3 ms·

> I also think that the argument you’re putting forward here shows close to zero regard for the welfare of other people. Perhaps the lockdowns are inexpensive t

> I also think that the argument you’re putting forward here shows close to zero regard for the welfare of other people. Perhaps the lockdowns are inexpensive to you, but they are life-changingly devastating to others. So let's minimise how devastating they are by doing them hard and early, so that they don't end up lasting for months. Or is your proposed alternative not doing them at all? Because dying is a hell of a lot more devastating than a lockdown is. > Perhaps you haven’t had to attend a parents funeral over FaceTime. Letting thousands more parents die so that someone can attend a funeral seems rather counter-productive. > Perhaps you haven’t been stuck at home with a domestic abuser. Even the harshest lockdowns I'm aware of have explicitly allowed for accommodations in these types of situations, and I've never seen a single person arguing that they shouldn't. > Perhaps you haven’t been driven to suicide by having your entire life taken away. But many people have. Bullshit. Here's a direct quote from the AIHW: "Since 2020, suicide registers in Victoria and New South Wales have regularly published data on suspected deaths by suicide in 2019, 2020 and 2021. The Suicide in Queensland: Annual Report 2020 (Leske et al. 2020) included data on suspected deaths by suicide from January 2015 to July 2020. In all cases there is no evidence of any increase in 2020 or 2021 relative to previous years." Source: https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/data/covid-19 https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/data/co... This is an extremely common blatant lie perpetuated by the exact kind of disinformation merchants this thread is about. COVID-19 related restrictions and lockdowns have had no effect on suicide rates. > Surely some laws are necessary, but surely we must be entitled to debate them to figure out which ones are reasonable. You're absolutely entitled to debate them - you're doing that right here. No-one's getting banned for posting "I think this lockdown is unnecessary". They're getting banned for spreading false information and advocating for people to actively break said laws, creating major health risks in the process.

AmericanChopper 5y ago
Then discussion of any form of civil disobedience should be banned. All of it is by nature illegal. A sit in is a mass trespassing event. A march illegally shuts down traffic and critical infrastructure. Having a loose association with groups that promote civil disobedience, or even directly promoting it is clearly not the reason that Facebook is banning these accounts. Because Facebook doesn’t do this with any other cause that promotes or associates with the promoters of civil disobedience (in democratic jurisdictions at least). You also can’t make the case that civil disobedience during the pandemic is disallowed. Because the promotion of civil disobedience and mass gatherings was very clearly allowed, depending on the cause that was being promoted. I also find the suggestion that one of the least trusted companies in the world should be entrusted with the authority to police “false information” to be completely laughable. Your own interpretation of what constitutes “false information” is clearly rather inadequate. I made the claim that people who would not have otherwise committed suicide did as a result of the lockdown. Something I know for a fact to be true. Your claim is that this is not true because you claim that the total number of suicides hasn’t changed. Which, even if true, doesn’t refute my point in any way. Which demonstrates perfectly why preserving democratic principles is so important.

AmericanChopper 5y ago

Then discussion of any form of civil disobedience should be banned. All of it is by nature illegal. A sit in is a mass trespassing event. A march illegally shuts down traffic and critical infrastructure. Having a loose association with groups that promote civil disobedience, or even directly promoting it is clearly not the reason that Facebook is banning these accounts. Because Facebook doesn’t do this with any other cause that promotes or associates with the promoters of civil disobedience (in democratic jurisdictions at least). You also can’t make the case that civil disobedience during the pandemic is disallowed. Because the promotion of civil disobedience and mass gatherings was very clearly allowed, depending on the cause that was being promoted. I also find the suggestion that one of the least trusted companies in the world should be entrusted with the authority to police “false information” to be completely laughable. Your own interpretation of what constitutes “false information” is clearly rather inadequate. I made the claim that people who would not have otherwise committed suicide did as a result of the lockdown. Something I know for a fact to be true. Your claim is that this is not true because you claim that the total number of suicides hasn’t changed. Which, even if true, doesn’t refute my point in any way. Which demonstrates perfectly why preserving democratic principles is so important.