Covid-19 (Coronavirus) - Please stay safe, y'all

[ible]

What about the flu? We've been spreading those germs for years. The flu can kill thousands of people during a season. Does your right to breath the flu stop with my nose?

maybe not a bad idea as well -- wearing a mask during flu season. we would need better contact tracing, but determining who made who sick, and putting some sort of social stigma on that, might be worthwhile. the flu is of course a much different beast (since it's much harder to be contagious and not have symptoms). covid-19 can still be passed around when people don't have symptoms, and it can be very very mild in some people -- that's why masks are so important, because you can have it and not even realize it, or won't really feel it until tomorrow (but are still contagious today). to put it another way, if even 10% of people had HIV, people would want to wear protection all the time...

It's actually the COVID-19 measures that are taking down the economy, not COVID-19 itself. Is your point that if we follow the measures, they will sooner be unnecessary? Otherwise I fail to see your point.

i think we are actually testing this hypothesis as we speak (US isn't doing much, and the economic downturn is just beginning) -- of course some economic downturn is inevitable, but we also can learn from history here. when the spanish flu happened, places that closed down sooner and harder had quicker economic recovery than those that did half-measures. my son isn't able to go into kindergarten this upcoming year, but in other countries that's an option.

it's good to make testable predictions, but if you're wrong, you've done a huge amount of damage. when this is over, will you really see the damage you've done and want to make changes for the future? or will you ignore your mistakes and continue on thinking you know best?

it's also important to know the stakes. wearing a mask vs. letting a virus rage uncontested. hm, tough choice...

 

[Robert Taylor]

i think we are actually testing this hypothesis as we speak (US isn't doing much, and the economic downturn is just beginning) -- of course some economic downturn is inevitable, but we also can learn from history here. when the spanish flu happened, places that closed down sooner and harder had quicker economic recovery than those that did half-measures. my son isn't able to go into kindergarten this upcoming year, but in other countries that's an option.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Robert Taylor]

https://files.catbox.moe/5bsqy8.mp4

'An awful lot of sick people': Melbourne's coronavirus situation will continue to worsen even as lockdown takes effect, experts say

Despite hopes Victoria's tough new restrictions will stem the spread of COVID-19, health experts warn the death toll could continue to rise even after the virus is contained in the state.

www.abc.net.au

Anyone still think this is reasonable?

Yeah. The Americans have this one right.

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

maybe not a bad idea as well -- wearing a mask during flu season. we would need better contact tracing, but determining who made who sick, and putting some sort of social stigma on that, might be worthwhile. the flu is of course a much different beast (since it's much harder to be contagious and not have symptoms). covid-19 can still be passed around when people don't have symptoms, and it can be very very mild in some people -- that's why masks are so important, because you can have it and not even realize it, or won't really feel it until tomorrow (but are still contagious today). to put it another way, if even 10% of people had HIV, people would want to wear protection all the time...

So then people should be forced to wear a mask in public, but they should be allowed to have private places where they gather without mask. After all, if me and a few friends wanted to punch each other then you do not have the right to stop us from doing so just because we do not have the right to punch you. If there's a large group of people that want to breath on each other then you do not have the right to stop them either. So by this reasoning large gatherings without masks would be perfectly ethical as long as it's in a privately owned place where entering requires consent to being breathed on.

 

[Nintendo]

https://files.catbox.moe/5bsqy8.mp4

'An awful lot of sick people': Melbourne's coronavirus situation will continue to worsen even as lockdown takes effect, experts say

Despite hopes Victoria's tough new restrictions will stem the spread of COVID-19, health experts warn the death toll could continue to rise even after the virus is contained in the state.

www.abc.net.au

Anyone still think this is reasonable?

Yeah. The Americans have this one right.

I'm from Melbourne, Australia and I feel a little depressed.

 

[ElPoco]

Freedom, in a society, isn't a simple on/off switch.

Freedom is a trade-off, as the saying goes "your freedom ends where mine begins". My right to have a loud party infriges on your right to sleep. To live in society, you need to balance the rights: we can decide to ban parties, to consider that there's no right to sleep or to set some boundaries, like a time/sound limit to parties or a limit to the number of parties per year or a restrictions on days where a loud party can be held.

It's the same for masks: you have to balance the right to wear whatever you want with the right to live. Places that have made wearing a mask compulsory consider that the restriction on freedom that it entails is less important than the restriction on the right to live of potential COVID-19 victims that not wearing a mask would entail. I'm glad I live in such a society (and disappointed that this way of thinking doesn't extend to other stuff like restricting the rights of some people to have yachts so that more people could have the right to eat properly and have a roof over their head.)

