Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

The White Rose


JoeDavola
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yadda yadda yadda
Just now, DTMark said:

Perhaps something can be learned from the behaviour of doing something you personally would rather not, and which you find inconvenient, because there is the slenderest of chances that your doing so may protect others including the people you care about such as your friends.

Perhaps you should try telling that to a young child that doesn't yet know what some of those words mean but just sees a load of masked up people when allowed out. Perhaps read the below link and consider how a mask will affect a young child when in a shop and even their mum is wearing one.

https://theconversation.com/face-time-heres-how-infants-learn-from-facial-expressions-53327

Finally, the masks don't work!

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Wight Flight said:

I think it is understood that black people are more likely to have Covid. Or at least they have spent months telling us they are because of their poor living conditions and jobs they do.

At the start of the AIDS pandemic, people thought it could be transmitted by normal contact. But we didn't ban homosexuals from shops then.

I can understand why you don't think masks are a problem, because it doesn't affect you. But that isn't how we should run society.

 

At the start of the AIDS pandemic people thought it was a "gay disease" transmitted by anal sex.

The solution to this was to wear a condom and/or not have anal sex.

I have to wear a mask when I go outside.

There have been a few mini-riots in Italy, Naples being memorable, however those were largely in response to the curfew, not the masks.

I am yet to understand why the virus suddenly becomes more contagious after 6PM which is when places have to shut in "orange zones" here.

And neither, I suspect, does anyone else, hence the mutiny.

The potential protection provided by wearing masks is logical and easy to understand.

It may be that in the fullness of time we come to realise that there never was any protection when we analyse the COVID performance of each country and compare them. Even scientists remain split on this issue.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Generation Game
7 minutes ago, DTMark said:

Perhaps something can be learned from the behaviour of doing something you personally would rather not, and which you find inconvenient, because there is the slenderest of chances that your doing so may protect others including the people you care about such as your friends.

Taken straight out of a tabloid headline. 

I've essentially lived indoors for a year to reduce my interactions with others. My only real excursions outside have been to go on walks for exercise. Now that simple release has been taken away from me by demanding that I wear a mask to walk down an empty street. 

Taking your argument to its extremities, if we all just killed ourselves (I almost feel like I am doing this by a thousand cuts) we'd reduce the risk of killing others. 

If we all never met anyone ever again outside of supermarkets and chemists, transmission would probably fall.

I'm rapidly getting to the "rather live as a lion for a day than a lifetime as a sheep" stage. 

If we banned anything that might heighten our risk of death we'd all just sit in bed all day, waiting to die from dehydration. 

 

  • Agree 8
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hail the Tripod said:

Oh, so the goal is to abandon all proportionality and eliminate all risk, however slight.

We should immediately ban all sports and hobbies. You certainly should never see friends.  All mechanised transport must be eliminated. In fact, just no one ever leave their padded cell. Forever.

"Ban all sports and hobbies" and "wear a mask when in close proximity to other people" aren't really equivalent things, are they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The Generation Game said:

She was stopped by policewoman on an empty street and lambasted for not wearing a mask.

WTF?! A clear case of harassment. Hope she got her number and will make a formal complaint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hail the Tripod
55 minutes ago, DTMark said:

"Ban all sports and hobbies" and "wear a mask when in close proximity to other people" aren't really equivalent things, are they?

It’s literally the obvious conclusion to what you wrote.

56 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

because there is the slenderest of chances that your doing so may protect others including the people you care about such as your friends.

If the goal is to eliminate “the slenderest of chances” then we have to stay in even stricter lockdown forever.

Or should we aim for proportionality, and a measured response? Which may involve mask wearing, if any benefit can be demonstrated after a year of grand social experiments.

Edited by Hail the Tripod
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

We should immediately ban all sports and hobbies. You certainly should never see friends.  All mechanised transport must be eliminated. In fact, just no one ever leave their padded cell. Forever.

You've had an advance peek at the forthcoming WEF white paper, I see 

  • Agree 2
  • Lol 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mirror Mirror
1 hour ago, DTMark said:

Here in Italy - no mask, no shopping. No chemist. No supermarket. No bar. You'll be ejected immediately.

The owners of those establishments have a duty to protect their staff. No staff, no shop. Nobody wins.

If wearing a mask reduces - even only very fractionally - the risk that a carrier may spread the disease, I see no problem with such a policy while the pandemic is serious.

Can anyone articulate why the "I don't want want to wear one" argument is stronger?

None of the tinfoil hattery "It's mind control! I'm not having the government tell me what to do!" nonsense please.

A quick look through my bookmarked pages shows several articles explaining why masks are ineffective, and the harm they do to our own health, the health of others, the damage to children’s development and the detrimental effects on society via our inter human relationships.

I can post the links if you really want, but it’s a ball ache opening each one to see what it’s about, then writing a précis, so please only ask me to do so if you promise you’re going to read them with an open mind.

