Greg Rolfe

2 months ago · 1 min. reading time · visibility ~100 ·

chat Contact the author

thumb_up Relevant message Comment

Rights, opinions, and perspective

A growing debate that is being bantered around is to what degree are you permitted to have differing opinions before they become public concerns. This debate is sometimes subtle while other times far from subtle. The discussion doesn't just surround the receiving or not of the vaccine but is caring into more than a few other areas. Other areas include of concern include your definition of marriage and perspective of race theory.

Now while it is true that many people hold a variety of beliefs some of which you would agree with while others you might look at with frustration. But at what point do we decide that it has become a public concern and need to remove their right to hold or at least speak about their belief?

When censorship of speech is permitted it is very easy to move into censorship of rights. Which is the exact issue being debated. The conversation that is growing is do you have the right to not take the Covid 19 shot? Is your choice endangering the nation and in fact the world? I find this discussion interesting and more than a little irritating as those presenting the debate are very careful to ignore medical science and only present what appear to be very specific statistics.

At what point are we simply going to say if you do not agree with the current perceived political agenda you are not allowed to speak or in fact act? We are entering into some very dangerous social discussions which are not being based on or discussed by serious people. For many, it is easy to ignore the issues they see around them as they seem to not affect them. But while at this moment you might agree with the social-political trend, history clearly teaches that it won't be very long before you no longer do.

rAtuo.jpeg

I am not saying that you should be scared, I am saying it is time to be serious in your conversations and honest in your answers. Because tomorrow you might no longer be able to.

Blessings

thumb_up Relevant message Comment
Comments

Fay Vietmeier

2 months ago #18

❤️#17

@Lada 🏡 Prkic 

Thank you Lada .. I appreciate always your thoughtful responses.

 

You point out two key things that can be both friend & foe  

What compass to examine those cognitive biases .. so that truth we can know?

 

We all are under the influence of cognitive biases. 

Many times, they make us believe that our truth is the only truth. 

 

There is truth

&

There is Truth ❤️

 

There are many truths 

There is only one Truth ❤️

Lada 🏡 Prkic

2 months ago #17

Greg Rolfe

2 months ago #16

Lada 🏡 Prkic

2 months ago #15

Lada 🏡 Prkic

2 months ago #14

Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

2 months ago #13

Fay Vietmeier

2 months ago #12

@Lada 🏡 Prkic 

 

From what you write and share you are a “reasonable” person .. 

“reasonable people can change their opinion when faced with contradictory evidence and logical arguments” 

 

I'm always seeking truth .. compelling evidence .. not the pabulum too often fed as why we should think or act a certain way

 

Truth is often disguised as “contradictory evidence”

Which reminds me of this quote:

Do you really want the truth .. or is your mind already made up?

Fay Vietmeier

2 months ago #11

@Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris 

how insight-full .. 

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire. 

I wonder if those people in charge of the expression regulations we see today are even aware of that revolutionary French philosopher (or any other noteworthy philosopher for that matter

 

 

Aware?

Not likely 

.. they are too busy on social media 

.. too busy being entertained 

.. too busy with affections 

.. too busy erasing history 

.. too busy watching TV

 

B - being 

U - under 

S - Satan's

Y - yoke 

 

 

 


 

Fay Vietmeier

2 months ago #10

@Jim Murray 

Good day Jim .. I hope you will receive what I say in the spirit it is written 

.. from my heart to yours.

 

You say:

The question then becomes who controls the information flow. I believe that the people who have been censored or removed from the main social media platforms have only been removed because they are basically spouting lies. These sites took their time removing these people, because they needed to have a sufficient amount of proof, before they acted.

But in my opinion they did the right thing.”

 

In my opinion .. they did the WRONG thing 

I do not need some social media platform to define for me who is a LIAR .. or to help me identify the LIES being “spouted” 

I have the right to think & to speak .. thanks to the wisdom & the sacrifice of those who made it possible 

I have the ability to form my own opinions 

Much aided by the provision of Wisdom from God .. which brings discernment 

Not everyone will agree .. but the right to believe in God is as PRECIOUS & PRICELSS as the right to speak 

.. each heart decides .. 

.. here destiny rides ..

Believers are receivers .. not everyone wants to receive His gift of Grace.

 

ALL people should have the “right” to think & to speak - though that is NOT true in many places on the planet

There are always CORRUPT governments .. who seek to CORRUPT  & CONTROL those they govern

.. to CENSOR and manipulate for power 

History is RICH with lessons .. until it is erased & rewritten by the next AGENDA .. utopias are of man .. fraught with the brokenness that ever has plagued humanity  

 

“Submitting to censorship is to enter the seductive world of The Giver .. A utopian world where there are no bad words and no bad deeds” .. Just compliant people .. schooled in SAMENESS .. “it is also the world where choice has been taken away and reality distorted. And that is the most dangerous world of all.” ~ Lois Lowry

https://us.bebee.com/producer/stay-asleep-sweet-sheep

 

As to “sufficient proof” .. REALLY?
That is subjective & terrifying .. 

