Nostr Web Client

As you say yourself. We have had the option to vaccinate and have personal liberty. And people who do not want to be vaccinated could test themselves to have just the same liberties. So there was no discrimination. Who wants to have these liberties did have the possibility. What more liberty one is requesting during a health crisis?

Only stupid people assume, that during a crisis everything can be just the same as outside a crisis. Because if it is like this there is just no crisis. (but the health crisis was more then obvious)

Katja Lutz 9mo ago

nostr:nevent1qqsqqqprk5z2yr7j9f555gff7y5yrdruw8wclequ8kezenr6q9g0atqpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wchsyg9he7059fukkzg7ss7uayva8m6vphyzuq552tklp0dum6u7ewf70qpsgqqqqqqsjpqqxc

You are speaking statist doublespeak nicely 🙈. Taking away inalienable rights and giving them back to those who follow your totalitarian ideology "surely" has nothing to do with discrimination, surely 🤦‍♀️... sarcasm-off.

Discrimination in history always has been completely legally justified with dystopic laws and lies, made and told by hypocritical pricks. House slaves also had the option to take the toilet, just the one outside the house, no discrimination 🤡.

What you fail to see is that discrimination gives humans different freedoms depending the way they are. They have to change who they are, to get the freedom. Usually they can't, but if they have the option to change, then that's still discrimination, in addition to coercion. I assume next you gonna tell me, that coercion is necessary in a (self-made) "crisis". And if thats the case, I am too tired to continue this discussion for now 😅.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Jean DuBois 9mo ago

💯 %

freemymind 🇨🇭 9mo ago

Look your whole conversation only gets any legitimacy, when the unequality has no logical basis. But the case was clear then and is clear now. The health system was fully used and not all ill people and operations planned could get proper treatment. This was the one and only legitimation of this policies.

When Hospitals got more liberty we always got more liberty too. Do you understand this logical connection?

Katja Lutz 9mo ago

1. Justifying your arguments logic with some arbitrary statist rules, doesn't contradict the logic of my arguments. Meaning both of your and my arguments can be logical, and we still can come to different results. That doesn't change the fact that legitimacy is irrelevant in our discussion. If you want big brother certified legitimacy, I'd recommend state propaganda tv stations 😅.

2. Logic has nothing to do with inalienable rights. If inalienable rights were coupled to logic, you could just change the parameters of said logic to take away inalianable rights - which by itself is completely illogical. The point of inalienable rights is that they are inalienable.

3. If an autocrat defines a rule: "if hospital crisis - > then no inalienable rights for the sheeps", then its ofc completely "logical" to take away inalienable rights based on that rule, sure, but that rule itself is completely arbitrary and implementing it is a political decision, not a logical one. Thinking that its fine to take away inalienable rights because of some arbitrary logic, arbitrarily defined by arbitrary experts, payed by the same businesses (pharma) which make profit from said arbitrary logic, yeah sure thats all very logical, but also arbitrary, corrupt, opportunistic, tyrannic, technocratic and anti-humanistic.

4. Hospital bed counts were reduced during the "crisis". Some hospitals even were closed. Statistics were manipulated to get results showing a "crisis". The health care system is broken by design and that since a long time, way before Covid, nobody cared / cares to fix it. Logically coupling the stability of a broken health system to inalienable rights, is a very effective method for autocrats to take away inalienable rights, whenever they want.

But whatever, have fun in your "(ideo)logical" brave new world 🤷‍♀️...