Katja Lutz ~ katywings on Nostr: 1. Justifying your arguments logic with some arbitrary statist rules, doesn't ...

1. Justifying your arguments logic with some arbitrary statist rules, doesn't contradict the logic of my arguments. Meaning both of your and my arguments can be logical, and we still can come to different results. That doesn't change the fact that legitimacy is irrelevant in our discussion. If you want big brother certified legitimacy, I'd recommend state propaganda tv stations 😅.

2. Logic has nothing to do with inalienable rights. If inalienable rights were coupled to logic, you could just change the parameters of said logic to take away inalianable rights - which by itself is completely illogical. The point of inalienable rights is that they are inalienable.

3. If an autocrat defines a rule: "if hospital crisis - > then no inalienable rights for the sheeps", then its ofc completely "logical" to take away inalienable rights based on that rule, sure, but that rule itself is completely arbitrary and implementing it is a political decision, not a logical one. Thinking that its fine to take away inalienable rights because of some arbitrary logic, arbitrarily defined by arbitrary experts, payed by the same businesses (pharma) which make profit from said arbitrary logic, yeah sure thats all very logical, but also arbitrary, corrupt, opportunistic, tyrannic, technocratic and anti-humanistic.

4. Hospital bed counts were reduced during the "crisis". Some hospitals even were closed. Statistics were manipulated to get results showing a "crisis". The health care system is broken by design and that since a long time, way before Covid, nobody cared / cares to fix it. Logically coupling the stability of a broken health system to inalienable rights, is a very effective method for autocrats to take away inalienable rights, whenever they want.

But whatever, have fun in your "(ideo)logical" brave new world 🤷‍♀️...