Governing by fear.

Copied this from a “Letter to the Editor” in our local newspaper.

Our founders observed that patience and deference to government are afforded in amazingly great supply by the governed; that people have a capacity to endure — even with a charitable countenance — the decisions made by our empowered leaders.

I do not know when limits are reached, but it seems to me that by now personal savings and resources are close to exhaustion. Private property in all its forms, as a key element of the pursuit of happiness, is in grave danger for a great many of our fellow citizens; and the continued government largesse that mortgages the future is unwise.

Franklin D. Roosevelt said that fear is “a nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” This is a simple, profound truth.

Let’s find better motivations than fear to drive thoughtful governance that accepts the presence of risk and the capacity of the people to mitigate it.

Fear is a strong emotion. Strong emotion bypasses the reasoning process, making the masses much more easily manipulable.

Women are more susceptible to manipulation by emotion, which explains this:

Is there anything more stupid and unreasoning than an “educated” millennial white woman?

Seattle is paying an ex pimp $150,000 a year to replace the police…

Reach back like a pimp and slap a hoe, #metoo

Cancel culture will never go after all the sexist shit in gangsta rap… Baby its Cold Outside on the other hand…

Dont blame women… blame the propaganda…

You answer that question every time you open your mouth.

Stupid wimenz…

Fortunately there is still a strong man around to keep things from getting out of hand. These women don’t know how lucky they are to have Putin around to look after them, and prevent them from being lead astray by foreign agitators who are the real source of these protests.

The findings revealed the two brain regions, the lateral orbitofrontal cortex and the posterior cingulate cortex, were thinner in women who were on the pill compared with women in the other group. However, this does not suggest changes in cortex thickness are reflected in any actual changes in the behavior of women who take the pill. Moreover, the study does not prove taking birth control causes the thinning of the cortex.

The researchers affirm it is unknown whether the cortex would become thicker again if the women on birth control stopped taking the pill or whether it would remain the same. “Maybe you go off the pill and it persists for a week, and, by week two it is back to normal,” Petersen said, reported.

This study contradicts the results of a 2010 study published in the journal Brain Research , which found women on the pill showed larger gray matter volumes in the prefrontal cortex, pre- and postcentral gyri, the parahippocampal and fusiform gyri and temporal regions, compared to their non-pill counterparts. It was not determined whether increased gray matter translated into enhanced performance. Similar to the recent study, the findings remain inconclusive and warrant further research.

Science schmience. The point is that stupid wimenz and so called “scientists” need to come to terms with the folly of taking control of their reproductive system, and need to go back to living as god intended, pregnant and in the kitchen.

Thats a jump… maybe just pulling out is better than the pill? Have you been with a woman who got on the pill? You notice a difference?

But hey… one scientist says one thing and the other says something different… brain damage is a risk youd take with your daughter i guess…

I wonder whos got more skin in the game… the people making $$$$ selling pills… or the people ‘living as god intended’… i wonder which ‘science’ would be lying…

Hey… maybe you should get on the pill… just in case you decide you want to get a sex change down the line…

Dumb pill on the pill, that’s great.

Hey dummy, here’s some more science for you to deny:

Well, to my untrained eye, that doesn’t seem to be practical, but if it can be shown to work, then that’s a bonus. Where I’m doubtful is about exactly how much UV radiation it would take to do the job, and what can be practically done with the robot depicted, without needing to clear the area first so that people don’t get harmed by the UV.

Something seems to me to be wrong about this story, but if it does actually work, then hey, great! Looks to me more like a tech hype investment play. But, again, I’ll be happy to be proved wrong if it really does something useful.

You have a case actually. I just took a look on the webz and saw how many articles are saying UV light isn’t really effective in killing germs, and especially against THIS virus.

OTOH, UV is extremely dangerous for humans, so don’t go outside where the vitamin D might get ya. NTM the dangerously appealing look.

There’s credible claims that UV kills such viruses -

Left alone, most viruses die of something within the space of a few days when on surfaces and even faster if airborne, right? Does light perhaps dehydrate them or something?

Oh FFS. It’s not about whether or not UV radiation can kill stuff. UV in enough quantity for enough time can kill just about anything. It’s about whether or not a robot with a UV light trundling around the place can direct enough UV light on to the surfaces that matter the most, without burning people’s skin, or damaging their eyes, and actually achieve something useful.

If there’s not much or no direct natural sunlight in that train station then why wouldn’t a machine that replicates similar amounts of UV as moderate sunlight be beneficial?

His original argument was concerning a girl on a beach and how authorities were right to take her down because she wasn’t distanced enough floating in the ocean and UV light was irrelevant. But NOW UV light’s effectiveness is a given and it’s about a robot.

I win again.

1 Like


She was arrested for not isolating. Going to the beach doesn’t mean that you can’t infect other people because there happens to be UV light outside. UV light isn’t irrelevant, but it isn’t a magical force field.

It’s a dumbass argument to claim that because UV kills stuff, an infected person therefore is no risk to anyone else.

That would be a dumb argument. Therefore I argue the risk is not nil, but infinitesimally small.

Then I’m sure you’ll be able to back that up with some solid reasoning and data.

Have at it, as best you’re able. Lay it all out, covering all angles, including those that aren’t exposed to half an hour of natural UV, and how important that is for someone who was supposed to be isolating, but went to the beach. Cause we all know that if you’re being hit with UV light, then it doesn’t matter how you got there or how you were going to get back home, or whether or not the UV would prevent droplets from transmitting it to someone else.

infinitesimally small.

Yeah, that’s why it spread so slowly…

Perhaps you can quote me saying something that would be inconsistent with the logic I’ve presented?

Yes it does. There’s a reason why contact tracing is a measure of time + proximity. Prolonged exposure indoors and exposure to infected surfaces is the risk for getting upper respiratory tracts infections. Surfaces are sterilized at sunny beaches and there’s no indoors.

This is all just that Fahrenheit 911 stuff where paratroopers would swoop into random towns in the middle of nowhere in the USA to ramp up the feeling of everybody being in some kind of war so that people get on board with all the planned changes. Do you not admit that you could be getting massively duped by all of this?

How did you get to the beach? How quickly are the surfaces exposed to sunlight sterilized? No indoors? Because you aren’t ever indoors if you’re going to and from the beach? Does the UV instantly kill the virus in the air if you’re exhaling in public on the beach?

Are you really unaware of how stupid what you just said would sound to an un-motivated observer?

You literally just said that going to the beach means that you can’t infect other people.

Are you really going to choose that as the hill you want to die on?

Drumshill likes this type of thread. Something he can get his teeth into. Munch munch

I get to the beach by car, we pay parking via an app. Are you saying the virus is airborne and that masks don’t work?

So that means that anyone who goes to the beach is unable to infect someone else?

Do I really have to point out the glaring holes in your logic and reasoning?

You literally just said that going to the beach means that you can’t infect someone else.