Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You have the freedom to protest….. not block traffic, crosswalks, or beat the shit out of drivers for making a wrong turn near a protest. You have the freedom to protest in the streets…. But not to burn and loot the stores.Freedom to me means, doing what you want within the limits of it not putting the society as a whole at risk. A few examples.
-You have to freedom to raise your kids. That freedom doesn't extend to you putting them in danger.
-You have the freedom to smoke. That doesn't extend to you doing it in a plane that has no smoking signs all over.
-You have the freedom to have sex with any consenting adult. That doesn't mean you are free to rape someone. Etc. Etc.
There is no such thing as total freedom. Freedom is always limited within societal norms. The discussion starts as to what the societal norms are. Abortion seems to be a good example of that. To me the freedom to decide what happens in a woman's body is hers alone. To a lot of people that freedom is at odds with the right to exist of the fetus. I don't think a collection of cells has any inate rights but I can see how someone can disagree.
Freedom also doesn't mean you are free of the consequences of exercising that freedom regardless of societal norms. You are free to call me an asshole. I am free to not want to have any contact with you as a result of that. Rogan is free to have anybody on his show he wants. Clapton is free to choose not to have his music on a platform that allows that. ( not judging if he should, simply stating that he has the freedom to make that choice)
The concept of "freedom" seems to be remarkably conditional on how exercising that freedom agrees with your ideology. Both on the left and right. What I will say is that in general I find that the right seems to be more hypocritical about it. But that's simply my opinion.
Yes, I don't disagree. That's why what happened in Canada was not alright. They blocked an entire city. That's why the looting during the summer protests wasn't alright. That's why the dispersing of a legal non-violent protest for Trump's photo-op during those protests wasn't alright. That's why the rally on Jan 6th was alright, but not the subsequent storming of the Capitol. Etc., etc.You have the freedom to protest….. not block traffic, crosswalks, or beat the shit out of drivers for making a wrong turn near a protest. You have the freedom to protest in the streets…. But not to burn and loot the stores.
and here, all this time, I thought it was just another word for nothing left to lose.
No it comes from a side that believes that a public health emergency is a valid reason to mandate certain measures in order to protect society as a whole. The fact that that is a controversial standpoint is lunacy in my opinion.This coming from a side that's basically, "mandates, today, mandates yesterday, mandates forever"?
LOL.
No it comes from a side that believes that a public health emergency is a valid reason to mandate certain measures in order to protect society as a whole. The fact that that is a controversial standpoint is lunacy in my opinion.
Separate the countries into smaller nation states.No it comes from a side that believes that a public health emergency is a valid reason to mandate certain measures in order to protect society as a whole. The fact that that is a controversial standpoint is lunacy in my opinion.
-How lethal Covid-19 is not easy to assertain. It changes through age groups and with every new mutation. You can not just hope for the best. Best you can do is make a calculation between the risk of death and the inconvenience it does."certain measures"
Once COVID was found to not be the 3%-5% mortality disease people thought it might be those first few months, the draconian lockdowns and mandates should have ended. Certainly once vaccines were available for everyone who wanted it.
The controversy comes from the continued ignoring of things like mask mandates by the very people imposing them on others.
That and thinking that somehow a 10 year old saying nothing about a 5 year old can wear a mask effectively enough for 6+ hours to warrant forcing them to wear them for years now.
No it comes from a side that believes that a public health emergency is a valid reason to mandate certain measures in order to protect society as a whole. The fact that that is a controversial standpoint is lunacy in my opinion.
-How lethal Covid-19 is not easy to assertain. It changes through age groups and with every new mutation. You can not just hope for the best. Best you can do is make a calculation between the risk of death and the inconvenience it does.
But by recognising that the government has the right to take measures if something is sufficiently deadly, you concede the principle and it then becomes simply a measure of acceptable losses. 900000 plus dead Americans, about twice the number that fell during the civil war seems unacceptable to me.
