Disappointing, but this is what happens when the objectivity of ethics is denied and economics (costs/benefits) is posited as the only standard of right and wrong. Sanjeev forgot his own ethical reason for rejecting the mandates: “Governments are not authorised by law - by analogy - to burn down additional homes and kill unaffected people in order to save those who might be at risk of being engulfed in a bushfire.”
https://t.iss.one/sanjeevsabhlok/9341
https://t.iss.one/sanjeevsabhlok/9341
Telegram
Sanjeev Sabhlok PUBLIC CHANNEL
I've been thinking about it and have come to the view that there might remain a case for mandating (effective) vaccines for serious diseases for:
- health professionals (to reduce nosocomial disease)
- armed forces (to reduce casualties and fatalities amongst…
- health professionals (to reduce nosocomial disease)
- armed forces (to reduce casualties and fatalities amongst…
It is utterly cruel, indeed criminal, to convince young women that they could safely enter most trades and work on par with males. Male tradies are mostly cripples by the age of 50, plagued by chronic pain and injuries from physical strain. Telling a 5 foot nothing, 45kg girl that she can be a diesel mechanic is just perverse. She could not even unscrew most bolts baked on in a diesel engine, and if she were insanely determined she would wreck her body in a few short years. Sure, there are exceptions, very few, but for most women this would be a death wish. Heavy lifting is a part of most trades, in awkward body positions. Some employers may hire a woman for show, and accept that others will have to do all the lifting for her, but this is fake, just pretence, and also sends a misleading message to others.
If non-consent to mandatory vaccination is "free riding" then carjacking is a "taxi service".
Even if some vaccines reduced the nominal mortality rate, that does not prove that they "saved lives". When a vaccine is not the most effective intervention available, and the best treatment is suppressed in order to sell that vaccine, then the nominally effective vaccine amounts to relative harm.
This is heading (unwittingly) in the right direction. If indigeneity is not a race then we all qualify; everyone is indigenous to somewhere, and the Voice and indigenous rights are rendered trivial, applicable to all, not a unique racial privilege. But then the wording of the constitutional alteration ought to be modified not to refer to any specific race but to all humans.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
I propose a new Acknowledgement of Original Owners ceremony, otherwise know as 'Welcome to Reality', that should be conducted before every public event, performance or community meeting:
We acknowledge the Original Owners of the Earth on which we are standing, the Human kind of which we are all representatives. We all share the same ancient ancestors. We are all related. Reason unites us.
Join NORMAL
We acknowledge the Original Owners of the Earth on which we are standing, the Human kind of which we are all representatives. We all share the same ancient ancestors. We are all related. Reason unites us.
Join NORMAL
I like arguments like these. By fantasising about the authoritarian extremes to which government coercion can be ‘ethically’ justified they unwittingly produce an argument that the concept of “public good” is itself unethical, universally harmful and dehumanising, and that it is morally imperative to reject all government authority that uses it as a justification for coercive action. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7386912/
PubMed Central (PMC)
An Argument for Compulsory Vaccination: The Taxation Analogy
I argue that there are significant moral reasons in addition to harm prevention for making vaccination against certain common infectious diseases compulsory. My argument is based on an analogy between vaccine refusal and tax evasion. First, I discuss ...
If private property can be taxed for not being used in a particular way then it is no longer private; it is partly collectivised. On the other hand, if the State does not like how private land is ‘not used’, then they can use public land somewhere else to their liking. Build your own communist city and prove by example that it works better, without subsidies (stealing) from others.
Every protest, insofar as the intention is to protest, is a re-action to an action of another. Every re-action, insofar as it is consciously provoked, is an action of another. Contemporary rulers aim to provoke everyone who can be provoked, and thus politically control them. Anyone who can be provoked but is not provoked by the ruling power, will be provoked and thus controlled by someone else. Everything the government does is a provocation. Everything the corporate media does is a provocation. Your re-action to every news story, law or event is the purpose of the story, law or event. The degree to which a person can be provoked is the degree to which they lack the capacity to be free.
Democracy is no longer realised through voting, but by reciprocal provocations. A power that provokes can only be influenced by itself being provoked. When mutual provocations fail to have a deterministic effect, we would have approached the state of rational discourse.
I started reading this: https://ia601000.us.archive.org/7/items/RulesForRadicalsSaulAlinskyOCR/Rules%20for%20Radicals%20-%20Saul%20Alinsky%20-%20OCR.pdf we can discuss in a few days.
The government must stop suppressing the faces of the 14 people who were officially identified by the TGA as killed by Covid vaccines. Show us their faces, show us their happy snaps, like you do with every human tragedy that supports your agenda. #showustheirfaces
It is not good to have two or three politicians who speak out against tyranny; this is the perfect number the government needs to simultaneously legitimise tyranny, make freedom and human rights seem like a fringe theory, while giving the tyrannised opposition the illusion of representation. If you cannot have 50+ politicians on the side of humanity then it is better to have NONE, better to be oppressed without the illusion of representation. The kind of representation that is always bound to lose is an expression of the logic of dictatorship.