As to your comment about mind control, I’ve already intimidated that they were introduced at a time of very low infection as a means of signifying compliance with the covid narrative. Given that they weren’t introduced in late winter early spring 2020, do you have an explain as to why?

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Generation Game
10 minutes ago, LC1 said:

WTF?! A clear case of harassment. Hope she got her number and will make a formal complaint.

But the law here is that masks must be worn at all times outside. We have no medical exemption excuses allowed here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mirror Mirror said:

A quick look through my bookmarked pages shows several articles explaining why masks are ineffective, and the harm they do to our own health, the health of others, the damage to children’s development and the detrimental effects on society via our inter human relationships.

I can post the links if you really want, but it’s a ball ache opening each one to see what it’s about, then writing a précis, so please only ask me to do so if you promise you’re going to read them with an open mind.

As to your comment about mind control, I’ve already intimidated that they were introduced at a time of very low infection as a means of signifying compliance with the covid narrative. Given that they weren’t introduced in late winter early spring 2020, do you have an explain as to why?

 

 

I will tend to side with measures that get us past this situation at the earliest possibility.

Masks were introduced earlier in Italy along with other measures.

First, individual shops and supermarkets mandated wearing them to gain entry even though it wasn't State policy, then it became so.

Buses closed their front doors to protect the driver, with entry only possible from the rear doors, the driver was cordoned off so nobody could get near, and masks and gloves were essential to be able to get on the bus. If I recall correctly that was in March 2020.

Later, in the summer, Sadiq Khan was bitching at the government for not protecting TFL staff despite the fact that he could have mandated action himself.

The timeline of the actions the UK has taken makes little sense when viewed from any angle other than lassez-faire "let it rip through the population but not too much if we can help it" followed by "Oh shit, the NHS is going to collapse so now we must over-react".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Generation Game said:

But the law here is that masks must be worn at all times outside. We have no medical exemption excuses allowed here. 

I keep forgetting where you're based. It's total insanity to wear masks outside, especially if nobody is around. Glad to hear she mouthed off to plod, at any rate.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DTMark said:

I will tend to side with measures that get us past this situation at the earliest possibility.

Masks were introduced earlier in Italy along with other measures.

First, individual shops and supermarkets mandated wearing them to gain entry even though it wasn't State policy, then it became so.

Buses closed their front doors to protect the driver, with entry only possible from the rear doors, the driver was cordoned off so nobody could get near, and masks and gloves were essential to be able to get on the bus. If I recall correctly that was in March 2020.

Later, in the summer, Sadiq Khan was bitching at the government for not protecting TFL staff despite the fact that he could have mandated action himself.

The timeline of the actions the UK has taken makes little sense when viewed from any angle other than lassez-faire "let it rip through the population but not too much if we can help it" followed by "Oh shit, the NHS is going to collapse so now we must over-react".

All of which makes perfect sense... unless there's an underlying logical fallacy regarding the amount of protection that any of that behaviour provides.

There's no science (as in tested falsifiable hypotheses) in any of this. Without that, you may be wearing masks forever and still never 'get past this situation.'

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody appears to have pointed out that the leader of "Die Weisse Rose" was guillotined... 

FWIW the original White Rose were a bunch of socialist students. Very brave, but I hope the ideals are different with version 2.0.

 

Edited by spunko
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alex said:

All of which makes perfect sense... unless there's an underlying logical fallacy regarding the amount of protection that any of that behaviour provides.

There's no science (as in tested falsifiable hypotheses) in any of this. Without that, you may be wearing masks forever and still never 'get past this situation.'

Completely agree. The behaviour is posited on logic and that anything that helps, even if only slightly and which is just a minor inconvenience, is better than nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wight Flight
37 minutes ago, DTMark said:

At the start of the AIDS pandemic people thought it was a "gay disease" transmitted by anal sex.

I don't think that is true.

At the start of the AIDS pandemic, they were going out of their way to avoid any mention of it mainly affecting homosexuals.

I recall people thinking you could catch it from toilet seats, from kissing or giving mouth to mouth.

The disinformation was huge (or perhaps nobody really knew). It was some time before the population at large calmed down.

That said, once the truth was known the obvious solution was for those at risk of catching AIDS to take all reasonable precautions. The rest of the population could carry on as normal.

If there is ever a vaccine developed, I guess it will be given to those at risk, not everyone.

 

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wight Flight
1 minute ago, DTMark said:

Completely agree. The behaviour is posited on logic and that anything that helps, even if only slightly and which is just a minor inconvenience, is better than nothing.

It is a minor inconvenience to you. It is a major life changing situation for others.  

  • Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wight Flight said:

I don't think that is true.

 

Shame, because it is true according to the statistics.

Maybe @DTMark will correct me, but I seem to remember reading it's still a "gay disease".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wight Flight
Just now, spunko said:

Shame, because it is true according to the statistics.

I know the statistics are true. But that isn't what people believed at the start of the AIDS pandemic as they were fed dodgy news (possibly rightly to avoid 'gay bashing' )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wight Flight said:

I don't think that is true.

