Canada Has Now Frozen Bank Accounts of Convoy Supporters

[Carl-Richard]

10 minutes ago, vladorion said:

Does your right to health trump another person's right to bodily autonomy?

Why are you not allowed to drive drunk?

 

11 minutes ago, vladorion said:

Do you believe other people have to modify their bodies so you can feel more protected?

Depends on the situation. I don't have a strong stance for or against mandates. I'm just pointing out the other side of the equation, and like axiom, I say "make of that what you will."

[Michal__]

23 hours ago, Roy said:

If you study Spiral Dynamics or history in general it won't take long for you to notice things inevitably develop towards the left and NOT the right. That's not a coincidence. It's because left leaning worldviews are fundamentally more holistic and cognitively apt. They are able to have a greater range of things to consider and therefore plan accordingly, even if it's unpopular or counterintuitive.

It´s important to acknowledge how lucky it is to discover spiral dynamics. 

Lot´s of right wingers & centrists study history & lots of them are right wingers (edit: this sentence is weirdly formulated due to modafinil brainfreeze, but you get the point). The more accurate determining factor would be overall personal growth, in my opinon (rather than how much history you studied).

Edited February 18, 2022 by Michal__

[vladorion]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Why are you not allowed to drive drunk?

Not being allowed to drive drunk doesn't infringe on your right to bodily integrity.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, vladorion said:

Not being allowed to drive drunk doesn't infringe on your right to bodily integrity.

Quote

Bodily integrity is one of Martha Nussbaum's ten principle capabilities (see capabilities approach). She defines bodily integrity as: "Being able to move freely from place to place; being able to be secure against violent assault, including sexual assault ... having opportunities for sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction". Privacy is also included as a part of bodily integrity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity

[Scholar]

26 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Why does the CDC exist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_health

I would say this is a different kind of right than what you quoted in your post. If someone had the right to not get infected, they could sue anyone who infects them, whether it is a flu or any other kind of disease, in the same way you could if someone drove into your car.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

I would say this is a different kind of right than what you quoted in your post. If someone had the right to not get infected, they could sue anyone who infects them, whether it is a flu or any other kind of disease, in the same way you could if someone drove into your car.

You mean sue them and take them to court? Well, you see, if you want to be really technical about it, the legal system only enforces laws. It's not really about protecting "rights."

Cmon, you know very well what I mean when I use the word "right." It's something that is fundamental to human flourishing.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_health:

Quote

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966)

The United Nations further defines the right to health in Article 12 of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which states:

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:

The reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;

The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;

The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases;

The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.

 

[axiom]

39 minutes ago, Michal__ said:

It´s important to acknowledge how lucky it is to discover spiral dynamics. 

Lot´s of right wingers & centrists study history & lots of them are right wingers (edit: this sentence is weirdly formulated due to modafinil brainfreeze, but you get the point). The more accurate determining factor would be overall personal growth, in my opinon (rather than how much history you studied).

It's not as simple as left or right though of course. A lot (perhaps most) torture, murder and genocide in world history was perpetrated by movements generally regarded as left-wing.

Personally, I would feel silly identifying very strongly with either side. It's not about right or left for me at all. The pendulum will always swing from one side to the other. Personally I'd like to extend the time it spends moving through the centre. Maybe also see the swings themselves calm down a bit too.

Edited February 18, 2022 by axiom

[axiom]

On the other point re mandates, the issue here is the precedent. The government should not have the right to inject you with whatever they deem to be safe or "in the national interest". It should be perfectly lawful to resist without coercion. The coercion as-is (threats to job security, freezing of bank accounts and the like) feels very much like a CCP-inspired social credit system. 

Anyone remember that tweet from China's US Embassy last year:

Quote

"Study shows that in the process of eradicating extremism, the minds of Uyghur women in Xinjiang were emancipated and gender equality and reproductive health were promoted, making them no longer baby-making machines. They are more confident and independent."

Read: Forced sterilisation injections linked to social credit scores and personal freedom.

Yes, I can see the benefit to mandates. I suppose the rationale here is that "desperate times call for desperate measures" ? 

The potential for Dystopian downsides massively outweighs the benefits though IMO.

[vladorion]

20 minutes ago, axiom said:

On the other point re mandates, the issue here is the precedent. The government should not have the right to inject you with whatever they deem to be safe or "in the national interest". It should be perfectly lawful to resist without coercion. The coercion as-is (threats to job security, freezing of bank accounts and the like) feels very much like a CCP-inspired social credit system. 

"There's a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime." Justin Trudeau

[Leo Gura]

It is amusing and somehow entirely appropriate that Canada's biggest national emergency is a handful of truckers with sand in their vaginas.

But freezing bank accounts is more of a US style move. I would have expected Trudeau to revoke their fishing and hunting licenses instead, a move that sends shockwaves across the provinces

[Jakuchu]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It is assuming that Canada's biggest national emergency is a handful of truckers with sand in their vaginas.

exactly my thoughts 

[Leo Gura]

59 minutes ago, vladorion said:

Not being allowed to drive drunk doesn't infringe on your right to bodily integrity.