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

Freedom is a trade-off, as the saying goes "your freedom ends where mine begins". My right to have a loud party infriges on your right to sleep. To live in society, you need to balance the rights: we can decide to ban parties, to consider that there's no right to sleep or to set some boundaries, like a time/sound limit to parties or a limit to the number of parties per year or a restrictions on days where a loud party can be held.

I definitely agree here. In fact, we could even extend it further. If I do not like your face, do you have the right to send light that encodes the look of your face into my eyes? What about if you want to walk around naked and I do not like your crotch? Where's the line? Taking this "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" to the extreme we should all be wearing burqas. I think that there's bound to be subjectivity involved.

It's the same for masks: you have to balance the right to wear whatever you want with the right to live. Places that have made wearing a mask compulsory consider that the restriction on freedom that it entails is less important than the restriction on the right to live of potential COVID-19 victims that not wearing a mask would entail.

So you're in favour of forced masks during flu season too?

and disappointed that this way of thinking doesn't extend to other stuff like restricting the rights of some people to have yachts so that more people could have the right to eat properly and have a roof over their head.)

How does that work? Do rich people have to pay for the food of poor people? The right to eat means that you are allowed to eat if you can. As soon as you need other people to give you free food then it becomes a privilege. It's like free speech, just because I have a right to free speech does not mean that e.g. ED is forced to let me say here whatever I want. I have a right to free speech, provided that I use my own platform. I have a right to free (i.e. libre) eating, as long as I use my own food.

I'm not saying that people should starve, but making sure that everyone can eat in a world where any powerful entity is bound to be corrupted is really hard. If we make a well-fare state where the state makes the rich pay for the poor then we need a powerful government in order to enforce that and any such government is bound to get corrupted and use it's power for selfish gain to leech off the people. We have something like that right now in many countries and all it gave us are sky-high taxes, a government that obeys the rich at the cost of the poor, and a fiat currency scam that's about to bring us to economic ruin.

The problem is probably self-selecting. I a government cares about the poor then the rich will hate it and the rich have more power and thus will bring the government to ruin. If the government cares about the rich then the poor will hate it but the poor have no power (because they're poor) and thus the government will thrive. Governments that are good at surviving and thriving will care mostly about the rich and powerful. And hence there is no government for the poor people in order to make the rich pay for the poor.

 

[Robert Taylor]

Freedom, in a society, isn't a simple on/off switch.

Freedom is a trade-off, as the saying goes "your freedom ends where mine begins". My right to have a loud party infriges on your right to sleep. To live in society, you need to balance the rights: we can decide to ban parties, to consider that there's no right to sleep or to set some boundaries, like a time/sound limit to parties or a limit to the number of parties per year or a restrictions on days where a loud party can be held.

It's the same for masks: you have to balance the right to wear whatever you want with the right to live. Places that have made wearing a mask compulsory consider that the restriction on freedom that it entails is less important than the restriction on the right to live of potential COVID-19 victims that not wearing a mask would entail. I'm glad I live in such a society (and disappointed that this way of thinking doesn't extend to other stuff like restricting the rights of some people to have yachts so that more people could have the right to eat properly and have a roof over their head.)

This is obviously wrong.

Who polices the police? If you live in the UK, you know your police allow muslim men to rape white children (no seriously, just read up on it, it is explicitly allowed). Who polices the politicians that lock you in your home and allow you to TRAVEL for no more than 5km per day for ONE HOUR per day to do your shopping, for an illness that at this point is trivial at best in terms of risk as the case now in Victoria, AU?

Let me turn this around a little bit on you. So you want to provide total and absolute freedom to your politicians to lock you up without any checks and balances? Okay. Let's say you like your current government. Lets say they are actually good people AND competent. Let's give you 100% benefit of the doubt.

Well, you might like the results of that today. However, try and imagine WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF I GOT INTO POWER? Do you have any idea what I WOULD DO TO YOU if I or people like me got into power, people that have a generational axe to grind because communists killed 10s of millions of our people over the last 150 years? Are you actually SURE that you know ANYTHING about the kinds of people that roam the streets of your country today, right now and are looking for any opportunity to get into power? Have you ACTUALLY had any interactions with the kinds of right wing or left wing loonies that are actually out there? Do you have ANY idea just how dangerous these people are? Do you really think that people like Mao, Stalin and Hitler should be given this right?

Are you absolutely sure you want to trade away your freedom for safety? Are you absolutely SURE you will get your freedom back once you trade it away like a pack of Pokemon cards?

Freedom is not the simple trade off you think it is.

