How can discussions be held, without degrading them into spitball fights?
Isn't it worthwhile to remove emotion, and look at all perspectives, neutrally? Each perspective, including this one, is a fragment of the whole. If I want a 360 degree view, I must let go of defenses and my position, and consider all viewpoints, without judgment or pre-conception. Differing perspectives on masks, and other controversial subjects, can easily grow into arguments without winners. To be clear, I wear a mask in public while questioning their overall benefit and the motives behind government directives. If nothing else, my mask-wearing calms those who see it as a public duty. I understand, from a speech by the California governor some months ago, that the claimed purpose of the mask is more about blocking one's own coughs and sneezes, than about inhaling micro-organisms. It is about protecting others more than protecting oneself. I would not suggest to anyone, or even imply, that masks are a bad idea, as that would be socially irresponsible. I'd like to believe that each person can make their own choices, but not all can think for themselves. Yet, if all perspectives are partial and incomplete, who is to say the responsibility is all upon the writer to present every angle? When a person expresses their view, so long as it is not done to deliberately deceive, shouldn't it be upon the reader to discern, do their own research, and contribute to a more rounded perspective for all -- without attacking the writer? That to me would be a civil and intelligent way to interact between us. We have not yet seen the drama of 2020 to its final scene, and surprises may still lurk behind the curtains. News that a global vaccine is ready to be distributed alerts me, but this time I keep my feelings to myself. Those who stand with the system may accept the vaccine. Those who think there is more to what is happening than can be easily seen, may refuse. Each person to their perspective, and in the end it doesn't matter. If there are conspirators, they must love all the hoaxers and de-bunkers, as it provides such a nice diversion of confusion. And they don't have to do anything, the people do it for them. When I read articles on the vaccine presented by supporters, I can see that perspective and its sense of validity. Maybe it is straightforward and a beneficial course of action. When I read articles about the eugenics history of the Gates family, and the conclusions of those who think they see his agenda, I can see that perspective and its sense of validity. Maybe there is something to it, maybe not. Earlier, I felt strongly a need to know the truth, to get to the bottom of mysteries like this. Now, when I can relax, I really don't need to know. I have not formed a conclusion about the vaccines, and trust that I will know what I need to know, in the moment. Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011-2020 The Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) ― endorsed by the 194 Member States of the World Health Assembly in May 2012 ― is a framework to prevent millions of deaths by 2020 through more equitable access to existing vaccines for people in all communities. GVAP was the product of the DoV Collaboration, an unprecedented effort that brought together development, health and immunization experts and stakeholders. The leadership of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI Alliance, UNICEF, United States National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases and WHO, along with all partners – governments and elected officials, health professionals, academia, manufacturers, global agencies, development partners, civil society, media and the private sector – are committed to achieving the ambitious goals of the GVAP. Many more are expected to add their support in the future as the plan is translated and implemented at the country and regional levels. ORIGINAL ARTICLE W.H.O. EUGENICS TECH WARS
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
November 2023
|