What's new
By:

Are we now officially in a dictatorship?

Red said:
I finally put our trolls on ignore. Just a few days ago. I usually login on the general discussion page, but just now saw the topics on page 1 of the Politics page, while not logged in. Hahaha! Not that I haven’t been busy here myself, as always, but I literally almost blew my coffee just now, lol. Gotta laugh at how much they waste their time.
Click to expand...
You can't handle the truth.
 
Red said:
I finally put our trolls on ignore. Just a few days ago. I usually login on the general discussion page, but just now saw the topics on page 1 of the Politics page, while not logged in. Hahaha! Not that I haven’t been busy here myself, as always, but I literally almost blew my coffee just now, lol. Gotta laugh at how much they waste their time.
Click to expand...

I've had them on ignore for a long time. If they bring nothing at all to the conversation but cut n paste they should be banned really.
 
str8line said:
I've had them on ignore for a long time. If they bring nothing at all to the conversation but cut n paste they should be banned really.
Click to expand...
PJF in particular brings nothing to the table that a bot wouldn't. Has no insight. No original opinions. No unique perspective. In fact they do not provide any personal information or context in regard to how they came to their opinion.

Mongoose is different in that they are just generally oppositional. You could go out of your way to try to agree with Mongoose and they would still tell you why you didn't get it and why you were wrong. I think this general approach to life has led them to MAGA where such personality disorders have coalesced and found common comfort. That has driven them to take on the extreme views of the movement when before they were just generally skeptical and intentionally contradictory.
 
Sardines said:
PJF in particular brings nothing to the table that a bot wouldn't. Has no insight. No original opinions. No unique perspective. In fact they do not provide any personal information or context in regard to how they came to their opinion.

Mongoose is different in that they are just generally oppositional. You could go out of your way to try to agree with Mongoose and they would still tell you why you didn't get it and why you were wrong. I think this general approach to life has led them to MAGA where such personality disorders have coalesced and found common comfort. That has driven them to take on the extreme views of the movement when before they were just generally skeptical and intentionally contradictory.
Click to expand...
∆
1000002329.png
 
Sardines said:
PJF in particular brings nothing to the table that a bot wouldn't. Has no insight. No original opinions. No unique perspective. In fact they do not provide any personal information or context in regard to how they came to their opinion.

Mongoose is different in that they are just generally oppositional. You could go out of your way to try to agree with Mongoose and they would still tell you why you didn't get it and why you were wrong. I think this general approach to life has led them to MAGA where such personality disorders have coalesced and found common comfort. That has driven them to take on the extreme views of the movement when before they were just generally skeptical and intentionally contradictory.
Click to expand...
They are both just groupies hoping to get a taste of Trump's ejaculate
 
Sardines said:
Absolutely! Unfortunately the government failed to protect me adequately from reckless idiots and more than ONE MILLION Americans died as a result.
Click to expand...
But it's the exact same bro! trump is trying to suppress free speech in order to save millions of lives too!
 
Sardines said:
I should point out that most of the ONE MILLION dead Americans were fat, old or both, so not only is it just fine, it might have just been a good thing... amiright?

/s
Click to expand...
Hopefully a lot of the dead were homeless people. 2 birds 1 stone!

Sent from my OPD2203 using Tapatalk
 
Sardines said:
Absolutely! Unfortunately the government failed to protect me adequately from reckless idiots and more than ONE MILLION Americans died as a result.
Click to expand...
Show me where you stood up for speech.

What a garbage response… please explain to me how the government failed to protect you adequately, when you’re still here posting non sense. There are 340 million people in America and it had less than a 1% death rate… failure, good god. That includes 2 presidents.

You want to shut down speech because you wanted to control 340 million people and tell them there is no natural immunity, that if you get the vaccine you can’t spread covid or that it didn’t start in Wuhan. If you said these things social media could and would boot you.

17 million people kill more Americans a year than Covid ever did…guess what the government controls them and death still happens. Yet you’re fine with letting the medical field keep doing there thing, keep there voices and keep killing up to 400k people a year with malpractice.

