1. Welcome to NoFap! We have disabled new forum accounts from being registered for the time being. In the meantime, you can join our weekly accountability groups.
    Dismiss Notice

Corona Virus as a means to expand State control?

Discussion in 'Off-topic Discussion' started by DerSchütze, Mar 28, 2020.

  1. Davidphd1866

    Davidphd1866 Fapstronaut

    705
    996
    93
    I would ask this question: If we are required to stay indoors to "flatten the curve", how come gay people aren't required to stop having anal sex to "flatten the curve" of AIDS?

    This is NOT an anti gay question. It's a question about government over reach.
     
    Deleted Account likes this.
  2. Or why not ban anal sex completely it could be justified on public safety grounds.
     
    Scorcher2000 likes this.
  3. No. I already mentioned the guaranteed abuse of power that will result when these things are allowed but you're wrong on many more fronts. In fact neither of the two examples fit the description "sacrificing freedom for protection". One, a license to murder and rape people can be labeled as 'freedom' only by a psychopath. Two, being a subject of surveillance is not a restriction of freedom but rather that of privacy. And if you don't mind giving up your privacy for strangers to spy on you and your family in service of supposed security then you don't deserve either.
     
  4. Davidphd1866

    Davidphd1866 Fapstronaut

    705
    996
    93
    Precisely! You make a good point.

    And may I remind EVERYONE in this thread: banning "bad" behavior for our "safety" has never worked. Look at American Prohibition in the 1920's, The War on Drugs, etc.
     
    Scorcher2000 likes this.
  5. Well duh. Obviously the ability to make an analogy doesn't automatically make it correct. I believe my analogy is a good one. You disagree, and that's fine, but I think you're wrong.

    Again... duh. I never claimed the government is always truthful and has our best interest in mind.

    This is a really strange question. And people say my analogy was off. Lol this is not equivalent at all.

    First of all, the government is not banning people from anything forever. This is temporary and for a specific purpose. So... not the same as banning gay people from having sex.

    Secondly, AIDs is not comparable to the Corona virus in pretty much any way. It's not as rapidly spread, you can't catch it the smae way, etc. If gay people having anal sex was resulting in this many deaths of random people they happen to walk by catching AIDs from them, then sure, maybe we should ban anal sex. At least temporarily while they figure out if there is a way to cure it. But this is a ridiculous comparison in so many ways.

    That's an argument of emotion. Obviously I agree that only psychopaths would be upset that their right of freedom to harm others is being taken away. You're just getting too stuck on the emotional implications that you're missing the actual logic of my statement. Idk how to explain things further if you aren't able to look at it from the same perspective I'm looking at it.

    So... if I believe it's okay for the government to monitor some things in case of, say, threats or terrorism, suddenly I don't "deserve" freedom or privacy? Wow. Seems like your entire worldview of freedom being a basic human right for everyone went right out the window the minute you found a person who didn't agree with you on everything.

    Not sure where to go from here. Perhaps the murder/rape analogy was a bit strong and I think y'all missed my point completely on that one, but even so, I still just completely disagree that social distancing is going to cause more problems than the virus itself. That's just dumb. I'm just sick of hearing people whine about their freedom when they aren't even asking you for much at all. They're just asking people to stay home for a while. It's not permanent, and all of the comparisons people are making are comparing it to permanent changes, which is ridiuclous.

    All I'm saying with my analogy is that we have plenty of laws in place that restrict people of their freedoms, for the safety of others. Which is exactly the same as this situation, only this situation isn't permanent. If you don't like the murder analogy, what about drinking and driving? Or any other law that says "you can't do that, because it is likely to hurt somebody."

    And come to think of it, someone said the murder analogy didn't work because the reason you can't kill someone is because it would infringe on THEIR freedom to not be harmed? How does that not apply to COVID19? That's exactly the same... we are being told we can't do certain things, because it could harm others. And obviously if it were possible for them to know who has the virus and who doesn't, then it wouldn't be necessary to quarantine everybody. We would only quarantine the sick people. But this is a unique situation in which that method would not be effective at all.

    In short, I honestly think y'all are acting like whiney children who don't want to do what mommy told you because you don't want to admit that she has any authority over you. Even if what mommy told you to do could save people's lives. I think it's stupid and selfish and childish.
     
  6. The ONLY thing I do agree about, regarding what many people have issue with in this situation, is that if the government is going to demand people not work, they need to provide them some kind of care. It's not fair to tell people they can't make money, and then demand they still pay all their bills and feed heir kids. If you're going to make those demands, you need to help them.
     
  7. I'm usually accused of the opposite. The likelihood of you being a serial killer increases with each post.
    What I attempted to say is that if enough people think like you THEN those human rights go up in smoke.