I just notice the location part of your avatar. This is rich coming from someone whos country will be taken over by muslims in a generation or two. Enjoy your sharia freedoms.

 

[ElPoco]

I a government cares about the poor then the rich will hate it and the rich have more power and thus will bring the government to ruin. If the government cares about the rich then the poor will hate it but the poor have no power (because they're poor) and thus the government will thrive. Governments that are good at surviving and thriving will care mostly about the rich and powerful. And hence there is no government for the poor people in order to make the rich pay for the poor.

Poor people actually have some power. The pandemic has proven it recently: the "essential workers" were mostly poor workers. If they stop working, society stops functioning and the rich can't get richer (and can't even use their money anymore). That's why general strikes are effective.

But you're right: if you want a government for the poor people, you need to get rid of rich people, and make sure they don't come back (from the inside or the outside).

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

Poor people actually have some power. The pandemic has proven it recently: the "essential workers" were mostly poor workers. If they stop working, society stops functioning and the rich can't get richer (and can't even use their money anymore). That's why general strikes are effective.

It's a bit like a farm. The bulls have more strength than the farmer but the farmer controls the bulls and thus owns their strength. Poor people have direct production power but rich people control the poor people and thus are the real owners of that power.

When you need bulls, you're not going to a pasture explaining to the bulls why they should help you, you go to their farmer and explain it to him. The best the bulls get is a taming program where they are being manipulated into being docile without them having any idea what's going on or what it's for. That the best that poor people get; their taming program comes in the form of loads and loads of propaganda. That's because the bulls could go on a rampage otherwise (i.e. people can strike or start a revolution when they're not tamed properly).

 

[RZR]

...

Who polices the police? If you live in the UK, you know your police allow muslim men to rape white children (no seriously, just read up on it, it is explicitly allowed). Who polices the politicians that lock you in your home and allow you to TRAVEL for no more than 5km per day for ONE HOUR per day to do your shopping, for an illness that at this point is trivial at best in terms of risk as the case now in Victoria, AU?

...

You with your vote. (Assuming you live in a democratic country of course...)

That brings to my memory a certain conversation I overheard the other day about "Trump doing this and the other thing..." my point there was: "Ok, but someone must have voted this guy to get where he is now and do what he does now...." then the other babbled about not being democratic and the way a certain Adolf got where he got... (Again I guess someone voted him... )

The point is education of course. You don't support the measures a certain party is applying, then do not vote him next time: then if there's enough people with a bit of brain out there, mot likely that party will not govern again.

"But I always vote XX (and that's the party I'm identified with)"

Oh really? even if he murders kitties each weekend? Even if the party is corrupt to the root? So you vote as if you were supporting your soccer team? Then there's no hope for mankind

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

You with your vote. (Assuming you live in a democratic country of course...)

That's just kicking the can down the road. Who polices the one who counts the votes?

That brings to my memory a certain conversation I overheard the other day about "Trump doing this and the other thing..." my point there was: "Ok, but someone must have voted this guy to get where he is now and do what he does now...."

Who counts the votes? That's an important question. If it's someone that has been appointed by the government, then your only defence against the government only works when the government is honest. I'm not American and do not know who counts the votes, but I'm betting neither do most Americans. And how many Americans know that their votes can be overruled by the Electoral College? The Electoral College has the only votes that really count and them voting according to the votes of the public is not legally required, it's more like a suggestion or request (depending on state, but should a state have the power to overrule the people's only means of defence against the government?).

then the other babbled about not being democratic and the way a certain Adolf got where he got... (Again I guess someone voted him... )

Supposedly Hitler was voted into power. If that's the case then Nazi Germany is an example of what a democratic authoritarian government can do.

The point is education of course. You don't support the measures a certain party is applying, then do not vote him next time: then if there's enough people with a bit of brain out there, mot likely that party will not govern again.

You mean the public schools that are controlled by the government? Yes, those propagandised children will make fine guardians of their country when they're old. They have no clue how the government works, they have no clue how voting works, they have no clue where their money comes from, they have no clue how their economics works, etc. All they learned is to obey when the bell rings, to regurgitate for approval, and bow for the American flag. We're trusting our governments to teach our children how to keep our governments in check. There's a huge conflict of interest there. This is why private schools and minimal government is important.

 

[sm0kew0n]

If you live in the UK, you know your police allow muslim men to rape white children (no seriously, just read up on it, it is explicitly allowed)

Source?

 

[FBnil]

I love this conversation. So many good point of views and consider-this-other-side, while being civil and still with strong arguments. *proud of this group*

 

[Robert Taylor]

Source?

