Look at the madness going on...

[Starman]

Double Post, oops...

[Starman]

Originally Posted by inavalan

There is a lot of contradictory information about almost everything. Whom to believe?

My common sense and your common sense may be diametrically opposed.

To me, the most vehement are the least trustworthy, but this criteria isn't enough.

Also, we should compare our selves to the best not to the worst.

Comparing ourselves with others in any way may be a futile gesture. But people who compare themselves only to the best are often jealous or envious. Looking at the worst often helps me to become grateful for what I have. The adage, "I used to complain that I had no shoes until I saw a person with no feet" may apply.

When I was a kid my mother used to tell me to eat everything on my plate, and she would remind me that there were people elsewhere who were starving. Today I believe my own personal experience, and not necessarily what I hear from others, although I do attempt to have both empathy and sympathy for the experiences of others. Reality is a matter of perception, and I strive to make the best of all situations. It is unfortunate that there are people who will trust someone else before they trust themselves; intuition is my guide.

[Heightend-Awareness]

Originally Posted by Altair

My worry is that some events are used as excuses for more surveillance and control, at the cost of liberties and privacy. It may ''make sense'' to people in times of crisis but then such things become the new norm and we could be pushed towards more of that. That is my worry with modern tech and authorities' behaviour (behaving like they are our parents). In times of crisis they say they can just push crisis laws through in the name of your safety. There are constitutional rights that should not be bargained with, IMO.

.

That's just putting it nicely.

[JosephineB]

Here is some info from the South Australia Covid1984 emergency response Act 2020:

25A—Removal of children (1) Without derogating from section 25, an authorised officer may, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with any direction under that section, remove a child from any premises, place, vehicle or vessel to a place of residence of the child or to a hospital or quarantine facility, as the authorised officer thinks fit (and may, in doing so, use such force as is reasonably necessary). (2) In this section— child means a person under 18 years of age; place of residence includes, in the case of a child who is in the custody, or under the guardianship, of the Chief Executive under the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017, any place directed by that Chief Executive

https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ...020.7.AUTH.PDF


The UK has similar although not as blatant:

Children
18
(1)
An individual who has responsibility for a child must, so far as reasonably practicable, secure that the child complies with any direction, instruction, requirement or restriction given to or imposed on the child under this Part of this Schedule.
(2)
An individual who has responsibility for a child must provide to a person exercising a power under this Part of this Schedule such information and assistance in relation to the child as is reasonably necessary and practicable in the circumstances.
(3)
A power under this Part of this Schedule to direct or require a child to go to a place may instead be exercised by directing or requiring an individual who has responsibility for the child to take the child to the place.
(4)
A power under paragraph 10 or 14 may only be exercised in relation to a child in the presence of—
(a)
an individual who has responsibility for the child, or
(b)
if the child is not accompanied by such an individual, an adult (not being a person on whom powers are conferred under this Part of this Schedule) that the person exercising the power considers to be appropriate, having regard to any views of the child.
(5)
Where a power under this Part of this Schedule is exercisable in relation to a child but the child is not accompanied by an individual who has responsibility for the child, the person by whom the power is exercisable must—
(a)
if practicable, contact an individual who has responsibility for the child before the power is exercised, or
(b)
if that is not practicable, take reasonable steps after the power is exercised to contact such an individual and inform them of any exercise of the power in relation to the child.
(6)
Where a child has a right of appeal (see paragraph 17) the right may be exercised by an individual who has responsibility for the child.
(7)
For the purposes of this paragraph—
“adult” means a person aged 18 or over;
“child” means a person under the age of 18;
an individual has responsibility for a child—
(a)
if the individual has custody or charge of the child for the time being (without being a person on whom powers are conferred by this Part of this Schedule), or
(b)
if the individual has parental responsibility for the child (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...ule/21/enacted

[Starman]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

At the beginning of the pandemic, I went out and bought house filters that would filter out viruses.

It was only recently that our news media casually mentioned the importance of doing something like that.