    Put cops and army into the streets, drones in the air, NSA or its equivalent in the wires and the elmag waves and all kinds of very ugly things can happen.

    I have no problem with social distancing (some of us have practiced it long before the bug) but when a person who wasn't elected by anyone holds a press conference to tell me that they might not allow me to leave the country for a year, I become slightly worried.
     
  8. Wow, seriously dude? I have zero interest in having a conversation with you if you're going to say shit like that. I've repeatedly said that obviously I don't at all want murder or rape to be legal, and I think they are horrible things that should be illegal. That's my entire point. If you're going to resort to insulting me personally, then you can screw off. I'm not going to entertain any conversation with someone who's going to call me a serial killer because they're too stupid to understand my actual point.
     
  9. But you did imply that that not being able to rape and murder is a restriction on your freedom.
     
    Davidphd1866 and Kligor like this.
  10. Insulting people is not the way to conduct a reasonable discussion .
     
    need4realchg and Kligor like this.
  11. It was supposed to be a joke. I meant no offence.
     
    ....... and Kligor like this.
  12. Interesting your position here. (“ I did a 180, crazy..”)

    in 1918 the fine in San Francisco was 5$ for not wearing a face mask.

    Q: in the flu of 1918 (incorrectly called Spanish flu) which government doled out stimulus checks while it’s economic engines closed down?

    A: ______?

    Q: what was president Wilson’s (Democrat) focus and what was he defined by as a war time president ?

    A: To Create a League of Nations. a way to control/prevent war. His idea was stopped by republicans who feared the League would push the US into unnecessary wars.

    Me in Texas 2020:
    I am part of the US’s essential workforce—- those like me who work in the various sectors that qualify as ”essential” received a letter from CISA (cyber security and infrastructure agency) and then were invited to a conference call, coordinated by the Trump Coronavirus team. I was not on the call but the head of our parent group CEO was. The part that stood out to me is that this agency already identified “critical “ industries within our country and I was on it.

    So Trump declaring war on a virus could easily lead the world into a new era of lifestyles. Just like the tsa and homeland came from 9/11 disasters— I think some new “shitty-waste-of-money-agency” will come from this. ( they should call it s.w.o.m.a. to rhyme with corona)

    there will be a people who clamor for some new bureaucratic solution to help “fight this new invisible enemy”. For me as a libertarian that is troubling.

    In my opinion too often the power entrusted to leaders over and over again shows us that a government solution is usually too slow, too heavy handed, too expensive to implement, not transparent or trustworthy , and smoke and mirrors for some unspoken or nefarious role.
     
    Deleted Account likes this.
  13. If you don't understand what I meant by that, then I don't know how else to explain it. It's not my fault that you don't get such a simple concept of a definition of a word. Obviously I am not, nor have I ever been, implying that murder shouldn't be illegal. You guys are being ridiculous and resorting to cheap insults, and I'm not interested in that kind of "conversation." Literally nobody with half a brain would read what I said and think I'm advocating for murder being good and legal. Come on, dude. You both know that isn't what I meant.

    I'm done with this conversation. When personal insults start, that's when I leave.
     
    need4realchg likes this.
  14. It wasn't funny, and I don't believe it was meant to be a fun, silly joke. You meant to be insulting, and that's obvious. Don't act like you didn't say that to be a dick.
     
  15. Saying your stance is childish is not even close to saying that I am a serial killer. I did NOT insult you. I insulted your views. There's a difference.

    This is so ridiculous. I can't believe there are several people honestly defending someone calling me a serial killer, as if I'm the one in the wrong simply for having a different opinion. You boys need to grow the hell up. I'm done with all of you.
     
  16. Bye
     
  17. Themadfapper

    Themadfapper Fapstronaut

    704
    860
    93
    Didn't prohibition actually work though? It greatly reduced the consumption of alcohol. I agree the so-called war on drugs has been a disaster though.
     
  18. And the overall level of crime went down too.
    Alcohol causes more deaths , crime etc than illegal drugs.
    The health of the US nation improved too.
    But of course a lot of big business were losing money .
    As well as the government losing alcohol tax money .
    (But I do not believe in legalizing street drugs )
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 10, 2020
    Themadfapper likes this.
  19. fact : this month in Singapore alcohol was banned for 10 days as the country deals with covid fallout.

    fact: this month in Texas alcohol was elevated to “essential” service to allow more consumption doing these perilous times.

    Which is better ?
     
    Deleted Account likes this.
  20. ShadyPerson

    ShadyPerson Fapstronaut

    329
    881
    93
    Neither seems necessarily ideal, but imo the Texas way has the risk of increasong the amount of alcoholics. Dealing with difficult emotions by drug abuse is a perilous idea and some won't come out as winners on the other side.
     
    need4realchg likes this.

Share This Page