Disabled lives

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
@kimmio I am and always will be on side around bringing awareness to the diabolical nature of legalizing MAid.

Legalizing is never a reflection of a moral standing as much as it is a license to expand parameters to who/what ever the lawmakers deem expendable and I have been aware of that from the get go.

I am not yet deemed 'legally' disabled but, given that I am a proponent of my right as an individual to make my own informed choices, choices that may not always align with the collective, but that inflicts no harm on that collective, seems to have deemed me as societally an easy target for 'legalized' shunning.

At the same time that I resonate with the truth and courage around your own convictions, it is also true that I do not resonate with your penchant for prioritizing your rights to dignity and bodily autonomy as morally superior to anyone else's.

That said, it is very hard to hold a conversation with people that insist on relying on censorship by labels.
 
If one does not stand half-way up for their impressions ... who will?

The Golden Ruel fails in reality ... always the major portion of power, extracting without giving much ... affects all people with great desires and failed medium ... the beam of justice collapses ...
 
Because the sources of much of what you deem information are how you arrived at your conclusions, are supporters of Trump - I can’t agree with you about many of your opinions. I don’t hold them to be fact the way I do the opinions about MAiD. I don’t think you understand that disability rights - a standard to be set by disabled people - is a necessary grounding for resolving the MAiD problem and it’s the experience and history of disabled people that needs to be leading the discussion. Not ‘me’, but listen to what other disability advocates against it are saying. Most of them feel that putting your (you who share your opinion plural) personal autonomy rights above all else during the pandemic of a virus that doesn’t understand autonomy - and giving those same rights to those who weren’t responsible with their actions when they got sick around those who could die from it - put many like them in danger and put them in a forced position to stay out of the way longer to avoid coming into contact with irresponsible people spreading it - and many times they couldn’t if they shared crowded conditions with people who refused to be voluntarily responsible about it. And then they were degraded further by being dismissed as vulnerable - shamed for their lack of natural immunity - rather than people taking greater care so they too could get through it and have an opportunity to live not be sequestered away longer and more stringently to protect themselves from those who didn’t care (“you can ride in the iron lung hitched to the bullet proof vehicle and still go out with us - if you can afford one yourself - but we’re not wearing masks in the car dawg” - essentially). They felt abandoned to isolation (due to a Darwinian notion of the naturally strong as deserving of better quality of life. That’s at the root of much of the disagreement, and at the root of fascism itself). Is there anything else you can feel about that other than indignant?
 
Last edited:
Basically people were asked to share the burden of getting through the pandemic -and disinformation gave those who didn’t care an opportunity to defy that and divide everybody, draw it out and force more rules for the greater good because they wouldn’t do it voluntarily because they were led to believe it wasn’t a dangerous virus - and leave the “weakest” out completely. Thats where we most strongly disagree on that topic.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
Because the sources of much of what you deem information are how you arrived at your conclusions, are supporters of Trump - I can’t agree with you about many of your opinions. I don’t hold them to be fact the way I do the opinions about MAiD. I don’t think you understand that disability rights - a standard to be set by disabled people - is a necessary grounding for resolving the MAiD problem and it’s the experience and history of disabled people that needs to be leading the discussion. Not ‘me’, but listen to what other disability advocates against it are saying. Most of them feel that putting your (you who share your opinion plural) personal autonomy rights above all else during the pandemic of a virus that doesn’t understand autonomy - and giving those same rights to those who weren’t responsible with their actions when they got sick around those who could die from it - put many like them in danger and put them in a forced position to stay out of the way longer to avoid coming into contact with irresponsible people spreading it - and many times they couldn’t if they shared crowded conditions with people who refused to be voluntarily responsible about it. And then they were degraded further by being dismissed as vulnerable - shamed for their lack of natural immunity - rather than people taking greater care so they too could get through it and have an opportunity to live not be sequestered away longer and more stringently to protect themselves from those who didn’t care (“you can ride in the iron lung hitched to the bullet proof vehicle and still go out with us - if you can afford one yourself - but we’re not wearing masks in the car dawg” - essentially). They felt abandoned to isolation (due to a Darwinian notion of the naturally strong as deserving of better quality of life. That’s at the root of much of the disagreement, and at the root of fascism itself). Is there anything else you can feel about that other than indignant?
Click to expand...
I suppose I too am indignant for different reasons. I can see the MAiD trajectory based in actual fact and could all along. It’s not the outcome I wanted or any disabled people who saw it wanted, but I accurately predicted how public attitude was going to go based on how it was legalized and promoted. There’s a historical basis for those fears.
 
