Emmanuel Goldstein

The COVID thread

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

If I understand you correctly, there are things that police currently do that give them too much power.  They have the power to confine, restrict, or deny someone's freedom.  Sometimes they can do these with impunity.

 

That's pretty accurate.   My position stems from my belief that very little trumps individual liberty.  That's all.  It's not even the "too much power" that bothers me the most.  It's the lack of real consequences when they do abuse that power.

I'm happy to stay home as well.   

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Grunt said:

You're still lying.  I didn't say I wanted him beaten.  I didn't say I wanted him hung.  I said in jail pending trial.  That's due process for kidnapping, after all.  You get arrested, jailed, and tried.  That's what happens to kidnappers.

Well, unless you're a cop.  Then it's called a "mistake" or an "overreach:" and you get paid time off and more training.

It's quite plain to anyone with a lukewarm IQ and a sense of honesty that I wasn't advocating for people to take matters into their own hands.

Wow the lack of self awareness is strong in this one. 

You come and accuse us of supporting Tyranny and being ok with what happened... When it is quite plain to anyone with a lukewarm IQ and a sense of honesty that we were advocating nothing of the sort.

When you get called out on it you neither apologize or make your case.  You throw a hissy fit.

When your words get thrown back your face, you demand that we do what you are clearly unwilling to do.  You are unwilling to make your case (of us being supporters of Tyranny and being ok with it), but demand that others do, you are unwilling to apologize but get down right snarky if some one else does not.  And you attack anyone that does not get what you really meant, but make no effort to understand others really mean.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Wow the lack of self awareness is strong in this one. 

You come and accuse us of supporting Tyranny and being ok with what happened... When it is quite plain to anyone with a lukewarm IQ and a sense of honesty that we were advocating nothing of the sort.

When you get called out on it you neither apologize or make your case.  You throw a hissy fit.

When your words get thrown back your face, you demand that we do what you are clearly unwilling to do.  You are unwilling to make your case (of us being supporters of Tyranny and being ok with it), but demand that others do, you are unwilling to apologize but get down right snarky if some one else does not.  And you attack anyone that does not get what you really meant, but make no effort to understand others really mean.

 

 

Talk about lack of self-awareness and rewriting history.  Fortunately those with a lukewarm IQ and sense of honesty can read for themselves,

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

I have two thoughts, at the moment, that I'm happy to share here about this article. 

The first is that to some extent, there are some similarities between what God and governments are doing. Both God and government lay down the law and provide penalties for breaking that law. (Fortunately, God also provides rewards for keeping the laws whereas most governments do not). To equate the activities of government with Satan's plan by suggesting that because they both use force to ensure compliance with law seems to overlook the fact that rejecting and turning away from God's law results in adverse consequences that will be far longer lasting and far scarier than any punishment that any government could ever devise. As Christ said in Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." I am free to break the governments law any time I choose, so long as I am willing to face the consequences. I am free to break God's law any time I choose, so long as I am willing to face the consequences. 

The second thought is about the idea that there are God given rights. Apart from the right to exist, the right to make choices, and the right to pursue our eternal destiny, I doubt if there are any other God given rights. I acknolwedge that there are some rights that philosophers and political theorists and perhaps even some theologians are willing to believe came from God but I'm skeptical of those claims.  I think that apart from the three God given rights mentioned above, the only rights we have are those we have agreed to with each other to have, those we take, and those we are willing to prevent having taken from us.

Edited by askandanswer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

The second thought is about the idea that there are God given rights. Apart from the right to exist, the right to make choices, and the right to pursue our eternal destiny, I doubt if there are any other God given rights. I acknolwedge that there are some rights that philosophers and political theorists and perhaps even some theologians are willing to believe came from God but I'm skeptical of those claims.  I think that apart from the three God given rights mentioned above, the only rights we have are those we have agreed to with each other to have, those we take, and those we are willing to prevent having taken from us.

