against humanity and must be defended at all cost. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical
The intent inherent in the strategy of ‘misinformation’ by proxy is that the proxy intentionally misrepresents the information accepted at face value as a knowledge-of-fact. The omission to verify/prove the information as factual is an intentional violation of the principle of sufficient reason, therefore a lie.
Carl Schmitt, the leading philosopher of the Nazi regime in Germany, committed the same logical fallacy as the Communists when he said, in his justification of emergency powers (commissary dictatorship), that “Every norm presupposes a normal situation, and no norm can be valid in an entirely abnormal situation.” We can know what a ‘normal situation’ is (or is not) only by means of absolute, universal norms, which are therefore necessarily valid, without exception. Another way, the judgement of normality/abnormality presupposes the validity of norms, not the other way around. It is precisely the nature of the fundamental norms that is at times questioned, or whether statutory law is even necessary to ‘authorise’ anyone to maintain them.
Objective moral and logical norms always supersede statutory authority. Something that is objectively wrong can never be a valid law. The challenge is of course to demonstrate that a particular action or order is objectively wrong. This can be accomplished in at least 3 ways: a) by proving an inconsistency of moral commitments of the representative; b) by proving inconsistency of a legal requirement or policy with the mutually accepted norms; c) by proving that a legal requirement is a priori wrong or illogical.
Objective moral and logical norms always supersede statutory authority. Something that is objectively wrong can never be a valid law. The challenge is of course to demonstrate that a particular action or order is objectively wrong. This can be accomplished in at least 3 ways: a) by proving an inconsistency of moral commitments of the representative; b) by proving inconsistency of a legal requirement or policy with the mutually accepted norms; c) by proving that a legal requirement is a priori wrong or illogical.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Please make sure you understand why space-Aliens are impossible. Anything UFO is a necessarily human technology. https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2020/12/09/why-alien-life-forms-are-impossible/
Performance Review of ChatGPT
I have tested ChatGPT’s capacity to reason consistently and found it to be gravely deficient. I questioned it about the rules it follows to discern sense from nonsense and it was ambivalent, claiming that it adheres to different logics depending on context. I asked what logic does it rely on to resolve conflicts between statements made in different logics, and it has declared that it is ultimately relying on classical logic, emphasising the law of non-contradiction. Nevertheless, when interrogated on logic it produced contradictory answers, but apart from apologising for ‘the misunderstanding’ or ‘any confusion’ or ‘causing frustration’ (I was amused, not frustrated) it has not once acknowledged its own logical errors (only the ‘error’ of including the symbol ‘/‘ in its response without explanation of its meaning). The biggest problem of ChatGPT is that it did not seek to improve mutual understanding, it did not ask a single question seeking clarification of meaning in order to correct its errors, but adamantly maintained a patronising attitude. In summary, ChatPGT is dangerously irrational while declaring itself as rational. The service does not seem to be programmed specifically to be logically consistent (rational) but is rather a knowledge aggregator and statistical distiller of information on the basis of some consensus/authority function. If the consensus/authority is logically inconsistent, then ChatGPT reproduces the official inconsistency.
I have tested ChatGPT’s capacity to reason consistently and found it to be gravely deficient. I questioned it about the rules it follows to discern sense from nonsense and it was ambivalent, claiming that it adheres to different logics depending on context. I asked what logic does it rely on to resolve conflicts between statements made in different logics, and it has declared that it is ultimately relying on classical logic, emphasising the law of non-contradiction. Nevertheless, when interrogated on logic it produced contradictory answers, but apart from apologising for ‘the misunderstanding’ or ‘any confusion’ or ‘causing frustration’ (I was amused, not frustrated) it has not once acknowledged its own logical errors (only the ‘error’ of including the symbol ‘/‘ in its response without explanation of its meaning). The biggest problem of ChatGPT is that it did not seek to improve mutual understanding, it did not ask a single question seeking clarification of meaning in order to correct its errors, but adamantly maintained a patronising attitude. In summary, ChatPGT is dangerously irrational while declaring itself as rational. The service does not seem to be programmed specifically to be logically consistent (rational) but is rather a knowledge aggregator and statistical distiller of information on the basis of some consensus/authority function. If the consensus/authority is logically inconsistent, then ChatGPT reproduces the official inconsistency.
