What is more important, freedom or safety?

[LuckyDuck]

It's hard for two children to find equilibrium in their disagreements.

You are correct. Both political parties have strayed too far to their extremes. The ship of "middle-ground" has sailed and I don't think that we will see it return to homeport anytime soon, if at all.

 

[Votto]

Doesn't have to be a zero sum game. We can have both.

That is a lie.

For example, you could force people to only use public transportation. That would end all road deaths entirely

Which do you prefer? Safety or freedom? It is a choice

 

[Votto]

You are correct. Both political parties have strayed too far to their extremes. The ship of "middle-ground" has sailed and I don't think that we will see it return to homeport anytime soon, if at all.

The "middle ground" is a mythological land that never gets defined, yet it is where everyone thinks they are at.

 

[Votto]

It is. And meanwhile, the decay continues.

I got news for ya. You are decaying. Humanity is decaying. The universe is decaying!!

That's right buddy, we are all going bye, bye, and Covid has found a wonderful home it will never leave.

So in the interim, do you want your freedom?

 

[my2¢]

I'm siding with safety.

It seems to me the safer a person feels then the more freedom that person has. If not, then why do folks buy guns for their own protection?

 

[Votto]

You gotta find a happy medium.

I never get my palms read, sorry

 

[Seawytch]

That is a lie.

For example, you could force people to only use public transportation. That would end all road deaths entirely

Which do you prefer? Safety or freedom? It is a choice

No it wouldn't. Public transportation is not free from accidents. You're silly...

 

[Mac1958]

I got news for ya. You are decaying. Humanity is decaying. The universe is decaying!!
That's right buddy, we are all going bye, bye, and Covid has found a wonderful home it will never leave.
So in the interim, do you want your freedom?

Every American has freedom. The question is degree. Americans don't want pure anarchy.

I know that complexity and nuance are hard. But that's life.

 

[Votto]

I'm siding with safety.

It seems to me the safer a person feels then the more freedom that person has. If not, then why do folks buy guns for their own protection?

Ok, so you wear a mask, get the shot, and lock yourself in your basement.

Why do you care if someone does none of those things and gets the virus and dies knowing all the risks involved? You don't seem to care as people overdose everyday to the tune of about 200 a day from illicit drug use, so why do you care about the Covid deaths?

Here is the thing, both vaccine and non-vaccine insurrectionists keep spreading the virus. It never ends, get it? So those that choose the risk of dying is what to you exactly? It's their dime.

 

[Votto]

Every American has freedom. The question is degree. Americans don't want pure anarchy.

I know that complexity and nuance are hard. But that's life.

And why is it that anytime it is suggested that the state has assumed too much power, which it attains more and more every year, those voices are charged with wanting anarchy?

 

[Votto]

No it wouldn't. Public transportation is not free from accidents. You're silly...

Are you suggesting that train deaths, for example, come anywhere close to car accident deaths?

LOL.

 

[Mac1958]

And why is it that anytime it is suggested that the state has assumed too much power, which it attains more and more every year, those voices are charged with wanting anarchy?

Simple: Because those voices lack complexity and nuance. They are terribly binary and simplistic. That invites a similar response, and we get nowhere.

 

[Votto]

See kids, the wonderful thing about being human, or should be, is the ability to make your own decisions that will screw up the rest of your life forever!!!

It's really all we have.

Except for Joe Biden, he never makes mistakes.

 

[Seawytch]

Are you suggesting that train deaths, for example, come anywhere close to car accident deaths?

LOL.

Not at all, but you said switching to public transportation would mean zero road deaths.

California had some of the strictest lockdown rules of any state. Not once did I feel I had lost any "freedoms". You are hyperbolic and silly.

 

[my2¢]

Why do you care if someone does none of those things and gets the virus and dies knowing all the risks involved? You don't seem to care as people overdose everyday to the tune of about 200 a day from illicit drug use, so why do you care about the Covid deaths?

For the same reason I'm against automobile drivers taking it upon themselves to decide which side of the highway they pick to drive on.

 

[Votto]

Simple: Because those voices lack complexity and nuance. They are terribly binary and simplistic. That invites a similar response, and we get nowhere.

I think what you are saying is, they can't compete with the collective power that controls them.

The current collective power has just destroyed the border, has just initiated hyperinflating our economy having created the largest debt in human history, and botched a retreat from Afghanistan leaving thousands of Americans behind. That is the collective power you seem to be so proud of and you think is "middle of the road"

I simply feel that they have to much power to do all of that while belittling voices like myself.

To the rest of the world, those people are a circus.

 

[struth]

Freedom. It's unquestionable.

 

[progressive hunter]

A year and a half after Sweden decided not to lock down, its COVID-19 death rate is up to 10 times higher than its neighbors

Sweden may have seen fewer people die of COVID-19 had it implemented tighter lockdown rules or mask mandates.

www.yahoo.com

That has been a question that seems to have plagued mankind since day one. But looking at the history of mankind, the answer seems that most prefer safety over freedom. But it was not long ago that a band of rebels formed a country who preferred freedom.

