3 ms·

> along with your civil liberties This is untrue, and part of a dangerous narrative that puts the wants of individuals as more important than the needs of a so

> along with your civil liberties This is untrue, and part of a dangerous narrative that puts the wants of individuals as more important than the needs of a society.

claytongulick 5y ago
> part of a dangerous narrative that puts the wants of individuals as more important than the needs of a society. This is part of a dangerous narrative that grants ownership of self to the state, rather than the individual.
- manuelabeledo 5y ago
  Right, because killing your neighbour is worth being able to go to your favourite restaurant. I mean, if we are to accept the absurd take that civil liberties were under attack because of the response to a global pandemic, something that didn't happened, then it's equally possible that the people against lockdowns and other measures are just whining, because they are slightly inconvenienced by rules that may prevent their fellow humans' deaths.
  - claytongulick 5y ago
    > killing your neighbour This is the sort of hyperbole that interferes with meaningful discussion. There are lots of reasonable restrictions that a society may impose in the face of crisis, and the nature of those is certainly worth exploring. Claiming that a virus that poses very little risk the the vast majority of the population warrants home arrest, involuntary medical procedures, and a massive expansion of state power is one of these, is a bit of a stretch. The fact that you believe I'm "killing my neighbor" by going to a restaurant is disappointing if true, and ugly if hyperbolic.
gwright 5y ago
> wants of individuals as more important than the needs of a society You're just introducing your own dangerous narrative into the conversation. Making individuals subservient to the "needs of society" and disregarding individual rights has been the source of much misery and death. A balance is needed between individual rights and government power.
- manuelabeledo 5y ago
  > Making individuals subservient to the "needs of society" and disregarding individual rights has been the source of much misery and death. Same could be said about disregarding societal needs in favour of individual rights. But the main issue here is that there hasn’t been any regression in individual rights in New Zealand, or Australia, for that matter. We are talking about people who couldn’t temporarily go outside to prevent the spread of a global pandemic. It just seems that the necessary trumps the individual accommodations in this case.
  - gwright 5y ago
    > Same could be said about disregarding societal needs in favour of individual rights. Of course, which is why I said a balance is needed. I'm not familiar with the jurisprudence of New Zealand or Australia, but the restrictions appear to be too aggressive from my point of view. You mention not being able to "go outside", which seems absurdly extreme with no scientific basis to support it (I'm assuming there were some caveats, but maybe not). I've seem extremely large protests in Australia regarding the lockdowns so apparently there is some difference of opinion re: the nature of the restrictions. In any case "people who couldn’t temporarily go outside" doesn't seem to come close to describing the nature of the actual restrictions.

> along with your civil liberties This is untrue, and part of a dangerous narrative that puts the wants of individuals as more important than the needs of a society.

claytongulick 5y ago

> part of a dangerous narrative that puts the wants of individuals as more important than the needs of a society. This is part of a dangerous narrative that grants ownership of self to the state, rather than the individual.

manuelabeledo 5y ago
Right, because killing your neighbour is worth being able to go to your favourite restaurant. I mean, if we are to accept the absurd take that civil liberties were under attack because of the response to a global pandemic, something that didn't happened, then it's equally possible that the people against lockdowns and other measures are just whining, because they are slightly inconvenienced by rules that may prevent their fellow humans' deaths.
- claytongulick 5y ago
  > killing your neighbour This is the sort of hyperbole that interferes with meaningful discussion. There are lots of reasonable restrictions that a society may impose in the face of crisis, and the nature of those is certainly worth exploring. Claiming that a virus that poses very little risk the the vast majority of the population warrants home arrest, involuntary medical procedures, and a massive expansion of state power is one of these, is a bit of a stretch. The fact that you believe I'm "killing my neighbor" by going to a restaurant is disappointing if true, and ugly if hyperbolic.

gwright 5y ago

> wants of individuals as more important than the needs of a society You're just introducing your own dangerous narrative into the conversation. Making individuals subservient to the "needs of society" and disregarding individual rights has been the source of much misery and death. A balance is needed between individual rights and government power.

manuelabeledo 5y ago
> Making individuals subservient to the "needs of society" and disregarding individual rights has been the source of much misery and death. Same could be said about disregarding societal needs in favour of individual rights. But the main issue here is that there hasn’t been any regression in individual rights in New Zealand, or Australia, for that matter. We are talking about people who couldn’t temporarily go outside to prevent the spread of a global pandemic. It just seems that the necessary trumps the individual accommodations in this case.
- gwright 5y ago
  > Same could be said about disregarding societal needs in favour of individual rights. Of course, which is why I said a balance is needed. I'm not familiar with the jurisprudence of New Zealand or Australia, but the restrictions appear to be too aggressive from my point of view. You mention not being able to "go outside", which seems absurdly extreme with no scientific basis to support it (I'm assuming there were some caveats, but maybe not). I've seem extremely large protests in Australia regarding the lockdowns so apparently there is some difference of opinion re: the nature of the restrictions. In any case "people who couldn’t temporarily go outside" doesn't seem to come close to describing the nature of the actual restrictions.