At the start of the AIDS pandemic, they were going out of their way to avoid any mention of it mainly affecting homosexuals.

I recall people thinking you could catch it from toilet seats, from kissing or giving mouth to mouth.

The disinformation was huge (or perhaps nobody really knew). It was some time before the population at large calmed down.

That said, once the truth was known the obvious solution was for those at risk of catching AIDS to take all reasonable precautions. The rest of the population could carry on as normal.

If there is ever a vaccine developed, I guess it will be given to those at risk, not everyone.

 

 

 

My recollection is that the population at large believed it was something that affected gay men and that the transmission method was likely to be anal sex given that it did indeed affect gay men almost exclusively.

Indeed some offence was taken at the notion that it might affect heterosexual people. The government at the time strongly suggested that it could and would. That was erring on the side of caution and with the knowledge that some people are bisexual and that not only gay men have anal sex.

I see an analogy between "I don't want to wear a mask" and "I don't want to wear a condom".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mirror Mirror
11 minutes ago, DTMark said:

I will tend to side with measures that get us past this situation at the earliest possibility.

Masks were introduced earlier in Italy along with other measures.

First, individual shops and supermarkets mandated wearing them to gain entry even though it wasn't State policy, then it became so.

Buses closed their front doors to protect the driver, with entry only possible from the rear doors, the driver was cordoned off so nobody could get near, and masks and gloves were essential to be able to get on the bus. If I recall correctly that was in March 2020.

Later, in the summer, Sadiq Khan was bitching at the government for not protecting TFL staff despite the fact that he could have mandated action himself.

The timeline of the actions the UK has taken makes little sense when viewed from any angle other than lassez-faire "let it rip through the population but not too much if we can help it" followed by "Oh shit, the NHS is going to collapse so now we must over-react".

I think your post has undertones of believing what the government tells you- gloves to get on a bus is the absolute pinnacle of stupidity and pointlessness, but masks aren’t that far behind.

Im convinced that the ill thought out knee jerk introduction of masks is going to have unintended consequences that our kids are going to have to live with. For that reason alone, I have to be a conscientious objector. 

But thats my opinion and you have yours, to which you are of course entitled, and as reasonable men I trust we are able to agree to disagree.

I very much hope I’m wrong, but however this plays out, I don’t think mask wearing is going to be de mandated any time soon; let’s wait and see, but if I’m right I shan’t be looking up this post to come back and say I told you so. Not my style.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wight Flight
4 minutes ago, DTMark said:

My recollection is that the population at large believed it was something that affected gay men and that the transmission method was likely to be anal sex given that it did indeed affect gay men almost exclusively.

Given our different circumstances, it is highly likely that your understanding at the time and mine are entirely different as they will have been gained from very different sources.

Therefore it is possible we are both correct :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DTMark said:

Completely agree. The behaviour is posited on logic and that anything that helps, even if only slightly and which is just a minor inconvenience, is better than nothing.

I find this fascinating and I mean no insult to you, but this is an example in which 'logic' is being applied only to a subset of the problem. The larger problem is how these actions affect society as a whole. In the larger context, mass compliance with non-proven, unscientific government diktats is not a logical position to take if the goal of said logic is to maintain one's existing freedoms.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

swiss_democracy_for_all

 

1 hour ago, DTMark said:

Can anyone articulate why the "I don't want want to wear one" argument is stronger?

No, they can't. 

But people hate the damned things (I do too) and become extremely excited/aggressive when arguing against them (not my case). They seize on dubious data suggesting they're ineffective and ignore other data that suggests they might be at least slightly helpful at reducing transmission. Similarly those "for" masks ignore the other side's arguments, it's like Democrats and Republicans in the US. Don't ask me why, that seems to be the way of all debate now. 

For my part, I draw the line at wearing one outside with no-one near me, fortunately in CH only one commune in Tessin has imposed this. 

I don't see the need for a strong resistance regarding masks indoors, but the travel ban for vaccinated people is a step too far for me, if I was in the UK that one would get me to a demonstration, and if they do it here in CH (unlikely) then the same.  I'd be furious if I'd taken the risk of having a vaccine in order to enable a family holiday and some government cunt banned travel.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alex said:

I find this fascinating and I mean no insult to you, but this is an example in which 'logic' is being applied only to a subset of the problem. The larger problem is how these actions affect society as a whole. In the larger context, mass compliance with non-proven, unscientific government diktats is not a logical position to take if the goal of said logic is to maintain one's existing freedoms.

I see the argument about "maintaining freedoms" as a fallacy. It is not an argument which has libertarianism at its heart.

Early in the disaster I recall reading about an 80+ year old woman who rarely went out. She went to the supermarket. She contracted COVID and died shortly after. Her family were understandably distraught.

My position comes from the idea that if masks do anything positive at all to reduce transmission, and they had been mandated then, she might still be alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...