This article condemns Sweden for choosing freedom over safety during the Covid crisis. It points out that the death rate in Sweden was 10 times the death rate of its neighbors who did lock down during Covid.

The bias of the author of this article is apparent by the following:

When Sweden opted for a no-lockdown strategy in March 2020, scientists were still sorting out how deadly and contagious the virus was. But already, according to email exchanges published by freelance journalist Emanuel Karlsten and the Swedish newspaper Expressen, Tegnell was considering allowing the virus to infect young, healthy people as a means of increasing immunity in the population.

Now listen to the disconnect:

Hanson said she was "absolutely disgusted" by Tegnell's approach because it presumed knowledge that scientists didn't have at the time.
"Is he God, or even above?" she said. "That's what was terrible with the Swedish approach: the supremacy."

Did you here that? Those giving people the best information on the issue and letting people decide for themselves was playing God. How messed up is that?

It is glad to see that the article gave the other side some love though

Farina said one benefit of Sweden's approach, however, may have been less stress, anxiety, or depression among its residents.
The latest World Happiness Report showed that Sweden remained one of the happiest countries in the world in 2020, based on how residents rated their quality of life and reported experiencing positive or negative emotions. But the report also found that prioritizing an open economy wasn't conducive to overall happiness.

Imagine that, choosing freedom instead of safety for the pursuit of happiness. Now where I have I heard that before?

And did the article go into all the deaths that result from anxiety and depression and the rest from countries who did lockdown? Hell no, but I'm sure they would exceed deaths from Covid, you just will never hear of those stats is all.

Just glad to see that there are still people like this left in the world somewhere.

And even if you don't buy into letting people have their freedom, the fact is that now we have scientific evidence into both approaches, at least, concerning Covid related outcomes. I doubt we will ever have any scientific evidence showing the ill effects of lockdowns like heart attacks and alcoholism and drug overdoses and suicides, etc. because it would not be PC to do so.

But at the end of the day, what is more important? Your freedom and a higher chance of death, or being told what to do 24/7 with a little lower chance of death?

Which one are you?

my freedom is the governments job not mine

my safety is my job not the governments,,

 

[Votto]

Not at all, but you said switching to public transportation would mean zero road deaths.

California had some of the strictest lockdown rules of any state. Not once did I feel I had lost any "freedoms". You are hyperbolic and silly.

Why do you think so many have left California and why the current governor is on the verge of being recalled?

Maybe if the President had all those powers there would be no where to run and no way to recall him

Would that be a better system for you?

 

[Bobob]

A year and a half after Sweden decided not to lock down, its COVID-19 death rate is up to 10 times higher than its neighbors

Sweden may have seen fewer people die of COVID-19 had it implemented tighter lockdown rules or mask mandates.

www.yahoo.com

That has been a question that seems to have plagued mankind since day one. But looking at the history of mankind, the answer seems that most prefer safety over freedom. But it was not long ago that a band of rebels formed a country who preferred freedom.

This article condemns Sweden for choosing freedom over safety during the Covid crisis. It points out that the death rate in Sweden was 10 times the death rate of its neighbors who did lock down during Covid.

The bias of the author of this article is apparent by the following:

When Sweden opted for a no-lockdown strategy in March 2020, scientists were still sorting out how deadly and contagious the virus was. But already, according to email exchanges published by freelance journalist Emanuel Karlsten and the Swedish newspaper Expressen, Tegnell was considering allowing the virus to infect young, healthy people as a means of increasing immunity in the population.

Now listen to the disconnect:

Hanson said she was "absolutely disgusted" by Tegnell's approach because it presumed knowledge that scientists didn't have at the time.
"Is he God, or even above?" she said. "That's what was terrible with the Swedish approach: the supremacy."

Did you here that? Those giving people the best information on the issue and letting people decide for themselves was playing God. How messed up is that?

It is glad to see that the article gave the other side some love though

Farina said one benefit of Sweden's approach, however, may have been less stress, anxiety, or depression among its residents.
The latest World Happiness Report showed that Sweden remained one of the happiest countries in the world in 2020, based on how residents rated their quality of life and reported experiencing positive or negative emotions. But the report also found that prioritizing an open economy wasn't conducive to overall happiness.

Imagine that, choosing freedom instead of safety for the pursuit of happiness. Now where I have I heard that before?

And did the article go into all the deaths that result from anxiety and depression and the rest from countries who did lockdown? Hell no, but I'm sure they would exceed deaths from Covid, you just will never hear of those stats is all.

Just glad to see that there are still people like this left in the world somewhere.

And even if you don't buy into letting people have their freedom, the fact is that now we have scientific evidence into both approaches, at least, concerning Covid related outcomes. I doubt we will ever have any scientific evidence showing the ill effects of lockdowns like heart attacks and alcoholism and drug overdoses and suicides, etc. because it would not be PC to do so.

But at the end of the day, what is more important? Your freedom and a higher chance of death, or being told what to do 24/7 with a little lower chance of death?

Which one are you?

At the end of the day both selections in their purest form, which are the choices you advocated, are not acceptable or realistic. Sometimes for the greater good your freedom needs to be restricted and most of the time being told 24/7 like in Russia, Afghanistan, China, is also not acceptable.