Why can’t our government be like other governments such as the UK with only 1.7 million medical professionals and will control them by only killing up to 11k a year. That’s 75% less than our government allows. Germany controls up to 18k deaths a year with medical malpractice, that’s 82% less than us.

But you want our government to control a disease and shut off the voices of Americans because you didn’t like what they said. You think shutting off voices would have changed things?

Weird California had the longest, strictest COVID policies and had the most deaths. Florida who has the second highest (65+) elderly population % and total, with the loosest COVID policies had less deaths.

I will never back down from my position on Free speech. If you show me where Trumps government said to get rid of Jimmy or shut down someone’s speech on social media, I’ll join you in bashing him and the government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
Bucknutz said:
Show me where you stood up for speech.

What a garbage response… please explain to me how the government failed to protect you adequately, when you’re still here posting non sense. There are 340 million people in America and it had less than a 1% death rate… failure, good god. That includes 2 presidents.

You want to shut down speech because you wanted to control 340 million people and tell them there is no natural immunity, that if you get the vaccine you can’t spread covid or that it didn’t start in Wuhan. If you said these things social media could and would boot you.

17 million people kill more Americans a year than Covid ever did…guess what the government controls them and death still happens. Yet you’re fine with letting the medical field keep doing there thing, keep there voices and keep killing up to 400k people a year with malpractice.

Why can’t our government be like other governments such as the UK with only 1.7 million medical professionals and will control them by only killing up to 11k a year. That’s 75% less than our government allows. Germany controls up to 18k deaths a year with medical malpractice, that’s 82% less than us.

But you want our government to control a disease and shut off the voices of Americans because you didn’t like what they said. You think shutting off voices would have changed things?

Weird California had the longest, strictest COVID policies and had the most deaths. Florida who has the second highest (65+) elderly population % and total, with the loosest COVID policies had less deaths.

I will never back down from my position on Free speech. If you show me where Trumps government said to get rid of Jimmy or shut down someone’s speech on social media, I’ll join you in bashing him and the government.
Click to expand...
I posed to AI: “the social contract requires citizens to adopt a “one for all, all for one” approach during a dangerous pandemic”. Which I thought should be the case, but I was mistaken, according to this AI overview. I would suggest the extreme polarization in the United States will naturally erode the belief in obligations of individuals toward the collective whole. I would also strongly suggest that the upsurge in conspiracism, the tendency of some citizens to immediately suspect ulterior motives whenever virtually any important issue that arises in the United States, clearly does not help. It’s my belief that there is a great upsurge in irrational thinking in the modern era, and it’s nowhere more evident than in our nation. I don’t think any of this helps, when a rational, science based response to pandemics would be far better. That is not possible in the United States, at this time in our history. Therefore, even the very existence of the concept of a “social contract” is largely unknown to our citizens. And does not even arise in these arguments over the Covid pandemic. What social contract? Everything begins and ends with me. Screw everyone else.

AI Overview:

No, the social contract does not explicitly require citizens to adopt a strict "one for all, all for one" approach during a pandemic, though social cooperation is essential
. Instead, classical social contract theory provides a framework for understanding the tension between individual liberties and the need for collective safety during a public health crisis. Different interpretations of the social contract can justify various public health measures, from mandates to appeals for voluntary action.
Key social contract interpretations during a pandemic
The obligation of citizens during a pandemic can be viewed through the lens of various social contract theorists:
Thomas Hobbes and collective security
  • The theory: Hobbes's philosophy is rooted in the fear of the "state of nature," which he described as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". To escape this, individuals willingly surrender some of their freedoms to an absolute sovereign in exchange for security and order.
  • Pandemic application: A Hobbesian view would support the state's right to impose strict, mandatory public health measures, such as lockdowns, quarantines, and vaccine mandates. The sovereign's primary responsibility is to preserve life, and in a pandemic, this includes the lives of all citizens. The "one for all" could be interpreted as absolute compliance with state orders for the sake of collective survival.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the general will
  • The theory:Rousseau believed that citizens enter into a social contract to follow the "general will," which represents the common good, not just the sum of individual interests. In times of extreme crisis, he even suggested a temporary dictatorship might be necessary to ensure the state's survival.
    • Pandemic application: A Rousseau-inspired approach would emphasize social cooperation and solidarity. Individuals would be called upon to act for the collective good—wearing a mask, isolating, or getting vaccinated—because it is in their own long-term interest. The "all for one" part of the motto would resonate strongly here, focusing on shared responsibility to combat a threat to the community.