These rights are those that cannot be taken away by force, no matter what anyone tries to do. Another term may be natural rights (as opposed to human rights).  Natural rights are things that you naturally already have by default of lviing.  They may kill you for practicing these rights, but they cannot take them away.  AT least, initially (The list has expanded beyond what some may have felt the list included before).

Thus, you can say whatever you want.  No one can stop you from thinking or saying what you want (though through torture and other methods they may try to restrict the various methods you have to express yourself, or try to lock you away so no one else can hear or see you and what you have to say, they cannot actually stop you from doing this).

No one can stop you from believing what you believe.  Your faith and beliefs are inherent and cannot be stopped.

They cannot stop you from trying to find happiness or at least the hope of it.  They can make your life painful, and do all sorts of things to you, but happiness is something that inherently everyone yearns for and strives for.

They cannot stop you from having something of your own, even if it is simply your thoughts.  Even those with nothing may find a rock on the road which they claim as their own, or perhaps simply a song or tune they have made in their head.  The pursuit of property, or the pursuit of happiness therefore is a right.

This list has been expanded by some to things that are not guarantees, that are things that one may or may not have depending on their government (For example, the right to arms, especially firearms.  One may have the right to defend themselves, and no one can stop one from defending themselves, but access to firearms may be a different matter).

Basically, in my book there are rights which you can utilize and that no one can actually take away from you. They can try, but that only makes hardship for you and eventually for them.  By observing that there are certain rights that everyone has, and working in recognizing those rights, one can fashion ways that help others pursue them in better and more helpful ways than if one tried to suppress those rights.

Locke identified these as life, liberty and estate (which we see transferred to be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

There may be those that try to suppress these, or punish those who utilize these rights, but they cannot stop people from utilizing these rights if they wish to other than to kill the person and deprive them outright of life.  AT some level as long as they are alive they have the right to life, as long as they live you cannot stop them from thinking, believing, and having their own thoughts and you cannot stop them from at least hoping or yearning for happiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

Interesting thoughts, but I'm not sure how they figure this out from the beginning of their blog...

Quote

The second camp believes that COVID-19 is real, but that the shutting down of entire economies is not the solution. They believe that we should socially distance, but that business should be able to figure out the best way to operate to ensure that the economic fallout does not cost more human lives than the disease. This group believes that you should take every reasonable measure to flatten the curve, but that it is not right for governments to suspend rights and force you to do so, they believe it should be voluntary.

Within the second group falls the Church’s approach.

I did not hear anything of this from the church and all the stuff I have heard is that we should follow and support our governments (wherever we are in the world) in their orders regarding the virus.  There argument of items the church has done on it's own in regards to the virus does not actually support their initial conclusion that he Church is following the second camp they list.

It is an interesting parallel that he draws about the War in Heaven and agency.  The Church was built because those in the US believed in the freedom of Religion and the ability to have a Religion established by the Lord.  When persecuted by those to prevent this free exercise, it temporarily left the main US for Mexico and eventually was in a US territory far off from the main roads of the US government. 

How we choose to use this agency is upon each of us, but I'm not sure driving the parallels between obedience to government stay at home orders and the War in Heaven is an apt one.

It can bring some interesting thoughts on the matter though, and reflection on parallels between our current situation and that of heaven is probably a good thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Locke identified these as life, liberty and estate (which we see transferred to be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

Locke's ideas and mine are almost the same, we've just used different words. Locke's idea of a right to life is the same as what I have called the right to existence. What he calls a right to liberty is about the same as what I called the right to make choices. both of which are different words for free agency. My idea of a right to pursue our eternal destiny is somewhat broader than Locke's idea of the right to puruse happiness. Taking a pedantic approach, the wording Locke uses suggests that he is granting this right only to those who wish to pursue happiness, while my wording of the right allows everybody to pursue their eternal destiny, whatever that may be and regardless of whether or not that includes, or is aimed at, happiness. The way I see it, every other so called right is a man-made invention and can be taken away or restricted or controlled. Perhaps the only exception might be freedom of thought, as it is a necessary pre-condition for the exercise of the right to choose, otherwise known as agency or liberty.  

