Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Schwarzenegger: “screw your freedoms”" video.

You've been duped. You've been fooled into accepting a false narrative. The "restrictions in society" aren't a restriction on your freedoms. Your freedoms are intact. You've been fooled into thinking that you need to give freedom away for the sake of society when no such thing ever happened. You never had the freedom to endanger others with a moving vehicle. So you never lost any freedoms by obeying traffic laws. THINK for a second. THINK. In nobody's concept of freedom was vehicular manslaughter considered to be a right.
2
"you have a responsibility to protect others" - This is only valid if you are sick and know about it. "in his view wearing a mask and vaccinations does that" - His view is not just based on junk pop science which makes it wrong no matter the good intentions, even if he were right we can't restrict freedoms forever and force vaccinations against thousands of pathogens simply because of "others". Disease will continue existing even after humans go extinct.
1
What about the spread of Influenza and the common cold? You're gonna wear the mask forever.
1
You don't know what a strawman is. "Nobody complains about traffic lights" because you have the choice not to drive. What happens when you can't work or buy food without taking it? You have no choice. Additionally, you are hurling a 1-2 ton metal object at high speed into incoming traffic. Anyone reasonable would make the equivalence with firing a gun at marathon runners. Sure, you might miss the runners and crowd, but everyone can see you are committing an act that directly endangers others. Simply breathing in and out is not the same as hurling vehicles at other people or firing guns at crowds. Pathogens have always existed and will keep existing. We don't blame anyone except the few who are indeed caught trying to intentionally spread them. And yet, you DO hear people complain about traffic lights taking too long. So just saying "nobody complains" is already a falsehood. They might not advocate for removing them, but people do complain. So you're wrong right there.
1
@jaydy71 "But I don't complain about them existing" - Thanks for repeating what I just said. "because in general they work towards making traffic safer" - They actually don't. They actually promote paying less attention to traffic because the lights tell you what to do. They promote ease of traffic flow by timing it, but not safety. Testing done on locations that removed traffic signage showed that without traffic rules people focus on self-preservation rather than obeying rules, and thus they're safer drivers. "I don't think many sane people at either side of the political divide would really push towards abolishing them in the name of "freedom"" - Because it has nothing to do with freedom. That's why it's such a flawed analogy. "they argued against Schwarzenegger's "screw your freedoms"" - Which is valid. "implying that he was making a case that the government should enforce vaccines" - If Arnie doesn't want freedom then why would he be against state mandates? "That is a verbatim strawman argument" - Again, then what freedom is he arguing against if he actually is for freedom like you claim?
1
@jaydy71 But it doesn't. All those "responsibilities" relate to things that were never your freedoms in the first place. Nobody ever had freedom to harm others. It doesn't even make sense. You bought the narrative, hook line and sinker. You've already internalized that you gave up freedom and that it's reasonable to give it up. That's just word trickery, you never gave up freedoms by not hurting others. "Now it means getting vaccinated to help protect you from doing harrm" 1. You're not doing harm by not being unvaccinated. There's a multitude of contagious diseases for which there are no vaccines and we don't hold anyone responsible for spreading them unless they are caught intentionally spreading it. 2. The vaccine does not prevent you from spreading. By your own twisted logic, you're still causing harm even vaccinated. Never leave the house again if you're really committed to this moral standard. "It's not a big ask" - Yes, it is. "And again he wasn't arguing in favor of government enforcement" - Pretty sure government enforces red lights. If you're saying "screw your freedoms" this means government enforcement. Stop excusing him. How can someone be screwed out of his freedoms without government enforcement? If it's still up to personal choice, why is he bringing up traffic laws? If he's saying we shouldn't have freedoms, is this the "it's voluntary until the voluntary phase is over"? Yes, apparently it is hard to get people to understand what's being said. If he's on the side of freedom and personal choice, then he completely bugled it up by saying the exact opposite of what he meant to say.