I have 4-air purifiers in my house and one in my RV, they also filter out viruses along will allergens, smoke, etc. The laws, or mandates, that are imposed due to COVID-19 do not readily effect me.

Although I was a little upset this past July; I drove up to British Columbia, Canada to be with a friend who lives on a boat. It was just her and I out in the Pacific Ocean for about a week. No social distancing or masks needed.

But when I returned to California and went to pick up and item I had previously ordered from a retailer; I told them I was out of State and they freaked out and told me I had to quarantine for 14-days before coming into their shop. I let them know that I was only around one other person during my whole trip.

But they were very strict and would not allow me to come into their shop for 14-days. I should not have told them that I was out of State. I had already paid for this item and they were holding the item for me. I did not think that I needed to quarantine myself and not go out to a store. The State of California, nor the Federal U.S. government, have a mandatory quarantine. This was just that company’s policy for its customers. It upset me a little.

[Heightend-Awareness]

Staring to sound like an AC/DC song, "So lock up your daughter
Lock up your wife
Lock up your back door
Run for your life
The man is back in town
So don't you mess me 'round
'Cause I'm T.N.T., I'm dynamite"

[hallow]

Originally Posted by Altair

My worry is that some events are used as excuses for more surveillance and control, at the cost of liberties and privacy. It may ''make sense'' to people in times of crisis but then such things become the new norm and we could be pushed towards more of that. That is my worry with modern tech and authorities' behaviour (behaving like they are our parents). In times of crisis they say they can just push crisis laws through in the name of your safety. There are constitutional rights that should not be bargained with, IMO.

.

That's extremely common, look at all the safety things in a vehicle, there a lot more than seat belts and air bags. There's laws companies have to follow for worker safety. You can't smoke in public places. You have to wear a shirt and shoes in public places. All in place for our own safety. Yes I agree, everyone should have choices. But you could be walking around sick and not know it and sneeze. The person walking behind you then can get sick too. By no choice of there own. Someone else could get sick because of your choice. Or the other way around. Nobody here is dumb, you know how this virus works. It's more of a lack of consideration for others then anything. Who cares if someone gets sick and then gets there whole family sick. As long as you can do whatever you want. Right?? I am not targeting you. It's everyone who disregards what there choice does to others.

[Heightend-Awareness]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X29l...annel=GeenNaam

[hallow]

Originally Posted by Heightend-Awareness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X29l...annel=GeenNaam

George carlin is great! He's funny as hell But, I work in health care, if I got sick by this virus so would 8 other people with compromised immune systems. It could easily kill them. This virus would simply go down the line. I understand everyone wants to pretend it's not there. But it is. I am a very hopeful person that at some point this virus will be under control but until then I am not going to fight something that could save my life or the life of others.

Originally Posted by Heightend-Awareness

With all of the theses lockdowns and enforcement of policies (not law) yet anyway. With footage of scenes that show other than allowing people to express themselves by not playing along with the official narrative I thought I do some digging. Guess what I found... I'd dare say other countries would have something similar. As I recall, many of these policies that have not been legislated, so how can the law enforce them?
https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-pro...gion-or-belief


Any interpretations?

In Aberdeen people were playing nice and following the guidelines, then the restrictions were lifted a little enough to allow people to socialise a bit more. One man, an oil worker, went to a bar where everybody exercised their human rights but they also exercised their rights to infect others because of their arrogance. Aberdeen nightlife was shut down again - and it's a big city - and the outbreak was dealt with. Sixteen new cases of COVID that didn't need to happen. A similar thing happened a few weeks later when a group of footballers thought they were immune to the guidelines because they're celebrities.


I dare say other cities and in other countries would have something similar. Maybe if people weren't being so pig-headed and arrogant official narratives would be so much of narratives.

Originally Posted by JosephineB

“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.” ― Viktor E. Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning

They're after that ^^^ And in many cases, they've already got it.

And no man is an island, so the freedoms or one person can take away the freedoms of another - just like the freedom of one man who wanted a few beers meant that the freedoms of sixteen others - and everyone else they come into contact with - were severely encroached on to the point of the risk of death.