CDC implements study on "gun violence" after labeling it a "public health threat," aiming to "craft swift interventions, as they have done to contain the coronavirus pandemic and other national health emergencies." (NPR)
"Swift interventions" using "health and safety" to implement unconstitutional, tyrannical measures -- exactly as expected.
That's the problem with the slippery slope fallacy: people assume that because it's a fallacy, it won't happen. In fact, all that a fallacy means is that logic can't guarantee that it will happen. It very often happens exactly that way, because why shouldn't it? That's the way we did it last time.
5 comments:
Logically, totalitarian enemies of humanity are doing what they said they would. What slipper slope? It is not a slope. This is their intent and planning.
Did the military suddenly slipe slide out of afghanistan s slope?
This is not a political or election issue. This is a nuremburgz enemy of humanity issue . Do or die time. Very difficult yes
Can you imagine if the AIDS epidemic had been approached this way? Back then the idea that you should abstain from sexual contact in order to avoid catching and spreading a deadly disease was greeted with horror.
AIDS was greeted with similar paranoia. I remember being in a drama class in high school in which a girl role played committing suicide because she found out she had AIDS. The teacher did not in any way discourage this, although suicide only brought forward and made certain the worst possible consequence.
The analogy between disease and guns is incredibly weak, though. All analogies always break, but this one breaks right at the beginning and well before it can bear any weight. I've got lots of guns, and have had them for years, and for the most part none of them have done anything except what I wanted them to do. They're nothing like diseases, and ownership of them for defense of our individual and common liberty is a protected constitutional and natural right.
Apparently the AZT touted by Fauci as an anti HIV drug put a lot of people in the grave.
HIV was different in many ways. It was just about universally fatal, but usually took years to kill. It required fairly intimate contact to transmit. In the beginning it was perceived to affect only homosexuals. Next it was perceived to affect only the unusually promiscuous, or needle-sharing, not counting the unfortunates who were exposed when the blood supply was contaminated.
Ebola is sort of in-between: harder to transmit than HIV, but not universally deadly, but on the other hand crazy high mortality by the usual standards of modern disease. It still has the flavor of a disease that happens to other communities, not us.
COVID's all over the place, affecting every community and most families or close social circles. On the other hand it rather rarely kills, and whatever bad or good is going to happen, happens pretty fast. If there's quarantine, it needn't be lifelong. From a public policy standpoint, though, lockdowns and related measures do threaten to become permanent to some degree, just as we never really went back to the carefree attitudes of exposure we had pre-HIV.
Post a Comment