Why did George Washington mandate all US soldiers to get vaccinated?

How did Big Pharma and CNN get to him?

[vladorion]

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Why did George Washington mandate all US soldiers to get vaccinated?

How did Big Pharma and CNN get to him?

Maybe because smallpox killed 30% of the people it infected.

I don't remember mentioning CNN or Big Pharma, so not sure why you brought them up.

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, vladorion said:

Maybe because smallpox killed 30% of the people it infected.

0.1% of 350 million people is a lot of dead people.

[Fleetinglife]

At least if these guys were like Buzz Hargrove in the 90's actually protesting and organizing and declaring general strikes in the sector over rising oil prices and slowing down and effectively blocking traffic by directing truckers via the Canadian Auto Workers Unions to drive their trucks at 20mph at Canadian highways in colons and en masse before being threatened to be intercepted and perhaps shot by Canadian National Guard members if they don't stop and sit to negotiate with the Canadian government then led by then turned Liberal Jean Chretien, former leader of Bloc Quebecois Quebec party, my dad remembers that when he was in Canada and where there were also a national uproar over those strikes and protests but those were caused by legitimate serious economic strifes and grievances these more in turn seem more like they are caused by infantile whimsical notions of freedoms and rights in order to throw fits like children not getting what they want and having a reality check on the world not being what they imagine it or fantasise of being like and about and how it functions. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Fleetinglife

[Johnny Galt]

18 hours ago, Roy said:

I don't care how many of the protesters are hooded black men waving glocks, or fat white rednecks waving .22 caliber rifles,

There you are again, making outrageous statements. Maybe make another effort in your communication.

But yes, you are correct, ethnicity has nothing to do with political perspective, and yet you're casting all at this convoy as one in the same. As I said, this is messy and so be cautious on quick labels and exaggerations of what is what.

Edited February 19, 2022 by Johnny Galt

[axiom]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

0.1% of 350 million people is a lot of dead people.

I can't speak for other statistics globally, but certainly in England and Wales the mortality rate from the virus alone is 0.008% for people under 65. This is based on:

People in England and Wales under 65: 48,587,115
Covid-caused deaths in England and Wales for people under 65 (since start of the pandemic): 3774

This is approximately the same probability as: 

- Tossing a coin and getting heads 17 times in a row
- Being fatally injured by a toilet
- In a group of four people, one dying from the vaccine.

People don't like mandates because:
- They don't trust government (has your government lied to you before?);
- They don't trust pharmaceutical companies.  Maybe this is pretty reasonable too, considering that Glaxo's $3 billion settlement in 2012 was the largest civil False Claims Act settlement on record; and Pfizer's $2.3 billion settlement in 2009 ($3.5 billion in today's money) included a record-breaking $1.3 billion criminal fine.
- They realise that if they give up this freedom, then it sets a precedent for the government in future to inject you with anything else they like, including (but not limited to) custard, Coca Cola, sewage, etc

Is it really so far fetched at this point to imagine a future (say, 20 or 30 years hence) where your civil liberties will be compromised should you refuse to be microchipped? Even a few years ago, such an absurd notion would be laughed off by most sane people. Today, the idea doesn't seem so far-fetched at all. All they need is the narrative, and for enough people to be sufficiently suckered in to parrot the government's official policy to their social groups. People question motivations far less these days.

Large numbers of us are becoming increasingly subordinate to government. Canada's moves here are Totalitarian, no question. If you believe in liberty, then even if you think vaccine mandates are a good idea for other reasons, you'd have to concede that this is not a great trend.

Edited February 19, 2022 by axiom

[Leo Gura]

I have not looked into the merits of Trudeau's move. I was just poking fun at the situation.

But the notion that Canada is at risk of becoming a totalitarian state is a joke in itself. I wouldn't lose any sleep over this.

[Zedman]

Here is why I cant detach myself from anti-mandate stance. Thought experiment.

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

0.1% of 350 million people is a lot of dead people.

Lets take this argument as a golden standard. If 0.1% of population is at risk of death, government should be allowed measures to restrict movement, right to work and seize possessions as well as spend massive amount of resources (UK spent 315-410bn in total which is around 50% of its annual spending). Now lets tackle death from obesity, alcohol, cigarettes and drugs the same way. We can also prevent over 0.1% of untimely deaths by mandating exercise and healthy diet. You might say people chose to do this to themselves but they are also negatively affecting others around them. People under influence kill or cause serious damage more often. Obese parents will feed their children crap. Addicts ruin families and unhealthy people clog up hospitals and tax money.

Do we want to be in this kind of society? Would it be sustainable? What if mandating power gets corrupt (worse than now)?

[axiom]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I have not looked into the merits of Trudeau's move. I was just poking fun at the situation.

You're a good guy Leo. Ultimately all debate is for entertainment purposes. Problems arise when people get so wrapped up in the story that they develop manias.