The coronavirus response seems somewhat suspicious.

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by Holly-May Leslie, Nov 27, 2021.

  1. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    I don't know how many freedoms the average person has. I would say a few hundred, decreasing rapidly. Here is my example of degraded freedom: Lock downs. Here is another: The government telling restaurant owners that they have to turn away the unvaccinated.

    Also, the hypothetical freedom fighter has been blackmailed into giving up their freedom, so they have been forced into it in a sense.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    What freedoms did you lose during lockdown? I didn't lose any, with the possible exception of sitting inside at a public restaurant.
    That's been happening for decades. You can't refuse to pay taxes and stay there. You can't dump toxic waste in your back yard. You can't just shoot into the air for fun.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    my freedom war

    The war they claiming for their freedom to be restored is fake because they have not lost any freedom

    They still have freedom to not have any vaccine

    What they PERCEIVE as a loss of freedom is the ability to hold certain jobs and go to certain places as they lack the awareness that the rules apply to ALL

    So their war to restore their freedom is nothing more than a make me an exception to the rules

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    Okay. My initial interpretation of "fake my freedom war" was a war to fake their freedoms, which didn't make a lot of sense.
    But they did lose many freedoms of movement to the lock downs.
    I'm pretty sure that most of them would know that the rules apply to all.
  8. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    The freedom to go anywhere except the grocery store and home. Wasn't it? Where were people allowed to go during lock down?
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Have a good enough reason no loss of freedom

    On the surface I would disagree

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    Okay. That sounds reasonable, except for the not being allowed to shoot in that air for fun part. But restaurant owners for instance are not allowed to let the unvaccinated in. In my opinion, and probably in real life, people should be allowed to let whoever they please into their own property, unless that person is meant to be in prison, as in, the one they let in is meant to be.
  11. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    What do you mean?
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Wherever they wanted that wasn't an indoor assembly of people. So while movie theaters, concerts and indoor restaurants were out, 99.9% of the country was not. Roads were open. Most parks were open. Outdoor restaurants were open. Even indoor-only restaurants were still open for pickup. The things open far, far outweighed the number of things that were closed.
    Should restaurant owners allow naked people into a public restaurant? Should they allow them to poop on the floor because freedom, and their beliefs? Or do those things pose a risk to public health for the other people who use the restaurant?
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Need to take your child to the doctor
    You are a doctor and need to go to work

    Need to comfort a dying relative (compassionate grounds kicks in here)

    Use your imagination I am sure you can think of other good reasons

    Some (when not in total lockdown) were keeping fit. People were missing their jogging / running exercise outdoors

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. David C On planet earth Registered Senior Member

  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Apparently both Yosemite Sam

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    and Elmer Fudd

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    are being striped of their right to bare arms



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Quite. When I was in Dubai, in the 1980s, one of the sheikhs got married. There was a huge open air party, to which anyone could come, with free lamb biryani, pepsi, etc. (No alcohol, obvs.) So there was a huge crowd, having a good time. Some of the tribesmen from the desert got so excited they starting shooting in the air - with the result that quite a number of people had to be taken to hospital being hit - very hard - on the head by the bullets, as they came down again.
  17. geordief Valued Senior Member

    My father was held hostage by the Egyptians in 56 (as a teacher in the army he was obviously a spy)

    He told us a story how his guards used to fire their rifles into the air when British or French planes flew miles overhead.

    He said he was well treated but had to spend 6 months while the rest of the family made its way home to England and our government presumably came to some arrangement with Nasser
  18. Bells Staff Member

    For the love of all that is holy, use the quotation function and address points that way.
    Your anti-vaxxer comments, your at times blatant lies about COVID. You are spreading misinformation.
    In which case you are clearly gullible. In the middle of a pandemic, you're here stating it can't be dangerous or that bad because no one you know died. Over 5 million people dead in less than 2 years from this virus.

    You are spreading misinformation about COVID on this site. You aren't questioning. You aren't even bothering to do any research. You're just spouting rubbish.
    What have you calculated? Because that's what "estimation" means. That you've calculated something.

    You keep using it in sentences and making no sense. You haven't calculated anything.

    That's just from the first page.

    You compared a vaccine to gene therapy in the middle of a pandemic that's killed over 5 million people thus far, you've denied that it's even dangerous, you've pulled out some crazy BS about laws that have been thrown out, etc.

    And for god's sake, look up the word "estimations".
    Encouraging bullying...


    Oh, it's not unofficial. Our policy has always been to not allow it on this site, particularly during a pandemic that's killed millions of people and still killing people.

    It's not a matter of not liking it. It's because it's dangerous and deadly. We do not allow it for the same reason we do not allow people to threaten others on this site, promote violence, promote hatred, bigotry, sexism, racism or supremacism of any kind. Anti-vaxxers are dangerous.
    Middle of a pandemic, you likened the vaccines to gene therapy and deemed you didn't think the virus was that bad because it hasn't killed people you know, while promoting other anti-vaxxer rubbish.

