So many psychologically interesting things about the attitudes of the Jabbers. One of the many, often commented upon, is the logical absurdity of their demands that others be Jabbed to “keep them safe.”
Really? How does that work, exactly?
They concede – without saying so – that the Jab doesn’t work. Else why worry about getting more Jabs? About whether others get Jabbed, assuming you have been?
Aren’t you “safe” already?
If you buy car insurance and your neighbor doesn’t, will the policy not pay out if your neighbor crashes his car into a tree?
Secondary dissonance: If the thing doesn’t work – as you’ve tacitly admitted you fear is true, by demanding others be Jabbed, to keep you safe – then what is the point (as it were) of demanding others be Jabbed with that which doesn’t work?
But there is something worse than illogic – than idiocy – at work here.
It is the risk-reversing of the Jabbers.
They aver that we who will not be Jabbed are “uncaring” about others. That we are indifferent to the risks they face. That we must roll up our sleeves, for their sakes.
Marvel at this!
We who eschew the needle eschew it precisely (well, partly) because of the risks which we’d otherwise be immune to. These include but may not be limited to heart inflammation, Bell’s Palsy, crippling fatigue and (the big one) premature death accelerated by one or several of the just-mentioned “adverse events” known to be not-uncommonly triggered by the stuff conduited into people’s bodies via the needle.
The bodies of people who are healthy – and thus not at much (if any risk).
This being especially “the case” – as it were – as regards children and young, otherwise healthy adults.
Such people are selfish and uncaring because they are not willing to put their lives at risk? The lives of their minor children, whom they – as parents – are morally obligated to protect from risk?
It is astounding.
It is evil.
These same people obsessed with risk demand risks be assumed – by others. And they have the gall to characterize those who chafe at this suggestion as being mean-spirited and small minded.
Maybe people who haven’t got cancer should sign up – be signed up for – experimental and risky cancer treatments.
To show how much they care about others.
There might be a moral argument to make if the Jabs were safe. If there were no (as in zero) risk attending. Mandating of the Jabs would still be an outrage – unless you take the position that you have the right to diddle with someone else’s body, a pretty sick proposition – but the mandates to Jab would likely be unnecessary since most people would probably agree to the Jab, if it didn’t put them at risk.
The Jabbers attempt to minimize the risk – only a few (tens of thousands) “adverse events”! But this is like minimizing child abuse.
One is too many.
Demanding that a child be abused – exactly what these creatures are demanding – is disgusting in a way that even normal child abuse is not.
For normal child abuse is not mandated. Demanded – and sanctioned – by the government, ostensibly concerned with preventing the abuse of children.
Government is now the abuser – who tells the abused it’s all their fault. Like the thug who beats his wife and says, look what you made me do!
It is inhuman, it is evil, to insist that someone else risk themselves for your sake. A person who so insists is the apotheosis of selfish and uncaring. Well, selfish – as they are literally placing themselves above other selves.
They care, all right . . . about themselves.
Not much about you.
Each of us must deal with risks every single day. We each choose to act in certain ways, taking account of these risks, weighing them against rewards. Our decision is based on a calculation of likelihood. There is a risk in getting behind the wheel of a car and driving to work. One tries to mitigate this risk by driving attentively and competently but no matter how attentively or competently one drives, there is always a degree of risk. The car could malfunction in some catastrophic way. Another driver could run a light.
A deer could bound in the road.
But most of choose to run these risks for the sake of the reward – of being able to drive to work. Few of us would demand that others be prohibited from driving to work – in order to get paid, in order to provide for their family – on account of our being too afraid to drive to work. On account of our insistence that it is “too risky.”
What the Jabbers demand is far worse – because being forced not to drive isn’t potentially life-ending.
There is – or ought to be – an especially warm spot in Hell for people who not only believe they have the right to put other people at risk for their own selfish sake but are so self-absorbed, so-self-unaware that they can frame their demands as reasonable – and those who object to them as “selfish.”
. . .
Got a question about cars, bikes, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in! Or email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com if the @!** “ask Eric” button doesn’t work!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!