Coronavirus


Peter

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, anthony said:

Minimum-to-zero benefit, sinking to detriment and harm, for they at minor-to-zero risk.

Only a fool would suggest vaccinations for people at minimal risk, but here in the U.S. some shots are mandated for any children going to school. But as far as I know no adults are "mandated." And as I mentioned, a private company can mandate a lot and anyone is free to walk away.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

???

Huh? So I've been imagining "mandated".

It was all a nightmare!

Whew...

"Free to walk away" from a higher value (your job or career) to a low or non-value (unemployment and welfare) -

- just isn't "free".

A company can and may independently do so, but if at the instigation of the Gvt. is simply a stooge for gvt.

V-mandated for kids I've said enough about. This is an immoral policy.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, anthony said:

Whew...

"Free to walk away" from a higher value (your job or career) to a low or non-value (unemployment and welfare) -

- just isn't "free".

A company can and may independently do so, but if at the instigation of the Gvt. is simply a stooge for gvt.

Yes, that is freedom. Just ask Roark or Dagny. Capitalism is a necessary part of freedom. "No" freedom to do with your own company equals despotism or overreaching government. Back in my very younger days I was a sports department manager at a Woolworth's Department Store. They had a lot of rules which I did not like. I shrugged and continued to work for them. Until I started dating a co worker. That didn't work. I think they are now out of business.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Peter said:

Yes, that is freedom. Just ask Roark or Dagny. Capitalism is a necessary part of freedom. "No" freedom to do with your own company equals despotism or overreaching government.    

You must have missed the part I said of some businesses being stooges for Gvt.: Independently, they can do as they please. Obeying govt. policy isn't independent.

In other words, they are doing the Gvt's dirty work. Acting on their behalf, like cops, enforcing Gvt vaxx mandates.

"Capitalism"?

For those companies who've had these policies forced on them involuntarily, my sympathy. One trusts the courts will support their rights to NOT fire loyal and hard to replace, employees. To not bar entrance to customers, etc.

It seems ridiculous to be discussing over-reach by govts in this climate, when that is all they have been engaged in. Like frogs in boiling water, lobsters if you prefer, heat is what every westerner has been familiarized with and many don't feel it increasing.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Peter said:

Walk across the woods, my Canadian friend and join us. No one will stop you. Just ask the late Alex Trebeck from Jeopardy. What's mine is yours.    

I am on my way!!!!!!!!!!

Merci beaucoup! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, anthony said:

You must have missed the part I said of some businesses being stooges for Gvt.: Independently, they can do as they please. Obeying govt. policy isn't independent.

In other words, they are doing the Gvt's dirty work. Acting on their behalf, like cops, enforcing Gvt vaxx mandates.

"Capitalism"?

For those companies who've had these policies forced on them involuntarily, my sympathy. One trusts the courts will support their rights to NOT fire loyal and hard to replace, employees. To not bar entrance to customers, etc.

It seems ridiculous to be discussing over-reach by govts in this climate, when that is all they have been engaged in. Like frogs in boiling water, lobsters if you prefer, heat is what every westerner has been familiarized with and many don't feel it increasing.  

"No, the government would not establish any censorship; it would not need to." -Ayn Rand, "Government by Intimidation"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThatGuy said:

"No, the government would not establish any censorship; it would not need to." -Ayn Rand, "Government by Intimidation"

 

What a quote. Needs to be emblazoned over this thread. So true, any Govt. merely has to 'suggest' what it wants done - or publicly threaten to implement certain measures - and the nervous nellies* in 'private' business will rush to accomodate its wishes, with the added lure of picking up contracts and favors. 

*and predators

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anthony said:

What a quote. Needs to be emblazoned over this thread. So true, any Govt. merely has to 'suggest' what it wants done - or publicly threaten to implement certain measures - and the nervous nellies* in 'private' business will rush to accomodate its wishes, with the added lure of picking up contracts and favors. 

*and predators

AND, right on cue...here comes Biden to make a "special appeal", re: "an offer we can't refuse"...

NOW - Biden: "I make a special appeal to social media companies and media outlets — please deal with the misinformation and disinformation that's on your shows. It has to stop."
 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Smile 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange he doesn’t feel the need to make an appeal to print media and broadcast /cable media. Huh, why is it the legacy media aren’t filled with , choking with , overrun with conspirators?

What is it about universal access that allows for truth to be distorted ? The established media serves the citizenry with all that is truthful, apparently to a degree that one need not remind them of their sacred mission.

Luckily for us , that universal access is run through a few choke points , hopefully truth will prevail and finally we will be availed of only true information, discerning truth among too much noise is tiresome. This whole internet thing is making it harder to stay focused on what is appropriate to air. (end of sarcasm here)

I think Rand’s quote around there being no need for overt censorship was prescient and operable in the abstract. But that idea was formulated in a time in a different media paradigm, the ‘authorities ‘ are now more dependent on the ‘choke points’ than the ‘choke points’ operate to stay within the good graces of the authorities.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, tmj said:

Strange he doesn’t feel the need to make an appeal to print media and broadcast /cable media. Huh, why is it the legacy media aren’t filled with , choking with , overrun with conspirators?

