That doesn’t have anything to do with the quality of the sources. That’s just disagreeing with my point. But how is imprisoning people for going outside not fascism?
I’m not disagreeing with your sources. I’m disagreeing with you. You’re the one saying these actions are fascist. And I’m telling you it’s not. I suggest you do some actual reading on fascism before sitting there saying that implementing public health measure for a once-in-a-century virus outbreak that’s killed tens of millions is fascism.
You started off by saying my sources are bad, which is, by definition, disagreeing with them. Also, you haven’t explained how imprisoning people for going outside and censoring information isn’t fascist. I’m certain that fascists throughout history have done and defended stuff like this for the exact same reasons you are - “for the greater good,” “for the sake of public health,” etc. Maybe we should throw everyone in prison and never let them speak to each other in-person anymore so communicable diseases like COVID can never spread again, since if you do fascist things because you think you’re right, that makes it not fascism.
So it isn’t fascism when you think it’s justified. Would you say the same thing about genocide or persecuton? How are are you willing to go with the idea that the ends justify the means?
It isn’t fascism when healthcare systems get overwhelmed, an unprecedented level of people are dying, and every expert was advising for the measures that were implemented (and more in a lot of cases). There were reasons these rules were put in place. And it wasn’t for anyone’s ego or political points.
Really? That sounds like what you’re saying: it’s acceptable to censor information, criminalize going outsid and not wearing a piece of cloth if it’s for a good cause. Namely, it’s okay to do these things if fewer people die of a disease. This is, in fact, justifying the means by pointing to the goal (the ends). Can you explain the distinction between what you’re saying and how I’ve explained it?
That doesn’t have anything to do with the quality of the sources. That’s just disagreeing with my point. But how is imprisoning people for going outside not fascism?
I’m not disagreeing with your sources. I’m disagreeing with you. You’re the one saying these actions are fascist. And I’m telling you it’s not. I suggest you do some actual reading on fascism before sitting there saying that implementing public health measure for a once-in-a-century virus outbreak that’s killed tens of millions is fascism.
You started off by saying my sources are bad, which is, by definition, disagreeing with them. Also, you haven’t explained how imprisoning people for going outside and censoring information isn’t fascist. I’m certain that fascists throughout history have done and defended stuff like this for the exact same reasons you are - “for the greater good,” “for the sake of public health,” etc. Maybe we should throw everyone in prison and never let them speak to each other in-person anymore so communicable diseases like COVID can never spread again, since if you do fascist things because you think you’re right, that makes it not fascism.
The difference is Covid was justified.
So it isn’t fascism when you think it’s justified. Would you say the same thing about genocide or persecuton? How are are you willing to go with the idea that the ends justify the means?
It isn’t fascism when healthcare systems get overwhelmed, an unprecedented level of people are dying, and every expert was advising for the measures that were implemented (and more in a lot of cases). There were reasons these rules were put in place. And it wasn’t for anyone’s ego or political points.
So in other words… The ends justify the means?
No.
Really? That sounds like what you’re saying: it’s acceptable to censor information, criminalize going outsid and not wearing a piece of cloth if it’s for a good cause. Namely, it’s okay to do these things if fewer people die of a disease. This is, in fact, justifying the means by pointing to the goal (the ends). Can you explain the distinction between what you’re saying and how I’ve explained it?