John Locke and individual rights
  • The theory: Locke argued that the social contract's purpose is to protect an individual's natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Unlike Hobbes, Locke saw the government's power as limited, accountable to the people, and potentially illegitimate if it oversteps its bounds.
  • Pandemic application: A Lockean perspective would prioritize individual liberty. While recognizing the need for collective safety, it would be more cautious about public health mandates and more protective of personal freedoms. This view emphasizes a careful balancing act between individual autonomy and societal well-being. Individuals could argue against certain mandates if they are perceived as an overreach of government power.
How different approaches affect pandemic response
The differences in these social contract interpretations create a natural tension in modern democratic societies, which often borrow from multiple traditions:
  • The tension between individual and collective good: A dangerous pandemic creates a conflict between individual desires and collective needs. For example, a person may want to refuse a vaccine, but their choice could impact herd immunity and the safety of the community.
  • Mandates vs. voluntary action: Governments often rely on a combination of mandates (e.g., vaccine requirements) and appeals to social solidarity during a public health crisis. The extent to which a population accepts these measures depends on how the unwritten social contract is interpreted in that society.
  • International cooperation: The COVID-19 pandemic also exposed the limits of a social contract focused solely on the nation-state, highlighting the need for a global social contract to ensure fair access to public health goods, such as vaccines.
(Note: the following don’t work as hyperlinks, but I left them as something that could be copied and pasted if one wanted to read these sources):

The Social Contract (Easy 3 Minute Explanation) - YouTube
Jan 21, 2025 — In this hypothetical state of nature, people have complete freedom but lack security and order. By consenting to a social contract, individuals trade some of th...
faviconV2

YouTube

images

ETHICS BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES - PMC
Apr 13, 2023 — Although we take great pride in our individual freedoms in the United States and other modern democracies, we oftentimes forget that no right is absolute. This ...
faviconV2

National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov)

The Social Contract Theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke
Jul 1, 2021 — Orientation and Analysis. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are both modern philosophers who advocate the Social Contract Theory. Thomas Hobbes, a socio-political th...
faviconV2

rksmvv.ac.in

images

social contract revisited | European Journal of Public Health | Oxford Academic
Oct 5, 2015 — From the earliest days, philosophers have debated the relationship between the individual and the state. Thomas Hobbes argued that individuals must concede some...
faviconV2

Oxford Academic
 
Last edited:
Red said:
I posed to AI: “the social contract requires citizens to adopt a “one for all, all for one” approach during a dangerous pandemic”. Which I thought should be the case, but I was mistaken, according to this AI overview. I would suggest the extreme polarization in the United States will naturally erode the belief in obligations of individuals toward the collective whole. I would also strongly suggest that the upsurge in conspiracism, the tendency of some citizens to immediately suspect ulterior motives whenever virtually any important issue that arises in the United States, clearly does not help. It’s my belief that there is a great upsurge in irrational thinking in the modern era, and it’s nowhere more evident than in our nation. I don’t think any of this helps, when a rational, science based response to pandemics would be far better. That is not possible in the United States, at this time in our history. Therefore, even the very existence of the concept of a “social contract” is largely unknown to our citizens. And does not even arise in these arguments over the Covid pandemic. What social contract? Everything begins and ends with me. Screw everyone else.

