I did not realise it was so offensive to use the term which I did to describe this virus.
One of the reasons I did so, quite apart from the fact that it was where the virus originated, was to draw attention to the appalling wet markets in China - which really do need to be banned.
But to those of you who have taken offence at my use of a geographical term - would you care to read this link,
in which this very point is discussed; plus bear in mind that the WHO are not the neutral body one would assume.
Read - then think - then come back.
I apologise also for accusing this forum of censoring over my criticisms of chinaâs human rights; I apologise - it was wrong - I had not realised that this âvirus discussionâ now had its own Topic thread.
Rather stupid of me, but my computer is bookmarked to go straight to General discussion, and I didnât think to look any further.
So apologies for that wrongful assumption.
Iâve read (admittedly very quickly) through the article, Anne @TigerLily, and what struck me as most significant was this comment by Clairmont:
"But another premise of my claim, then, is that deference to authority is actually an extremely unhealthy attitude. ( sic i.e not my emphasis)
This IMO undermines, subverts, and encourages flouting the rule of law, a foundational pillar of democracy. As such it invalidates his arguments, because it sets the individual against the common good as a matter of principle, whether itâs the right to possess a military machine gun capable of mowing down children in their classrooms, or the right to carelessly and brazenly contaminate health workers in their commute to work on the tube.
How can you recommend it? It will lead to unnecessary and callous loss of life, for the lack of a little reflection on whether your right to do what you like âon principleâ outweighs the authority of the elected government to restrain you from doing harm, and requiring you to defer, as reasonably prescribed, to the common good.
Peter - I wasnât advocating breaking the law; but are all laws made by all governments right ? And are all governments beneficial? If we had all âobeyedâ the laws, and never challenged those laws, and those governments - then weâd never have had the Civil Rights movement which led to rightful changes; nor womenâs suffrage - amongst many other times âthe peopleâ decided the government was âwrongâ. People wanted change - and they broke the law to get those changes. Blind obedience to law, without questioning, has a certain name doesnât it ? Itâs why we are allowed to vote to have different governments, and different laws made from different social outlooks. But blind obedience - uhhm - not sure about that.
We have to question governments, we have to question âauthorityâ, we have to be aware, and not to fall into the group herd instinct mentality.
Is that wrong ?
Of course government must be called to account, and there are democratic ways in which that can be done, Anne. I donât have an issue with that, but Clairmontâs suggestion that deference to government implies unquestioning obedience is a travesty, and to call it âextremely unhelpfulâ borders on the seditious.
It means - unless qualified by an adjective to show that it is blind, unquestioning, servile or craven - respect or allegiance, setting aside oneâs own opinions provisionally or temporarily in the common good.
Deference includes the right to disagree or challenge, but in a legitimate way IMO. Otherwise there is a anarchy in its worst representation of everyone for himself (it is usually a man who chooses this path, I think) and sod the rest!
Anyway, the current consensus seems to be firmly around the suggestion that people should self-isolate to prevent uncontrolled pandemic, and I shall do my personal best to keep allegiance with that, although I am by nature as nonconformist, rebellious and pig-headed as many others of my gender, with the scars to prove it!
Agreed. And we need to accept that this is an unprecedented crisis for which the ârightâ way of dealing with it is still being worked out; and to have the humility to acknowledge that our own puny opinions should defer to the experience of others who are closer to the facts, and better placed to interpret them, even if there is an inevitable margin of error in what they decide.
Democracy folks, thatâs how we do it.
We vote for a representative and if his policies are in line with the majority he gets to be part of the government.
The government then makes laws if they can get them through parliament with a majority of votes.
The opposition calls the government to account on behalf of those people who donât always agree with the party in power.
Next election, if the government have not met the expectations of the people we can vote for a different party.
We should be able to accept that as the best system, without recourse to lawbreaking, vandalism or suicide bombing.
An exception might be if someone was required to do something against their conscience, but there are higher authorities that can be appealed to in matters concerning human rights.
I speak as one of the thousands of disenfranchised Brits who are without political representation and I will rant on about that as long as this gross injustice continues.