What is it about universal access that allows for truth to be distorted ? The established media serves the citizenry with all that is truthful, apparently to a degree that one need not remind them of their sacred mission.

Luckily for us , that universal access is run through a few choke points , hopefully truth will prevail and finally we will be availed of only true information, discerning truth among too much noise is tiresome. This whole internet thing is making it harder to stay focused on what is appropriate to air. (end of sarcasm here)

I think Rand’s quote around there being no need for overt censorship was prescient and operable in the abstract. But that idea was formulated in a time in a different media paradigm, the ‘authorities ‘ are now more dependent on the ‘choke points’ than the ‘choke points’ operate to stay within the good graces of the authorities.

 

"There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw." Ayn Rand, “Collectivized ‘Rights", 1963

If she could only see us, now..."Did you not believe me? Did I stutter? What part of 'dictatorship' don't you understand???"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, anthony said:

You must have missed the part I said of some businesses being stooges for Gvt.: Independently, they can do as they please. Obeying govt. policy isn't independent.

In other words, they are doing the Gvt's dirty work. Acting on their behalf, like cops, enforcing Gvt vaxx mandates.

"Capitalism"?

For those companies who've had these policies forced on them involuntarily, my sympathy. One trusts the courts will support their rights to NOT fire loyal and hard to replace, employees. To not bar entrance to customers, etc.

It seems ridiculous to be discussing over-reach by govts in this climate, when that is all they have been engaged in. Like frogs in boiling water, lobsters if you prefer, heat is what every westerner has been familiarized with and many don't feel it increasing.  

"Muh private platform! Don't like it, go start your own!"
Ok, we will...
(Government then proceeds to pressure app stores to block apps like PARLER, GETTR,  block access to bank accounts, PayPal accounts, etc, freeze assets, label parents/dissenters "Domestic terrorists", etc...)

“But what for? What for? What for?” Keating cried to his associate designers. “Well, why shouldn’t we have any say at all?” asked Gordon L. Prescott. “We want to express our individuality too.”

When Keating invoked his contract, he was told: “All right, go ahead, try to sue the government. Try it.”

Ayn Rand. The Fountainhead (Kindle Locations 13227-13230). Plume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, the Federal Government does not have complete control, despite their best efforts (yet, which is why it is important to keep pushing back on it, and their useful idiots, such as our resident troll, to keep it that way...)

BREAKING: Supreme Court rejects OSHA mandate

"As expected, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a federal mandate requiring 20 million healthcare workers get vaccinated against COVID-19, but blocked a separate mandate that required workers at private businesses get vaccinated or tested weekly.

“'Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category,' the conservative majority wrote in the decision regarding the Occupational Safety and Health Administration mandate.

 

-------

"The Biden administration issued the two separate mandates last November — one from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that applied to healthcare workers employed by facilities that receive federal funding, and a second from the Labor Department’s OSHA that applied to private businesses that employed more than 100 workers.

"The Supreme Court’s conservative majority said while Congress has OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it hasn’t given the federal agency the power to broadly regulate public health.
In writing their dissenting opinion, the three liberal justices argued OSHA was within its authority  and expertise to authorize the mandates."

read more here:

Man-getting-vaccine.jpeg
WWW.MCKNIGHTSHOMECARE.COM

As expected, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a federal mandate requiring 20 million healthcare workers get vaccinated against...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cmon Mike P get hardcore , you’d have an audience and not just enough of an audience to get back in the game but a real one.

Biden’s mandate is unconstitutional, comma ‘cept for individuals  in specific jobs , so not period , good try though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2022 at 8:18 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

D,

I think you are reading her mind too much (which, I believe, is exactly what she wants you to do). She apparently had no problem with fear mongering for two years (I've never heard this fear is ineffective crap before), then suddenly she does. And she has the answer. Is that because she feels coercion is wrong? Hell, I doubt it. If I had to speculate, I think she found her niche market amidst the noise so now she can stand out. And she is going for it.

But I do know why it is easy to get taken in by her. She used the full array of conman tricks (or in her case, conwoman).

1. She is pretty.
2. She speaks with certainty.
3. She speaks in a tone that conveys she has your best interests at heart.
4. She is likeable.
5. She gives the impression--through a few well-framed facts/assertions--that she is very knowledgeable and skilled at what she is talking about.
6. She is enthusiastic as all get out.
7. She promises you a lavish but unearned future divorced from reality. (In her case, a world where only information matters to people, not fear. A world where you do not need to feel afraid ever again. And a world where she and her fellow predators will keep you from getting a deadly virus forever and ever amen.)
8. She has the plan all set and ready to go.
9. She has her unique selling proposition entangled with her incongruous "secret truth" (which is for her, fear is not a motivator for human decisions or actions).
10. Her call to action is for you to do nothing but blindly obey her with something so easy, you won't even notice, and all will be yours.