Full disclosure - I was a Covid skeptic for a couple of weeks at the beginning of it. I thought the Chinese govt was oppressing their people. I fell for that a little bit at first. But then I saw the devastation hitting - spreading around the world. it was real. I changed my mind. I wanted a vaccine to protect me and others. I hated masks but I wanted to wear one as long as necessary. When the mask restrictions were lifted people where I lived were being harassed on the street for still wearing them.

I wanted my elders and others to be safe, and not to get sick myself. I got sick with a weaker version of the virus. I was okay, it didn’t hit me too bad - that was omicron. I didn’t know anyone personally who died from Covid but I know people who knew several who died from it. More than they knew anyone who died from the flu. People had legitimate fears. And the virus created more long term disability than the vaccine.
 
Last edited:
If one is just infested with the MAGA urge to win does anything else count? Thus losers go down with all the intellect that was wasted!

Prodigal eh ... thus we slip away for the grasp ... of lyres that we elect w/o a clue ... magic chords?

It is all in the silence ... resonating ...
 
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
Because the sources of much of what you deem information are how you arrived at your conclusions, are supporters of Trump - I can’t agree with you about many of your opinions.
Click to expand...
Just goes to show that you base your opinions on TDS instead of doing your own research.

Pharmaceutical companies produce products for mass usage (Trump's OWS) and national health services often design policies at an international level (WHO UN etc.)

Hippocrates proposed that the combatting of disease should involve an individual collaboration between physician and patient.

It is of paramount importance to this NON- PARTISAN to ensure that patients and physicians are allowed to work together to develop personal healthcare pathways individually designed for the circumstances of each patient.

IMO the best antidote to bad ideas is to counter them with better ideas.

Censorship of different scientific opinions does not lead to better scientific opinions.

It leads to weaker scientific conclusions.

During the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2023), governments around the world, (in response to model projections) implemented an unprecedented array of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to control the spread of coronavirus disease 2019.

Efforts to reduce the spread of misinformation during the pandemic meant that differing scientific opinions on each of these aspects inevitably received unequal weighting.

This resulted in adverse impacts for public health, society, and scientific progress.

Based on an international multi-disciplinary collaboration, major problems with many aspects of these COVID-19 policies as they were implemented have been identified.

There is plenty of data and evidence to show that there were significant opportunities for improvement on how the world collectively responded to the COVID-19 pandemic that were systematically censored.

That is my opinion based on my own research.
 
Last edited:
WhyCzar said:
Just goes to show that you base your opinions on TDS instead of doing your own research.

Pharmaceutical companies produce products for mass usage (Trump's OWS) and national health services often design policies at an international level (WHO UN etc.)

Hippocrates proposed that the combatting of disease should involve an individual collaboration between physician and patient.

It is of paramount importance to this NON- PARTISAN to ensure that patients and physicians are allowed to work together to develop personal healthcare pathways individually designed for the circumstances of each patient.

IMO the best antidote to bad ideas is to counter them with better ideas.

Censorship of different scientific opinions does not lead to better scientific opinions.

It leads to weaker scientific conclusions.

During the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2023), governments around the world, (in response to model projections) implemented an unprecedented array of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to control the spread of coronavirus disease 2019.

Efforts to reduce the spread of misinformation during the pandemic meant that differing scientific opinions on each of these aspects inevitably received unequal weighting.

This resulted in adverse impacts for public health, society, and scientific progress.

Based on an international multi-disciplinary collaboration, major problems with many aspects of these COVID-19 policies as they were implemented have been identified.

There is plenty of data and evidence to show that there were significant opportunities for improvement on how the world collectively responded to the COVID-19 pandemic that were systematically censored.

That is my opinion based on my own research.
Click to expand...

Its what greater (gross) leaders do when they do not really know what they are doing ... remember knowledge is dangerous to some processes ...

With enough sway you can indict the jury ... and all goes down the tubes ... the logic behind defeating the foe ...foe being what you didn't like to know ... that you were wrong? Is there a chance? Quanta right ...
 
WhyCzar said:
And MAid assists more legitimate requests for death than illegitimate.
Click to expand...

But what do you do with the illegitimate skews? Forget them ... lest we forget?

Nah! just do not consider it what so ever ... be freely juici 'd ...

Might as well as so many follow there partisans blindly ... one could get shot in a Spanish Forest ... then you'd never know the end ...
 
I’m not agreeing with you I’m just tired of arguing with you Rita. It’s a waste of time. And this thread wasn’t about Covid but you should know that many disabled people died due to lack of care around their vulnerabilities and hostility toward Covid protocols that would’ve kept them safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top