Anti vax totalitarianism is a myth

The “free exchange of ideas” does involve freedom to say what you believe to be true, even if someone else thinks it’s a lie.

The answer is to expose the “lie” for what it is with contra information.

If you suppress the “lie” from being heard, you devolve into totalitarianism which forbids the free exchange of ideas.

And then, mankind being evil, you will only hear the propaganda from those “in charge” because everything contra the official position is suppressed as a “lie”.

You used the analogy of the church and false teachers. The Catholic Church suppressed to the death those who believed differently than the official position. I’m sure they considered the reformers, and those before them, to be false teachers and liars that were feeding misinformation to the masses. I’m sure they believed they were saving people from being “conquered” by manipulation and misinformation.

The common belief, then and now, is that ordinary people aren’t smart enough to figure out the truth for themselves. We reject that notion in the USA, or at least we used to.

More free speech, more information. Let people decide for themselves.

Freedom!!!

peace to you

 

Just reading this thread, to me it is obvious (and that it’s working) that the left wants to keep COVID front & center, cause it keeps the desired division, AND, it deflects from the faux pa of Afghanistan!!

 

That is an outrageous statement. I do not advocate “sin” for anything.

And yes, you are talking about differences of opinion on what is “truth” and what is “disinformation”.

Do you have the wisdom to determine which is truth and which is disinformation? Are you the one to filter all comments so that only “truth” can be heard by us commoners?

The founders of this country understood the tendency of men to corrupt the “truth”. Freedom of the press/expression was a foremost freedom they wanted to protect.

Don’t accuse me of advocating for sin. It is a lie and Christians shouldn’t lie.

peace to you

 

The “truth” is corrupted by political influence.

For example, during this “COVID crisis” the Cleveland Clinic conducted a study that said people who had been exposed and recovered got no benefit from receiving the vaccine. That same study concluded people who have had the virus and recovered should be vaccinated anyway.

So a prestigious Medical Research facility gave conflicting information in the same study. People from both sides of this debate can quote the same study and be truthful.

As far as posting on this board, the moderators decide what is appropriate, it is a private board.

I am concerned that throughout this country people are being conditioned to accept an anonymous group of “fact checkers” are deciding what “truth” should be allowed for others to see.

That can only lead to trouble, imo.

peace to you

 

Jon, none of your post # 18 directly addresses the issue of your narrowing the definitions to only mean what you say they mean when you want them to mean what you want them to mean. One time you know the difference; next time there is no difference. That way no one can pin you down.

What websites? If someone is posting under my name about Covid on other websites, please let me know, 'cause it is not me.

What and who I choose to address is up to me, at least for the present and unless you moderators decide to go totalitarian. There are certain members of the board, whether pro-vax or anti-vax (or whatever about whatever) that I choose to seldom engage or not engage at all. A few I have on ignore so that I do not know what they are going on about. Since you come across to me as one who speaks out of both sides of his mouth, I am moving you to the seldom or not at all list. I'm sure you'll shed no tears.

 

Censorship of opposing viewpoints is manipulation. Your side are the manipulators.

That's the rhetoric of lying despots. Only a liar must protect his ideas by silencing the opposition.

You speak from arrogance, you know. Somehow, you managed to sort through the mix of lies and truth, and somehow, you think you figured one out from the other. Now, you would have us believe we cannot do the same, poor idiots that we are, so we must be protected by greater minds, such as yourself, who can divine the truth from the lies. We must only be exposed to the side that you have deemed the truth, because we might see both sides, as you have, and fail to choose the one that you have chosen. This is pure arrogance.

 

Technically, you are correct. Many see the censorship as coming soon if not addressed head on.

I think rlvaughn has done of good job of describing the concern that you may be painting with the broad brush in some of your posts.

You have clarified. I accept that and pray for continued civil debate. The issues are too important to waste time with name calling and character assassination.

peace to you

 

I don’t recall using the words “my side” or “your side”.

From your posts, I don’t think you have taken sides, per sae, other than to encourage people to get all the information they can and avoid extreme comments.

Like you said, you have painted with a broad brush at times. Addressed and clarified. No need to dwell on it.

peace to you

 

What evidence do you have that anybody is trying to get the government to force people to get vaccinated. And note, making vaccination a requirement of employment (e.g. in the federal government) does not equal forcing you to get vaccinated.

 

Sure, telling people they will lose their job if they don’t get vaccinated, is in no way “forcing” them. Yeh, right.

peace to you

 

Again, it is not force: no one is forced to get a vaccination.

Let me ask you a simple, clear question: do you believe employers have the right to establish requirements for employment subject, of course, to laws against discrimination based on race, gender etc.?

I will be interested to read your reply.