-NO the controversy doesn't come from hypocrisy in some people. It comes from a muddled initial reaction from Trump
A pandemic that has a noticeable immediate negative effect on global life expectancy in this case.Define 'public health emergency'.
It's generally not Democrats who oppose masks, vaccines, lock downs etc. etc.The "two weeks to stop the spread" mandates were done when it was more unknown, and they never changed the risk assessment as it was found to be far less lethal than though, especially in the under 40 no co-morbidity group, and very especially amongst children.
How many Americans die every year? Was COVID the leading cause? How many killed by COVID were going to die within a year of whatever they had already?
COVID isn't sufficiently deadly at this point to warrant the continued masking of 5 year olds, especially since most vulnerable people are either already dead or vaccinated. Yet teachers unions, Dem stalwarts refuse to change their minds.
Yes, because all those dems who said it wasn't something to worry about in Feb 2020 took their orders from Trump.....
Right, because when we say we want freedom, it's really code for I WANT TO KILL SOME NIGGGAAHZZ!!!
I understand how Hitler did what he did. I guess Germany was full of liberals then.
It's generally not Democrats who oppose masks, vaccines, lock downs etc. etc.
The problem is the disease itself doesn't make any such distinction. The vaccine has been available for more than a year now. It at the very least makes hospitalization unlikely. Yet people of predominantly one political ideology oppose making taking it mandatory. Thereby exasperating the problem. I find that lunacy. Risking your own life over politics.
"Regardless of societal norms?" That kind of freedom is meaningless. Freedom means doing what you want despite what society thinks about it. Going along with the herd is not freedom.Freedom to me means, doing what you want within the limits of it not putting the society as a whole at risk. A few examples.
-You have to freedom to raise your kids. That freedom doesn't extend to you putting them in danger.
-You have the freedom to smoke. That doesn't extend to you doing it in a plane that has no smoking signs all over.
-You have the freedom to have sex with any consenting adult. That doesn't mean you are free to rape someone. Etc. Etc.
There is no such thing as total freedom. Freedom is always limited within societal norms. The discussion starts as to what the societal norms are. Abortion seems to be a good example of that. To me the freedom to decide what happens in a woman's body is hers alone. To a lot of people that freedom is at odds with the right to exist of the fetus. I don't think a collection of cells has any inate rights but I can see how someone can disagree.
Freedom also doesn't mean you are free of the consequences of exercising that freedom regardless of societal norms. You are free to call me an asshole. I am free to not want to have any contact with you as a result of that. Rogan is free to have anybody on his show he wants. Clapton is free to choose not to have his music on a platform that allows that. ( not judging if he should, simply stating that he has the freedom to make that choice)
The concept of "freedom" seems to be remarkably conditional on how exercising that freedom agrees with your ideology. Both on the left and right. What I will say is that in general I find that the right seems to be more hypocritical about it. But that's simply my opinion.
WRONG!"Regardless of societal norms?" That kind of freedom is meaningless. Freedom means doing what you want despite what society thinks about it. Going along with the herd is not freedom.
You woke assholes believe that you have the right to destroy anyone who doesn't comply with your "norms."
A pandemic that has a noticeable immediate negative effect on global life expectancy in this case.
"Regardless of societal norms?" That kind of freedom is meaningless. Freedom means doing what you want despite what society thinks about it. Going along with the herd is not freedom.
You woke assholes believe that you have the right to destroy anyone who doesn't comply with your "norms."
There was no such photo-op, moron. That's Dim propaganda. Your narrative has already been debunked.Yes, I don't disagree. That's why what happened in Canada was not alright. They blocked an entire city. That's why the looting during the summer protests wasn't alright. That's why the dispersing of a legal non-violent protest for Trump's photo-op during those protests wasn't alright. That's why the rally on Jan 6th was alright, but not the subsequent storming of the Capitol. Etc., etc.
What is your point?
