(no title)
throwaway_2009 | 4 years ago
People who call for authoritarian measures such as using force in order to prevent people from leaving their homes, from associating with friends and family, and from engaging in business, should not have the best assumed of them.
They have malicious intentions a priori because they treat controlling others with the same level of discipline as they would choosing which flavour of jam to put on their toast in the morning.
They are enemies of freedom and democracy; I'd argue they are truly terrorists, in that they seek to use fear and terror to control others' behaviours.
People who _explain and convince_ are interested in what you call discussion. People who use force against you unless you do exactly what they tell you are not engaging in discussion, they're engaging in an attempt at control.
paulryanrogers|4 years ago
Not everyone advocating lockdowns is necessarily so flippant about it. Some consider the costs carefully. Please keep in mind that hospitals were being overwhelmed long before vaccines were available.
(FWIW I'm not defending absolute lockdowns since going outside with moderate distancing appears to have been safe at every stage of this phenomenon.)
throwaway_2009|4 years ago
As such the stance is definitionally illogical which makes it flippant - it falls apart under even mild scrutiny.
I've seen about a billion variations on it now, it just gets boring to bat them off. e.g. "if the healthcare system is overwhelmed, you'll die in a minor car crash, so don't go outside, then you won't drive your car or stand near cars, then you can't die in a minor car crash anyway, err... but lockdown though!".
It's tautologically broken. The basic premise is of "not doing X, in order to not do X".