AI Overview:

No, the social contract does not explicitly require citizens to adopt a strict "one for all, all for one" approach during a pandemic, though social cooperation is essential
. Instead, classical social contract theory provides a framework for understanding the tension between individual liberties and the need for collective safety during a public health crisis. Different interpretations of the social contract can justify various public health measures, from mandates to appeals for voluntary action.
Key social contract interpretations during a pandemic
The obligation of citizens during a pandemic can be viewed through the lens of various social contract theorists:
Thomas Hobbes and collective security
  • The theory: Hobbes's philosophy is rooted in the fear of the "state of nature," which he described as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". To escape this, individuals willingly surrender some of their freedoms to an absolute sovereign in exchange for security and order.
  • Pandemic application: A Hobbesian view would support the state's right to impose strict, mandatory public health measures, such as lockdowns, quarantines, and vaccine mandates. The sovereign's primary responsibility is to preserve life, and in a pandemic, this includes the lives of all citizens. The "one for all" could be interpreted as absolute compliance with state orders for the sake of collective survival.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the general will
  • The theory:Rousseau believed that citizens enter into a social contract to follow the "general will," which represents the common good, not just the sum of individual interests. In times of extreme crisis, he even suggested a temporary dictatorship might be necessary to ensure the state's survival.
    • Pandemic application: A Rousseau-inspired approach would emphasize social cooperation and solidarity. Individuals would be called upon to act for the collective good—wearing a mask, isolating, or getting vaccinated—because it is in their own long-term interest. The "all for one" part of the motto would resonate strongly here, focusing on shared responsibility to combat a threat to the community.

John Locke and individual rights
  • The theory: Locke argued that the social contract's purpose is to protect an individual's natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Unlike Hobbes, Locke saw the government's power as limited, accountable to the people, and potentially illegitimate if it oversteps its bounds.
  • Pandemic application: A Lockean perspective would prioritize individual liberty. While recognizing the need for collective safety, it would be more cautious about public health mandates and more protective of personal freedoms. This view emphasizes a careful balancing act between individual autonomy and societal well-being. Individuals could argue against certain mandates if they are perceived as an overreach of government power.
How different approaches affect pandemic response
The differences in these social contract interpretations create a natural tension in modern democratic societies, which often borrow from multiple traditions:
  • The tension between individual and collective good: A dangerous pandemic creates a conflict between individual desires and collective needs. For example, a person may want to refuse a vaccine, but their choice could impact herd immunity and the safety of the community.
  • Mandates vs. voluntary action: Governments often rely on a combination of mandates (e.g., vaccine requirements) and appeals to social solidarity during a public health crisis. The extent to which a population accepts these measures depends on how the unwritten social contract is interpreted in that society.
  • International cooperation: The COVID-19 pandemic also exposed the limits of a social contract focused solely on the nation-state, highlighting the need for a global social contract to ensure fair access to public health goods, such as vaccines.
(Note: the following don’t work as hyperlinks, but I left them as something that could be copied and pasted if one wanted to read these sources):

The Social Contract (Easy 3 Minute Explanation) - YouTube
Jan 21, 2025 — In this hypothetical state of nature, people have complete freedom but lack security and order. By consenting to a social contract, individuals trade some of th...
faviconV2

YouTube

images

ETHICS BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES - PMC
Apr 13, 2023 — Although we take great pride in our individual freedoms in the United States and other modern democracies, we oftentimes forget that no right is absolute. This ...
faviconV2

National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov)

The Social Contract Theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke
Jul 1, 2021 — Orientation and Analysis. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are both modern philosophers who advocate the Social Contract Theory. Thomas Hobbes, a socio-political th...
faviconV2

rksmvv.ac.in

images

social contract revisited | European Journal of Public Health | Oxford Academic
Oct 5, 2015 — From the earliest days, philosophers have debated the relationship between the individual and the state. Thomas Hobbes argued that individuals must concede some...
faviconV2

Oxford Academic
Click to expand...
Nice response Red! I am enjoying this data and theories presented. I’ll edit this after reading more into it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Sardines said:
I should point out that most of the ONE MILLION dead Americans were fat, old or both, so not only is it just fine, it might have just been a good thing... amiright?

/s
Click to expand...
And most importantly trump is shutting down free speech to save..... uh, something or other. That is why people who were so vocal about covid restrictions are now in this very thread speaking up bigly against trump..... uh, or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top