L
The logic of the media/public is faulty. Now the media says that the vaccination ONLY protects against the worst courses of the disease, spreading it is still possible, so your herd immunity is unobtainable anyways. So why not just vaccinate the risk groups and let then everyone decide on their own?
But "Muh overloading of the health care system due to unnecessary stress" - funny that these statements come from people that glorified unhealthy life styles like obesity ("Healthy at any size") or drug consumption over years, all factors that put unnecessary stress on the health care system. Should we finally put fatties into labour camps to make them shed their unnecessary weight or just put all alcoholics into a cell to destroy their addiction via cold turkey to improve their health, the conditions for health care workers (and -most importantly- our wallet). From an utalitarian/technocratic view of the world this would make perfect sense, but still most people would cry due to "Muh liberty", while they would gladly force others to give up their physical integrity for the vaccination.
Some even argue for not treating people for COVID anymore that aren't vaccinated due to unnecessary stress and due to the fact that they did this onto themselves.
But where do unnecessary/self-imposed problems start? If a man likes venomous animals, keeps them to satisfy his intellectual curiosity, then gets bitten, is this unnecessary stress? Or a sport or motor cycle accident? Nobody forced him to do skiing, to go on horseback through the country side, to lift heavy weights or to drive a motor cycle. Where do YOU draw the line, there are no objective criteria for that, only subjective ones.
If you refuse to treat one, where do you draw the line? Does only the number of people participating in the activity affect it? Then it's better to the let our snake enthusiast die. Does only the risk affect it? Then it's better to let our horse or dog enthusiast die.
Or is it the severity or the level of negligence? Then why should we treat victims avalanches during skiing? Many of them drove away from the piste anyways to cause it. Or why should we save refugees from drowning? They deliberately exposed themselves to that risk, everyone remotely sane can see how shitty their boats are and that they would never be able cross the Mediterranean with it. Why would anyone even lift 500lbs or any heavy weight for that matter? It's nothing more than physical work without monetary or otherwise rational/material rewards/compensation. Why would I want to save a druggie or a fattie if I am neither? They deliberately destroyed their bodies via shitty life styles. Now imagine what a normalfag would say if one brought up these arguments.
Again: Normalfags fail to see the other implications that their arguments/morals have if you only think one step further.
If you said the thing about refugees, motorcyclist, girls during a riding accident or about athletes most people would call you an inhuman monster (despite them endangering themselves deliberately), but if you said the same thing about a snake keeper that got bitten by his animal most people would agree with you (because it's his own fault for keeping an animal that they subjectively find disgusting, no matter the fact that the risk of getting stung/bitten by your "dangerous pet animal" is far lower than getting kicked to death by your horse or mauled to death by your dog) and if you said the same thing about COVID patients without vaccine people applaud you. The line they draw is completely arbitrary, they never think anything to the end, their morals are a bad joke and only selectively applied. What's nonsense and what's not is entirely subjective, what's madness and what's not is entirely subjective. And following their logic depending on your own subjective preferences you could refuse anyone treatment, because everything you do is associated with a risk, what's worth it and what's not depends on a subjective evaluation (if the little and totally playful "doggo" mauls Tyrone, little Pablo or Chantal or a horse kicks a random white whore it's a tragedy, if some Melwin gets bitten by his black widow or his eyelash viper he is a stupid retard for keeping such an animal).
What's interesting to see however is the fact that all morals that they claim to have are thrown overboard within the first seconds of trouble (but of course: during Hitler/Stalin/whatever they would have all been in the resistance as the free-thinking and morally consistent individuals that they are).
And endangering others: Why is smoking then legal? If I smoke I increase the cancer risk of everyone around me. Why is drinking alcohol legal? It lowers my inhibitions and therefore exposes myself and everyone around me to a risk due to heightened aggression and indifference towards danger. Why is keeping a dog legal if it could theoretically maul another animal or a small child? Why is keeping a horse legal if it could kick me or others to death? Why is driving a car or a motor cycle legal? Funny, endangering others only becomes an argument if the thing is not very popular (like owning guns or owning venomous snakes or refusing to take a potentially dangerous chemical into your body) - no matter the actual danger/risk, if you say the same thing about popular things like doing drugs you are suddenly a "Karen"/"Boomer"/whatever derogatory word they want to use.