I could go on and on, and believe me, there is a lot more. Note that these are traits that people generally value among their intimates. They are also traits that lull people into submission by shutting down their defenses and their reason.

Where you see a bit of a dingbat lying to herself, I see a skilled con.

Study cons a bit and I believe you will see it, too.

btw - I suggest you don't feel bad or defensive about being taken in by this stuff. (It stings, but that is only a cognitive bias kicking in.) God knows I have been taken in enough times. The trick is to learn it, not defend the story and image the con paints to you. If you learn it, you will be far more immune.

Even Cialdini came up with his persuasion stuff from being conned too often. He openly says he is not the world's greatest genius, but the world's biggest sucker. :) So he set off trying to learn why. The rest is history. And he gave the rest of us some powerful tools to diffuse this crap. (Or even use if you have a heart of larceny. :) )

Michael

You're right. It does sting... Thank you for showing me the light. I was taken in by her beauty... I am ashamed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2022 at 8:26 AM, Peter said:

Yes, that is freedom. Just ask Roark or Dagny. Capitalism is a necessary part of freedom.    

Doesn't this miss an essential part of the equation? Rights.

AR: "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights..."

And:

"A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.

If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.

If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right.

Do not make the mistake, at this point, of thinking that a worker is a slave and that he holds his job by his employer’s permission. He does not hold it by permission—but by contract, that is, by a voluntary mutual agreement. A worker can quit his job. A slave cannot".

“Textbook of Americanism”

--

In this light, it is by *permission* that an unvaxxed employee holds his job today. Permission which may "be revoked at any time", due to governmental edict or the employer's arbitrary judgment. That would then consist of a one-sided, broken contract.

In other words, the employer is 'free' (by your argument on Capitalism) to impose new conditions on his staff, and 'free' to fire them if not complied with - while the worker is "a slave" always dependent on his "sanction" to continue to work there. 

(The ¬individual rights¬ of one to take up vaccination - or not to - hasn't really been pursued by leading (ARI) Objectivists, that I've seen. Everything rests on that, surely? The "sanction of independent action" HAS to be respected by all. As much, and more, in difficult and controversial periods as in easier times. Individual rights are non-negotiable to those who propound freedom of action.  Irrespective of which reasons and 'reasons' any might hold: rational and self-interested, or dutiful and altruistic, or religious, or fearful, or superstitious, or obedient and intimidated - for which either person gets vaccinated or does not do so. Each person will bear any consequences of his choice).

"If ... you must obtain the permission of society--you are not free..."

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marc said:

Turn off the lights, the party is over.

The fat lady has sung.

Ironic how SCOTUS ended the Biden administration today.

The King is dead, long live The King.

Thanks SCOTUS.

Muffley:

There's nothing to figure out General Turgidson. This man is obviously a psychotic.

Turgidson:

Well, I'd like to hold off judgment on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in.

Muffley:

(Doctor Strangelove, or, How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb)

In other words, "it ain't over 'til it's over", as this isn't the knock-out blow we'd wish it to be; think "Overton Window":

 

 

With that said...we can still look at it as "glass half-full";  on the plus side:

General Turgidson, I find this very difficult to understand. I was under the impression that I was the only one in authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.

Turgidson:

That's right sir. You are the only person authorized to do so. And although I hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like General Ripper exceeded his authority.

Muffley:

It certainly does. Far beyond the point I would have imagined possible.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

"I don't think it's far-fetched to say that if Donald Trump hadn't won in 2016 and appointed three SCOTUS justices, the U.S. would literally be Australia right now."
 

 

Even worse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Why the window must always move left is that it is essentially moving towards equality. How do you get the public to push back on equality? Well, I think the first thing that has to happen is the right has to stop pretending they are actually pro-equality, just in a different way. You will be familiar with the distinction between equality and 'equity'. Or equality of opportunity vs equality of outcomes.

 

The problem is that if there isn't an unequivocal alternative offered, people don't really know why they shouldn't be pro-equality. After all, the difference is apparently semantical.

 

The modern right wants unequal outcomes, but a fair system for achieving those outcomes. The fair system is what they argue for, which is still a form of equality. A real alternative would be to focus on the unequal outcomes and why they are essential. Why is it better for human beings to have a hierarchy? A fair system would be nice, but that should be secondary. When people try to achieve equality, as we can see they naturally do by the continual shifting of the Overton Window to the left, they create power vacuums that get filled by the worst types of people. This is why we should forget about equality of outcomes, equality of opportunity, all of it. The alternative to equality is leadership. When people actually think about who they want to lead, and not who they want to help achieve equality (the Justin Trudeau types), we can move the window in the other direction...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now