# Francois Attempted to Help

He lured many of us in with his apathetic support of vaxxports, and though he may have intended to get a lot of its supporters to pause and reflect, his words also had a profound effect on those who are already critical of vaxxports.

That is, why would we assume him to be saying something unreasonable? Surely, he hinted subtly that vaxxports are preposterous through the use of a dry and thoughtless demeanour. I thought for a moment that, surely, even this somewhat centric academic has easily given in to the demands to destroy human freedom because times change, and change has, thus far, lead to incredible technological advances which we all benefit from. That is, things are so great that we can surely lose some of the things we enjoy in exchange for other improvements that would make our losses long forgotten.

Losing "arbitrary freedoms" which one is hardly aware of and which serve no practical purpose except to distract us from tangible opportunities and responsibilities which are of benefit to all. You might say that it is selfishly choosing to sulk in fear, instead of allowing other people to benefit from society in at least some of the ways that you have.

But what are one's personal costs for clearly choosing one side or the other? Can it be said that one side makes a harrowing sacrifice, whereas the other suffers a sacrifice while being wholly ignorant to it?

I know well the position of choosing to represent myself in support over a matter which popularly gets painted as being stupid or evil, and though some will say it offers no real benefit except to pacify my ego, I know that though putting forward any opinion invites scrutiny and loathing, it nevertheless is a standard or universal expectation that everyone has that same ability to make choices for themselves, and to allow for the sharing of knowledge. One can say that dumb opinions are not true knowledge, but there would be no knowledge ever communicated had there not been the sharing of dumb opinions.