But "Muh overloading of the health care system due to unnecessary stress" - funny that these statements come from people that glorified unhealthy life styles like obesity ("Healthy at any size") or drug consumption over years, all factors that put unnecessary stress on the health care system. Should we finally put fatties into labour camps to make them shed their unnecessary weight or just put all alcoholics into a cell to destroy their addiction via cold turkey to improve their health, the conditions for health care workers (and -most importantly- our wallet). From an utalitarian/technocratic view of the world this would make perfect sense, but still most people would cry due to "Muh liberty", while they would gladly force others to give up their physical integrity for the vaccination.
Some even argue for not treating people for COVID anymore that aren't vaccinated due to unnecessary stress and due to the fact that they did this onto themselves.
But where do unnecessary/self-imposed problems start? If a man likes venomous animals, keeps them to satisfy his intellectual curiosity, then gets bitten, is this unnecessary stress? Or a sport or motor cycle accident? Nobody forced him to do skiing, to go on horseback through the country side, to lift heavy weights or to drive a motor cycle. Where do YOU draw the line, there are no objective criteria for that, only subjective ones.
If you refuse to treat one, where do you draw the line? Does only the number of people participating in the activity affect it? Then it's better to the let our snake enthusiast die. Does only the risk affect it? Then it's better to let our horse or dog enthusiast die.
Or is it the severity or the level of negligence? Then why should we treat victims avalanches during skiing? Many of them drove away from the piste anyways to cause it. Or why should we save refugees from drowning? They deliberately exposed themselves to that risk, everyone remotely sane can see how shitty their boats are and that they would never be able cross the Mediterranean with it. Why would anyone even lift 500lbs or any heavy weight for that matter? It's nothing more than physical work without monetary or otherwise rational/material rewards/compensation. Why would I want to save a druggie or a fattie if I am neither? They deliberately destroyed their bodies via shitty life styles. Now imagine what a normalfag would say if one brought up these arguments.
Again: Normalfags fail to see the other implications that their arguments/morals have if you only think one step further.
If you said the thing about refugees, motorcyclist, girls during a riding accident or about athletes most people would call you an inhuman monster (despite them endangering themselves deliberately), but if you said the same thing about a snake keeper that got bitten by his animal most people would agree with you (because it's his own fault for keeping an animal that they subjectively find disgusting, no matter the fact that the risk of getting stung/bitten by your "dangerous pet animal" is far lower than getting kicked to death by your horse or mauled to death by your dog) and if you said the same thing about COVID patients without vaccine people applaud you. The line they draw is completely arbitrary, they never think anything to the end, their morals are a bad joke and only selectively applied. What's nonsense and what's not is entirely subjective, what's madness and what's not is entirely subjective. And following their logic depending on your own subjective preferences you could refuse anyone treatment, because everything you do is associated with a risk, what's worth it and what's not depends on a subjective evaluation (if the little and totally playful "doggo" mauls Tyrone, little Pablo or Chantal or a horse kicks a random white whore it's a tragedy, if some Melwin gets bitten by his black widow or his eyelash viper he is a stupid retard for keeping such an animal).
What's interesting to see however is the fact that all morals that they claim to have are thrown overboard within the first seconds of trouble (but of course: during Hitler/Stalin/whatever they would have all been in the resistance as the free-thinking and morally consistent individuals that they are).
And endangering others: Why is smoking then legal? If I smoke I increase the cancer risk of everyone around me. Why is drinking alcohol legal? It lowers my inhibitions and therefore exposes myself and everyone around me to a risk due to heightened aggression and indifference towards danger. Why is keeping a dog legal if it could theoretically maul another animal or a small child? Why is keeping a horse legal if it could kick me or others to death? Why is driving a car or a motor cycle legal? Funny, endangering others only becomes an argument if the thing is not very popular (like owning guns or owning venomous snakes or refusing to take a potentially dangerous chemical into your body) - no matter the actual danger/risk, if you say the same thing about popular things like doing drugs you are suddenly a "Karen"/"Boomer"/whatever derogatory word they want to use.
