1 thought on “BC to Join Quebec in Unconstitutionally Discriminating Against Unvaccinated by Denying Non-Essential Businesses”
JPB
Hang on. The government has no authority to categorize what is and is not essential. There is no such authority in our form of governance whereby a government authority, elected or not, may intrude into our lives to dictate what is and is not essential to our lives. ZERO.
This easy to demonstrate. How does the asserted authority define essential without blatant contradictions? When the attempt is made by providing a list, the question remains. Now, once that list is produced, in lieu of an actual answer to the question asked, draw from that list its many contradictions and then apply the supposed criteria to the claim that getting the shot is essential. Their position crumbles.
I propose that readers take the time to think through this questioning of what is and is not essential. This is about the essence of a thing, without which that thing could not exist. However, let the authorities attempt to define what is essential and let them carry the onus entirely for the criteria they set forth. It is their initiative to justify.
After you have thought it through, playing devil’s advocate to some extent, then test this questioning on someone who is an implementor of the policy. Test it on those who agree with the policy. Test it against how policies like it have been played out in the real world.
Now you are ready to use their own assertions, their own lists, their own words, their own criteria to test everything else they say about these shots being ‘essential’. Calmly let them chase their own tails and, hopefully, make it clear how foolish this all is. It can stun some into neutrality. It can prod some into all out warfare against innocent people. It can crack the program wide open for all to witness. Remember that usually this sort of process of questioning is lost on the poor soul being questioned; the real audience is those who are watching, listening, keen on making sense of this nonsense. They who witness the cracking will feel forewarned and forearmed.
But this challenging by questioning often gets rebuked as nitpicking. The impatient imposer of what is ‘essential’ shows, by that impatience, the utter weakness of the mind, the heart, the spine of the petty tyrant. As always, be wary of the rage of the tyrants. But be not afraid to make your stand for truth.
Hang on. The government has no authority to categorize what is and is not essential. There is no such authority in our form of governance whereby a government authority, elected or not, may intrude into our lives to dictate what is and is not essential to our lives. ZERO.
This easy to demonstrate. How does the asserted authority define essential without blatant contradictions? When the attempt is made by providing a list, the question remains. Now, once that list is produced, in lieu of an actual answer to the question asked, draw from that list its many contradictions and then apply the supposed criteria to the claim that getting the shot is essential. Their position crumbles.
I propose that readers take the time to think through this questioning of what is and is not essential. This is about the essence of a thing, without which that thing could not exist. However, let the authorities attempt to define what is essential and let them carry the onus entirely for the criteria they set forth. It is their initiative to justify.
After you have thought it through, playing devil’s advocate to some extent, then test this questioning on someone who is an implementor of the policy. Test it on those who agree with the policy. Test it against how policies like it have been played out in the real world.
Now you are ready to use their own assertions, their own lists, their own words, their own criteria to test everything else they say about these shots being ‘essential’. Calmly let them chase their own tails and, hopefully, make it clear how foolish this all is. It can stun some into neutrality. It can prod some into all out warfare against innocent people. It can crack the program wide open for all to witness. Remember that usually this sort of process of questioning is lost on the poor soul being questioned; the real audience is those who are watching, listening, keen on making sense of this nonsense. They who witness the cracking will feel forewarned and forearmed.
But this challenging by questioning often gets rebuked as nitpicking. The impatient imposer of what is ‘essential’ shows, by that impatience, the utter weakness of the mind, the heart, the spine of the petty tyrant. As always, be wary of the rage of the tyrants. But be not afraid to make your stand for truth.
Cheers.