Bias_2012 wrote on Oct 10
th, 2021 at 10:40am:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 9
th, 2021 at 5:43pm:
Bias_2012 wrote on Oct 9
th, 2021 at 4:49pm:
There would be records of the Spanish Flu and other virus's etc since then that they could have referred to. It's not as if it hasn't happened before. So "instinctive" shouldn't really come into it, they could act according to the information that's already available to them
Where politicians do use instinct, is when dealing with the community in a time such as this. It's a type of "panic" that governs their thoughts, and it manifests in irrationality of behavior, sending cops out to bang heads on concrete floors for example. Letting infected foreigners fly in, another irrational response
There's not many calm and collected heads out there, just panicking fools with jurassic instinct tendencies - "kill or be killed" - "Get him before he gets us" ... this type of idiocy
Records of the Spanish Flu? Yes... And much of what they did then, was done with this pandemic... Before that there was the outbreak of the plague in Sydney where extreme measures were taken to exterminate it.
Throughout history, the response always has been the same: to ostracise the sick and insulate the healthy from the sick, with harsh (lethal even) measures to deal with the sick who attempted to co-mingle with the healthy. During the black death, villages that were spared the plague would threaten to kill strangers who attempted to enter the village and often they did.
The instinctive pathogenic response is to recoil from the source (or the perceived source) of the pathogen. It's not a rational response, but it is a human one and the methods by which we use to protect the healthy from the sick are the same as they have been throughout history and will continue into the future; for the rest of human existence.
That's right, and the first instinctive reaction of the Libs and Labs is still to "counter-attack" and "take revenge", even now, moving into the 21st Century, They always employ those instinctive attitudes against constituents they don't like. The people they don't like are those that don't immediately do as they're told. The politicians have turned Covid into a war-zone ... there's an enemy, and the enemy is not Covid any longer, it's dreaded "resistance insurgents" ... they've even got the Police thinking that way
The Libs and Labs sure know how to create disharmony when they feel like doing it ...... then later they'll say their usual "We need harmony in our society" .... they are nothing more than jurassic instinctive manipulators - way past their use-by date. Just lately we often hear people say they are sick and tired of them
It wouldn't matter who was in power (even if it were the Greens or any party), the human response would be the same.
In humans, the primal, instinctive pathogenic response is also co-opted as the mechanism by which we respond to moral disgust. We recoil from those who transgress collective or personal morality in the same way we recoil from pathogens, which means our primary response to evidence of contagious sickness usually triggers both. In short, the sick can disgust us in two ways.
The suppression of moral disgust to sickness has only been possible in the modern era (over the last, say, 150 years) because advances in science has taught us that sickness is not the result of god's (or a higher metaphysical power's) moral displeasure.
Yet, while, as humans, our higher facultires can suppress this response, they will still be triggered when we see / comprehend physical sickness, moral transgressions or the sight of sickness triggering both; varying in intensity from aversion to revulsion.
If you imagine that the response to this virus is significant, imagine if it had a 30%+ death rate. In that circumstance it would not be an exaggeration to suggest that those who were sick, and who attempted to infiltrate healthy communities, would be shot dead on sight.
Forum
Pages: 
Discrimination with unvaccinated people (Read 8580 times)