Okay, you may not call this evidence, and I accept that. This stuff isn't written down. Here is the thing to remember, laws that are written down are just the beginning of the process. 90%t of what happens in the application of written laws has nothing to do with the written law and everything the intent of those in power that enforce these written laws. If you have every been in power over any size group of people you know this implicitly - you can have written down rules, but as the boss you can make those rules do what you want by the get way you interpret, twist and apply them.

So, with respect to the law, every city and every country in the western world has the following situations:

1) Old laws that have not been struck down, never used or used hudreds of years ago in different circumstances. These laws are written down but are never applied even though people break them all the time.

Of course, you can always read when someone is so hated by those in power that the powerful will dig through the arcane and get those they hate even on the most obscure outdated law available.

Lots of stories out there about that.

2) On a daily basis, 100% of all police forces make decisions on what laws to apply and which not to apply. In problem jurisdictions, police forces have verbal and written edicts on what laws will be applied or not applied for all sorts of reasons.

Basically, laws are a hard suggestion. You and I are bound by the letter of the law. The courts and politicians that apply those laws get to bend, skirt and implement those laws in ways that effectively create a second tier of laws applied in entirely arbitrary ways. Note, my statement implies this is wrong, I acknolwedge that you can make A LOT of arguments for flexible interpretation of laws as well. It isn't as cut or dry as I would like it to be.

Anyway, In the states you can see this now directly (because of the internet) in the Michael Flynn case currently under way where the courts are so politicised that they are following the letter of the law to its absolutes furthest extent that it can be stretched in order to politicially hang Michael Flynn in order to get to Donal Trump.

In order to see just how far this goes, look up Vlawgs on youtube and watch the Roberts Barns and the Vlawgs guy discuss the Michael Flynn case. They have a few on that topic, you may have to watch more than a few to really get what is going. Both of those guys are lawyers and are very entertaining if you are not a lawyer. Actually, watch and read anything by Robert Barnes. I discovered him 6 months ago, this is one truly remarkable human being.

Here is Michael Flyns lawyer giving a talk on how to fix the law system in the states:
It is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH worse in the UK.

You should be scared and angry at the same time. There is a reason to be polite to police officers, and the reason IS NOT for the benefit of the police officer. Never antagonize a pitbull when you can give it a treat and walk away to live another day.

So, on to your question. No, there is no law written down that allows for white children to be raped by muslims. What happened in the past in the UK (and if it happened in the past, think what is happening now with all the politically correct garbage happening in the west .. this is on going) is that politicians and those in charge of the police KNEW ABOUT MUSLIMS RAPING WHITE CHILDREN and told their police to NOT INVESTIGATE ASIAN MEN BECAUSE THEY FEARED BEING CALLED RACIST.

A report was just released on this, there is quite a bit of info on the net but I cannot find any direct links that I would not be embarrassed to admit that I read. Instead, here is a wikipedia link:

Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Note: please keep in mind that it has become quite obvious over the last few years that Wikipedia is a far left organization and they sanitize and clean up information to fit their world view. You have to keep a wide perspective when reading Wikipedia, but, it's the best starting point that I can give you for your question.

We all know the truth. However, I need to stop writing about this here because the rest of what I have to say on this topic is illegal in the EU and this board is too important to allow it to go in that direction.

Apologies for the terrible links.

Oh, also, in western EU countries, NOT ONLY are your police and politicians 100% weak, 100% corrupt and 100% want you dead, your justice system (judges and the surrounding infrastructure) wants you dead. Read this:

Sweden: Immigrant child rapist commits 600 crimes – avoids deportation

The victim was his partner's daughter and the sadistic pedophile started raping the girl when she was ten years old. He then raped the girl several times a week for three years - up to

freewestmedia.com

The. Judges. Allow. Muslim. Rapists. To. Rape. White. Children.

My sincere apologies for the low quality of the links. I will fully retract anything that is not the truth, but you will NEVER find this information in what we think of the mainstream media so we end up resorting to this garbage third tier websites for crumbs here and there.

I know that I have presented all of this information with a level of hyperbole that will probably make you roll your eyeballs. The last few years have been challenging for everyone and we are all being forced to think about what it means to be free, what it means to be part of a society, what it means to part of an ethnicity.

Be skeptical of everything you read, especially people like me that post stuff like this on the net. There is a kind of inflection point in most mens lives (as posted earlier in the thread) when you realize that everything you read, see and watch is a lie, all of it usually spun to provide a certain narrative and push a certain world view. I am doing it here because I can only be on one side, not both.

So, read everything I post with a huge bucket of salt.