    The rules are there. Try to follow them.
    Why do you think the "unvaccinated" should have more freedoms than those who are vaccinated in a time of a pandemic?
    No. Consent does not mean keep at it until they say yes!

    How can you be a 17 year old and not understand what consent actually means?

    How are freedoms "gradually being degraded"? What do you mean by that? Is it starting off at a low level of disrespect and then gradually turning to contempt? Were those freedoms good at first and they have the value of something from a discount store where nothing is more than $3?

    You do realise that countries have the right to implement laws and control their own borders, yes?
    You have heard? Care to provide some proof?

    In the majority of places, restaurant owners get to determine that. Certainly, some may impose such rules, but it's in the interest of public safety, particularly when the majority are vaccinated and the minority refuse to, the majority should not be punished or placed at further risk because of objectors to the vaccine.
    You are not making any sense.
    Do you mean eroded? And what's a warning sign against totalitarianism? Do you even know what that is?
    Can you name 20?

    Out of a few hundred, should be pretty easy.
    How has it "degraded freedoms"?

    I want you to define degraded, in the context of that sentence..
    This is becoming painful..

    No, shooting guns in the air can and has killed and injured people:
    Real life doesn't work that way. Thankfully!
  19. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    In WW2 in London, and I guess many other cities around the world subjected to air-raids, there was a requirement to black out your windows at night, lest your lights gave away the location of the city. Your positioning is akin to someone who feels that they should be allowed to keep their curtains open at night if they want.
    Do you know why the freedom to keep your curtains open, during WW2, was curtailed?
    Do you agree that people should have been required to keep their curtains closed at night?
  20. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    My position is not akin to someone who feels they should be allowed to jeapordize the safety of others, despite your implication. How would being allowed to let others onto one's own property jeapordize the safety of others? That is a ridiculous proposition.

    Anyway, to answer your question, yes I do, unless they had some alternative way to prevent their lights from showing.
    To answer your other question, I think that the freedom to keep one's curtains open during WW2 was curtailed for the reasons you mentioned.
  21. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    I just like to see every option.

    If I was so gullible, I probably would have believed the general consensus to the exclusion of all other options, which I did not. I don't believe that I am that gullible.
    I make sense. I use the word estimation to mean roughly calculate the extent to which something is true, in most of the cases in which I use it. In this case, that is roughly calculating the extent to which what I hear about coronavirus is true.
    I said that the virus might be dangerous and that it also might not be.
    I was indeed under the impression that the lock downs were a violation of this bit from the bill of rights act:
    Freedom of movement(1)Everyone lawfully in New Zealand has the right to freedom of movement and residence in New Zealand.(2)Every New Zealand citizen has the right to enter New Zealand.(3)Everyone has the right to leave New Zealand.(4)No one who is not a New Zealand citizen and who is lawfully in New Zealand shall be required to leave New Zealand except under a decision taken on grounds prescribed by law.
    Although, I suppose that freedom of movement is a very vague thing with plenty of loopholes.

    I did that.
    It's not lovely. But then your sarcasm here is palpable. I can just see the utility of bullying sometimes you know? It's like how criminals have to be punished for there crimes in order to discourage people from doing illegal things. I think that bully's should be bullied for the same reasons. I don't mean physically obviously, because that would probably result in a totalitarian regime pretty quickly. I mean verbally.

    Come on. Rubbish.
    Yes, well, from what I have seen anyone with a strong enough opinion about anything is dangerous for that reason.
    I'm not an anti vaxxer. I just think that this whole coronavirus response is very wrong and anything to do with it should be treated with suspicion.
    I follow the rules if and only if they make sense.
    I do not think this. I think that everyone should have the freedom to do anything but hurt others.
    I know what it means, and so do you I presume.
    The lock downs. The lock downs undermining the freedom of movement, which according to the bill of rights act, at least everyone in NZ has.
    Well, legally speaking, yes. However, I disagree that anyone has the right to impose their will onto anyone else except to prevent that someone else from hurting others, where there is no other way to prevent that someone else from hurting others.
    This is why I think that people should be allowed guns, just in case they need to defend themselves when their government turns nasty.
    Something to do with what Jacinda is calling the traffic light system.
    The word eroded works here. The word degraded works here.
    Yes, I do know what totalitarianism is. I'm not an idiot despite your implication that I am. I know what I am talking about.
    No. People still pretty much have all of their freedoms as far as I am aware. It is just the freedom of movement which I am concerned about, because of the lock downs.
    Well, tough. I'm not defining degraded for you in the context of this sentence because I am pretty sure that you already know what it means and I refuse to participate in any petty tests. I have nothing to prove to anyone.
  22. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

  23. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member


Share This Page