Greg Rolfe

2 months ago #9

#6 Lada your very accurate statement is appreciated!  I was also informed that fetal tissue was used in the vaccine, but with further research, you find it in the list of ingredients, but I do not believe that it can be fresh.  In fact, I had the impression that it was only used in the original research.  Was that accurate?  Though you do have one possible error in your statement.  The vaccinated are used to protect the unvaccinated not the other way around.  Or at least that is what we were taught then I was involved in their distribution in South America.  I only began hearing the alternate usage a couple of years ago.  I find that an interesting change since I do have an idea of how they work.  But as I say my Ph.D. is still in the mail, the will send it as soon as I earn it.  Have an amazing and enjoyable day.

Greg Rolfe

2 months ago #8

Greg Rolfe

2 months ago #7

Lada 🏡 Prkic

2 months ago #6

Freedom of speech or freedom of expression is a very sensitive issue, especially for Americans. I learned it throughout the years being on social media. I avoid any argumentation with a person who forms a strong opinion about something he/she doesn't understand but is convinced that he/she is entitled to their own opinion. I always say - to each their own. :)
Greg, I consider you one of the few people on social media who welcome discussions with those who have contrary opinions to theirs and always do that in a civilized manner. 
Your post actually questions do we have the right not to take the COVID-19 vaccine. You also asked at what point one's opinion became a public concern. 
I would ask another question, what about parents who decide not to vaccinate their children against measles, even if it may create health risks for other children and adults. To me, it is an example of having an opinion that may become a public health risk. We all want the best for our children, and that's why we have to educate ourselves about both the benefits and risks associated with vaccines (and I don't mean education by social media). 
We discussed the value of misinformed opinions shared on social media in one of my latest posts. As I said then, I don't have a problem with ignorant opinions if people behind those opinions are reasonable because reasonable people can change their opinion when faced with contradictory evidence and logical arguments. 
I asked one of my closest friends, who is a very religious person, why she refuses the Covid vaccine. She repeated what I already heard and read on social media that those vaccines were developed using fresh fetal tissue. It is also what she has heard from the preacher, from the pulpit. 
She believes in it because it was said by the authority she trusts. I asked her to do some research and check the real facts instead of blindly accepting someone’s words. Hoping she will do that, although I’m not quite convinced. 
The worst kind of ignorance is willful ignorance or being ignorant by choice.

Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

2 months ago #5

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire. I wonder if those people in charge of the expression regulations we see today are even aware of that revolutionary French philosopher (or any other noteworthy philosopher for that matter)…

Ken Boddie

2 months ago #4

Ken Boddie

2 months ago #3

I must admit, Greg, that I can get as hot under the collar as anyone else when I find those who have a contrary opinion to mine deliberately distorting or misrepresenting clear scientific evidence for their own purposes (often with the objective of monetary gain. I feel, however, that they should be free to express their views in public, as long as such expression is peacefu, non-disruptive, and does not result in serious harm to humanity and society. As long as we are all free to have open and constructive debate in public arenas, I still have faith that commonsense will prevail within majority opinion. When we, as society, fail to understand and appreciate the importance of free and open debate, fail to scrutinise the facts, and would rather rely on the distorted self serving and biased opinions of others, then we no longer deserve to live in a democratic society and must inevitably be dictated to by the loudest voice. 

Greg Rolfe

2 months ago #2

Jim Murray

2 months ago #1

You're making a good point that has been made quite a bit during these last few years. But I think that the basic principle of freedom of speech was to offer up different points of view that would form the basis for debate or discussion. I believe that this principle is valid, but that it has morphed into a state where freedom to distort or falsify  the truth has become and accepted part of this freedom of speech. I would vehemently argue that it is not. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has everything to do with brainwashing for the sake of gaining control over what people think. The question then becomes who controls the information flow. I believe that the people who have been censored or removed from the main social media platforms have only been removed because they are basically spouting lies. These sites took their time removing these people, because they needed to have a sufficient amount of proof, before they acted. But in my opinion they did the right thing. They did it for a lot of reasons. But I believe part of their intention was to remove any responsibility for acts of violence or civil disobedience that happened and could be traced back to things people saw on those sites. They were right to protect themselves. And I believe they were also right in that they minimized the amount of lies that were coming at people who simply did not have the intellect to discern fact from fiction. Sometimes censorship has a positive aspect.

More articles from Greg Rolfe

View blog
1 week ago · 1 min. reading time

Peering through the glass

Peering through the glass · As I sit staring at my ...

3 weeks ago · 1 min. reading time

Saying hello

Hello and welcome to today's post on various and h ...

1 month ago · 1 min. reading time

The wisdom that comes from attending a funeral

Yesterday I attended the third funeral in under tw ...