Obviously, I have a whole bunch to write on this, but I have come up with a single moral flag that I place in the ground that I find a GREAT tool to help me judge the kind of society that I live in:

WHO DO WE DO AS A PEOPLE WHEN WE DISCOVER THEY ARE RAPING OUR CHILDREN?

Again, my humblest apologies. I hope I have provide something of value as an answer to your question.

 

[Robert Taylor]

I love this conversation. So many good point of views and consider-this-other-side, while being civil and still with strong arguments. *proud of this group*

This is by far one of the best boards out there.

 

[Robert Taylor]

You mean the public schools that are controlled by the government? Yes, those propagandised children will make fine guardians of their country when they're old. They have no clue how the government works, they have no clue how voting works, they have no clue where their money comes from, they have no clue how their economics works, etc. All they learned is to obey when the bell rings, to regurgitate for approval, and bow for the American flag. We're trusting our governments to teach our children how to keep our governments in check. There's a huge conflict of interest there. This is why private schools and minimal government is important.

This is precisely what I was getting at with the whole "when you get older and realize everything is a bunch of lies" bit.

The moment you realize the everyone is lying is the moment that you realize everything is propaganda. There is NO WAY to communicate anything in any way to another human being that isn't one sided or that doesn't leave out information. Everything in the universe seems to have "spin" on it. I think this is what mathematicians mean by "math is beautiful", which I think translates to, math is the only thing that we have access to that is pure and can be fully understood in a discrete and clean way.

Everything else is very difficult to distinguish from propaganda. Everything that I have posted so far is a type of propaganda.

This is why I no longer find labels like left or right useful. My current position is that in order to judge another person, you need to know with whom they are allied with and what do they want. If you know those two things, you have a reasonably good way of measuring the intent of the people around you if you have a good idea bout their intent you have a good idea bout the directionality of their actions and communication.

I appreciate you bringing up the industrial indoctrination of our children in schools. This is a fairly new insight for me, I don't think I would have EVER seen this if 2016 elections in the US did not happen and everyone that was with me on the left showed their true colours.

So, now think about this:

1) What are the allegiences of those in the educational system?

2) If we could find out where each teachers, administrators and politicians allegience lies (politically, personally, racially, etc), could we figure out the directionality of outcomes that they want to see?

Who controls whom?

 

[Robert Taylor]

There's a huge conflict of interest there. This is why private schools and minimal government is important.

Dude, you are killing it. I have to read your posts before I write anything, you usually get to the core idea much quicker!

I have recently come to this conclusion too. I am NOT against big government, it can be useful and necessary. But, just watching the stupendous quantity of really terrible decisions being made during this Chinese Flu thing has been eye opening.

I used to think that small government / private schools was just an ideological talking point of the far right in the US. Holy moly, I had no idea what they were REALLY SAYING.

What they are saying is:

1) People are lazy and when they get a kushy job they will do everything to justify to keep it.

I wish I could find a great video of a Seattle city equity and inclusion committe meeting happening where a bunch of communists (all women by the way, the psychological profile is really interesting) throw around a bunch of meaningless buzz words that on the surface of it sound like they are doing something but really are just doing a performative dance routine to justify the creation of this cushy / high paying new committee position.

Literally a huge percentage of the video is a bunch of women talking about how the committees works must never end because true justice can never be reached.

I wish I could find this video, what an amazing display of our species capacity for lies and deceit.

2) If you are not in control of what your children believe someone else is indoctrinating them with their belief systems.

The minimum level of indoctrination comes at the level of the value system - we all have a value system and everything we say and do is guided by that value system. It is impossible to teach children and NOT indoctrinate them into a belief system.

So, whats the big deal? The problem is that you don't know what values your children are being indoctrinated into. We thought that we won the war against communists by isolating russia and chopping the communist head off in Vietnam and stopping it there. This is wrong. The war never ended. The communists were allowed to migrate to the west where they have infiltrated all of our univesities and are now in the full swing of a low level communist indoctrination process. The EU was taken over by communists long long ago. Here in Canada / US, they have been here for 50 years, only now have we started to see what they are up to, this is all very new to us.

Watch this:
Does anything look familiar?

 

[Robert Taylor]

Poor people actually have some power. The pandemic has proven it recently: the "essential workers" were mostly poor workers. If they stop working, society stops functioning and the rich can't get richer (and can't even use their money anymore). That's why general strikes are effective.

Strikes are effective? Really? How are the yellow vests doing over there in Paris?

 

[Djoga'Ro]

1) People are lazy and when they get a kushy job they will do everything to justify to keep it.

Wrong. Read up on intrinsic motivation. If anything, people become lazy, but that's a prolem of the system, that oughta be addressed.