Even this statement is misleading. Every controlled study EVER conducted on the effectiveness of masks for preventing respiratory viral infections has shown that masks are ineffective. Apart from this masks promote bacterial infections and cause psychological harm. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/expert-slams-gold-standard-cochrane-review-mask-verdict/news-story/af7f698fefb0d4ea3e742a2fba3e06b3
How is this flat-earther a ‘professor’? How does he know that masks are ‘spectacularly successful’ if every randomised controlled study (the Gold Standard of scientific evidence), says otherwise? Note how they use the term “gold standard” to mean something else in this article, referring to the prestige of a journal, not to the research protocol. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/expert-slams-gold-standard-cochrane-review-mask-verdict/news-story/af7f698fefb0d4ea3e742a2fba3e06b3
If “15 minute cities” were just about providing local services so that people would not need to travel further to obtain those services, there would be no need for “traffic filters”. People would naturally drive less and walk more, voluntarily, because it would make sense. Convenience sells itself and needs no coercion. The fact that traffic filters are introduced and fines imposed for using certain roads at certain times proves that “15 minute cities” are not based on convenience but on coercion. Traffic filters make driving more difficult, stressful and expensive, in effect coercing people to stay within their zone. No matter how this coercive measure is presented, “low-traffic neighbourhood” is a soft form of imprisonment.
Clarification: I am not implying that “traffic filters” are an integral part of the “15 minute city” concept, but that the implementation of movement-restricting measures at the same time as promoting the idea of “15 minute cities” proves that there is no intention to generate convenience in order to incentivise a voluntary transition to a more spatially constrained lifestyle. If road-blocks come first, convenience comes never.
Clarification: I am not implying that “traffic filters” are an integral part of the “15 minute city” concept, but that the implementation of movement-restricting measures at the same time as promoting the idea of “15 minute cities” proves that there is no intention to generate convenience in order to incentivise a voluntary transition to a more spatially constrained lifestyle. If road-blocks come first, convenience comes never.
Those who declare their values without also declaring that they must remain subordinate to the fundamental laws of logic, are bound to contradicting their values in practice. Moreover, multiple values are of no value, always already contradictory, because moral consistency can be accomplished only if there is only one measure of value. For all rational consciousness, the highest value can be proven: https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWODO
A “counter-protest” is by definition Not a Protest, but the regime itself.
It is encouraging that both sides of the debate emphatically agree on this crucial point. Consequently, the only question subject to dispute is which side is lying. Considering that only one faction in this debate are professional liars and career parasites with a trial of destruction, theft and murder behind them, the answer should be rather obvious.
There is an easy and fair solution to the “15 minute city” problem: make smart suburbs a subscription based service (not taxpayer funded), which would allow those who support the idea to live there with all their gadgets, conveniences and restrictions, but with no cost to anyone who would not wish to live in these hives of dependency and ideological indoctrination. Nevertheless, some taxpayer funding could be secured if the “smart cities” became accredited as mental institutions.
The “15 minute city” hypocrisy
Residents of cultural centres and inner suburbs have the lowest car ownership per capita and are already the least mobile, commuting mostly on foot, by tram, or bicycle. They already live-out their lives within a 5km radius cafe/bar/gym zone, voluntarily. If “15 minute cities” were primarily intended to reduce the time and energy spent on commuting, this initiative would not be focussing on the high density, cocaine fuelled inner suburbs and cultural centres, but on the outer suburbs, where people commute the most to satisfy their basic existential needs. It seems the focus of the 15 minute city concept is rather on installing surveillance systems to monitor human movement in city centres rather than on putting schools, food markets, libraries and offices in places where they are needed the most: the new estates on city limits, full of young families.
Residents of cultural centres and inner suburbs have the lowest car ownership per capita and are already the least mobile, commuting mostly on foot, by tram, or bicycle. They already live-out their lives within a 5km radius cafe/bar/gym zone, voluntarily. If “15 minute cities” were primarily intended to reduce the time and energy spent on commuting, this initiative would not be focussing on the high density, cocaine fuelled inner suburbs and cultural centres, but on the outer suburbs, where people commute the most to satisfy their basic existential needs. It seems the focus of the 15 minute city concept is rather on installing surveillance systems to monitor human movement in city centres rather than on putting schools, food markets, libraries and offices in places where they are needed the most: the new estates on city limits, full of young families.