vaccines.md 6.7 KB
Why Focus on Vaccines?
well let's have another chat, shall we There are some who are concerned that some of us are spending a bit too much thinking about and learning about vaccines that we are busying ourselves with something that is rather esoteric, a small edge-case concern that shouldn't ever need to occupy our lives, our time, our mind, etc.. and thi sis probably true the issue of vaccines should be something that we needn't busy ourselves with too much it should be something that's only worth concering one with if one has a particular interest in using them or a particular interest in working with them, developing them, studying them etc in our case, we didn't realy have any specific need to learn about them beyond what we already knew from high school the basic concept of immunization through exposure to a more modest substitute for what is otherwise a deadly or dehabilitating pathogen but, unfortunately, it has grown into so much more now, no longer is it something that can be avoided by anyone it is literally the means by which we decide if humans are individuals if we are to be taken as individuals and to be treated as though we are all equally valuable and viable though one might make the argument that no two humans can be of equal value, it should stand to reason that in a society which values human life, that all humans shoudl be treated as though they are equally viable, and thus equally valuable that is to say, that all humans have the same potential, and that we should respect that manner of conceiving of them, because it allows for the greatest potential of having a osciety where all the humans who exist are able to participate, to thrive, to improve themselves, and thus assist in the betterment of the society as a whole once we start adding externalities that are not clearly being used for accommodating something that is obviously a problem that is to say, if someone is a criminal and is committing crimes, killing other humans, ti is a clear and obvious problem and an externality must be applied, such as the force of the law, penalties, imprisonment, and so on but in the case of something like disease, transmissible disease, it becomes far more contentions contentious because here we need to evaluate whether or not a risk of transmission is sufficient to say that we can understand, unequivocably, that there is a great threat that must be dealt with, regardless of personal circumstances and that has not been proven here in fact, as time goes on, and the level of danger is quantifiably reduced, as well as the retrospective data demonstrating that the level of danger was always less than had been foretold, we realize that the standard for qualifying something as being inexcusably high risk, is changing we now dissuade the process of allowing competing voices to openly battle ou the issue at hand, to try and elucidate the details and provide a clear comparison of argumentation from different sides instead, we have a process which attempts to prove the matter after the fact prove the initial predictions which are claimed by many to have fallen short and to do this is antiscience to do this is anti reason and to do this is antihuman because if we are to allow for a reduced standard in declaring what allows for us to impose contraints on teh free movement of humans then that is already something that is inhuman and needs to be explained but not only are we failing to explain that we are enforcing new processes based on the same arguments we are saying that we now no longer get to decide what happens with our own bodies that, not only can we not argue about it, but we are to take on faith that any demand for access to our bodies, for access to an interface which produces entropy within our bodies, that this ois something we can't have any discussion about that our bodies are not actually our own property that though we were born into them, our consciousness or what appears as our consciousness is ssecondary, and not something that'stangible enough to be considered primary that our conciousness, our mind, is something that might be arbitrary that should be treated as though it might not actually exist but that what realyl does exist, and what is confirmed and acknowledged by those around us, is our flesh our bodies the physical aspects of ourselves that can be reduced to nothing more than the molecules, the flesh, the skin and bones, the different material components which happen to form something which has an exhibited behaviour that we might say behaves at the behest of a personality, a consciousness, a state of being that exists beyond simply the pieces of meat that are expressing it but if we are to say that this is not so, that we are simply just the meat, and that anything else is arbitrary, then this is the death of mankind it is the erasure of each individual, because now no single individual has the right to lay claim to its own body there is a process which supercedes their own desires, their own claims, and makes them irrelevant makes it so that they needn't be heard and makes it so that the ideas, the words, the thoughts needn't be spoken and if this is the standard which is imposed, which is desired by those who have a claim to the means of force which permit or exclude any human from society then the need to understand what is beign proposed here, long term we need to take these new ideas to their logical conclusion, and understand that to suggest that people don't have the rights to their own bodies to suggest that whatever one says or feels or thinks about one's body is less improtant thant he body itself, and that the body is subject to other priorities which are dictated from outside the will of the consciousness which inhabits it then we need to udnerstand that the process we participate in won't logically remain as one which is inefficient as one which allows for the claim that we are free, acting in such a manner that we are not free this means that, in order to develop the societal model and advance it such ast o allow it to continue to flourish, and aspire to be efficient,t o maek some effort towards efficiency it means that this model will become one which becomes increasingly more explicit in the devaluing of human life until such point in time where human life can be completely simulated, and an argument presents itself suggesting that there's no reason to have the human life, except for those who are controlling the system which provides these options if one has access tot he controls of the system, and one believs that humans do not have the right to their own body, then that person would likely need to allow the system to continue in such a manner that one retains control. This means avoiding dissent an disobedience from those who have attacked the system. This means that have a grassroots campaign again in Canada exit