1
@jaydy71 "This stuff isn't even controversial anymore" - And again, if you're blowing smoke in people's faces, even before we get to the health effects it's a nuisance. You have the choice not to smoke, and we used to have smoking/non smoking areas. Exhaling pathogens is part of human function. They got in when you took your first breath and they'll still be coming out the day you take your last. Breathing is not a nuisance unless I'm doing it right in your face. Hurling 1-2 ton vehicles at other people at considerable speeds is not the same as breathing. Or eating at a restaurant. Or going to a show. Or travelling to another country. "if there's a group of people large enough unwilling to take responsibility with vaccination" - WHAT RESPONSABILITY? You can still get it and transmit! Your own experts, your science has admitted it won't stop transmission. "vaccines are the best bet" - How? They don't do what they were supposed to. "they do reduce transmission as viral loads reduce much more quickly in infected vaccinated people"- COPE. Transmission is still possible. "It's just unclear to what degree exactly it reduces transmission in the delta variant specifically" - It's spreading in Israel despite high vaccination rates. It didn't work. Better luck next time. Can't wait for big pharma to make another 60 billion in revenue from the next year's revised formula. "Especially for people that can't get vaccinated." - THEY CAN STILL GET IT FROM THOSE WHO GOT VACCINATED. COME ON. THINK. "There's of course the alternative to simply accept Corona viruses as a new fact of life and hope for the best" - Oh, you better. Name a coronavirus with animal reservoirs we've managed to eradicate. Remember, the generic code shows it was hosted by bats and possibly pangolins. "then my response would also be "screw your freedoms, dickhead"" - Exactly. And you can be mad about it for the rest of your life. "I think that was clearly the crux of the governator's rant there" - The thing is that if you meet me in the elevator you're just some guy. Not a propagandist spreading an anti-freedom message from his mansion while we are under the thumb of a sanitary dictatorship. "But I guess his marriage infidelity years ago is somehow relevant to these guys" - It's always relevant when a man with questionable character starts to make character judgements.
1
@andyhysi7533 You can't work your ass off for money without freedom. So why do I have to listen to him mouthing off about my freedoms?
1
Yeah but the aerosolized water droplets will simply follow the air around the mask. The mask arrests sneezing and coughing, and if you're sick you shouldn't be in public anyway. If you're concerned about people breathing out without symptoms, the mask isn't doing anything.
1
If you truly believe that exhaling kills people, there's a certain action you can stop right now. I'll assume your lack of response means it worked.
1
@nikeboy995 Maybe you should read what I wrote again and try to understand it. I told you to hold your breath. If you do it for too long, you pass out.
1
No, it doesn't make perfect sense. If you think your freedom is the same as flinging 1-2 ton vehicles at innocent drivers, you're welcome to never leave the house ever again.
1
@magic8269 "Screw your freedoms is a rational mindset when talking about road safety" - No, it isn't. You never had the freedom to commit vehicular manslaughter. If you think it's a rational mindset, then you at some point had to consider vehicular manslaughter to be a right everyone is entitled to. That's irrational. I'd go as far as calling it mental illness. "Is it justified in x specific context" - The context being nonsensical restrictions to freedom based on shady science? It seems to me you're losing track of the actual context. "Getting triggered by the phrase itself is emotional and immature." - Getting triggered by criticism is emotional and immature.
1
@magic8269 "See the similarity?" - There is none. Again, your point of view REQUIRES you to have thought that you ever had the right to commit vehicular manslaughter, and you gave up that right. That is called being unhinged. "Freedom in this context is just adhering to the dictionary definition of physically being able to" - Nope. It's about liberties. You know it is. "things like speeding also apply here" - I'm a fan of the autobahn model.
1
Guess you missed the whole segment about Gustav Schwarzenegger.
1
@kycklingsallad2414 Then why did you confuse his father for mr silly moustache man in your original post?
1
@kevinkonig3892 The "Hitler was a vegetarian" is more often used as a joke to mock bad arguments than to make vegans look bad, jesus.
1