Edited by askandanswer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
10 hours ago, dprh said:

Can we stop with the mild insults? You all are getting nowhere.

We're all guilty of it sometimes, especially online, but I've always wondered something. If you think someone has a low IQ, what does it say about you for wasting your energy discussing something with them? 

The older I get the more I think hurtful comments hurt the accuser more than the accused. When your dad said "When you mature and grow a conscience, those words will hurt you someday more than anyone else. So be careful." he was right.

Again, we are all guilty of it sometimes. Myself certainly included. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

If you think someone has a low IQ, what does it say about you for wasting your energy discussing something with them? 

 

It says I'm not the brightest sometimes, and I broke my own rule when I responded to him when he switched from actually participating in the discussion to just ignoring it and hurling insults instead.   I'm usually pretty good about ignoring it, but I took the bait.  Thanks for pointing that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One side effect of the pandemic is that it's keeping me away from alcohol. Yes, liquor stores are open here, but the very irksomeness of the whole experience is putting me off buying it. That may lead me to finally convert a halfhearted notion("nah, I'm not standing in line in the cold, rain...") into getting along without it entirely-who knows. I had planned visiting a meetinghouse/chapel on a Sunday morning this Spring-but that's off, of course, too, for now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lonetree said:

One side effect of the pandemic is that it's keeping me away from alcohol. Yes, liquor stores are open here, but the very irksomeness of the whole experience is putting me off buying it. That may lead me to finally convert a halfhearted notion("nah, I'm not standing in line in the cold, rain...") into getting along without it entirely-who knows. I had planned visiting a meetinghouse/chapel on a Sunday morning this Spring-but that's off, of course, too, for now...

We are having an online. Easter Service tomorrow

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

My ward will be doing it's second Sunday meeting on Zoom.  First one went well.

 

My virtual TKD classes are on Zoom. It's worked out great too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

My ward will be doing it's second Sunday meeting on Zoom.  First one went well.

 

Does this mean that everyone has subsribed to Zoom or do you keep  your meetings to less than 40 minutes? Over here, I think there is a 40 minute limit on Zoom meetings for non-subsribers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that is correct.  I doubt anyone in my ward has a Zoom account.  But last "online church" was only around 30 minutes - Bishop said some things, two missionaries gave talks, and then we all hung up.  I expect something similar this time.  I probably won't hang up so quickly this time, wanting to hang out in the "foyer" and talk with folks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeesh - scary story from my cousin's wife in Utah.   She tells Facebook her whole family has been quarantining for 3 weeks, only going to the grocery and pet store.  1 week ago she started having symptoms and isolated herself from her family as best she could.  Then the rest of her family except one kid started having symptoms.   Today's update:

image.png.984d2f00c96a8b6e8bd13f5b92aa3efc.png

Dang people, stay safe!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeesh - scary story from my cousin's wife in Utah.   She tells Facebook her whole family has been quarantining for 3 weeks, only going to the grocery and pet store.  1 week ago she started having symptoms and isolated herself from her family as best she could.  Then the rest of her family except one kid started having symptoms.   Today's update:

image.png.984d2f00c96a8b6e8bd13f5b92aa3efc.png

Dang people, stay safe!!!


Wow! 
 

That really is awful. I hope that they all have a full recovery. 
 

I also had severe pneumonia about two years ago, but eventually made a full recovery. I also have well-controlled asthma. I can totally relate to how she feels. Not being able to breathe affects everything you do as it robs you of oxygen, thereby robbing you of your energy. 
 

I truly hope for the best for her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Does this mean that everyone has subsribed to Zoom or do you keep  your meetings to less than 40 minutes? Over here, I think there is a 40 minute limit on Zoom meetings for non-subsribers. 

Most of the Zoom I've done, only the person hosting the meeting really needs to be subscribed.  Others can jump into the meeting that you organize.  Of course, I haven't had a Zoom meeting go over 40 minutes really, but thus far, only the individual hosting it actually needs to have a subscription.  They set it up and then others use zoom to jump into the scheduled meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.