Don’t worry bro. If something bad does happen you can rest assured that it was completely the fault of the last doctor to touch them. Nothing before it matters.
Just spent 30 min ranting at my wife about the 9/11 firefighters. They are to blame for 3000 American deaths.
I can believe it. Maybe not the part about you having a wife, but the other stuff.
You should spend some time reflecting on the meaning of Nietzsche’s quote that you bumbled. It fits you well.
Antivaxxers like you have killed 400k+ Americans
If I don’t live in the US, did I still kill all those Americans? If I’m not an anti-vaxxer, am I still responsible?
Now back to Nietzsche since you sort of brought him up with your attempt to sound intelligent, but ended up butchering the quote…
From a Nietzschean lens, those who advocate for universal vaccine mandates might embody a certain embrace of the "herd instinct" Nietzsche so often critiqued. This group might place the collective health and well-being of society above individual autonomy, which Nietzsche could interpret as prioritizing societal conformity over personal will. To him, this could risk suppressing the individual’s ability to rise above mass morality and cultivate their own path.
That said, Nietzsche wasn’t necessarily an opponent of all collective action or rules, especially when they serve to challenge stagnation and foster progress. He might, ironically, appreciate the mandate proponents’ boldness in standing firm for their interpretation of justice. In their insistence on scientific and ethical imperatives for the greater good, they could be seen as attempting to transcend chaos and disorder, albeit through a highly structured, top-down approach.
But Nietzsche might still question whether mandating vaccines represents a true overcoming of humanity’s limitations—or simply a convenient way of maintaining order. He might provoke them to reflect: Are they imposing these rules as an act of authentic will to power, aiming for a healthier world? Or does this reflect fear—of disease, dissent, or the vulnerability of their worldview? Nietzsche would likely urge them to examine their motives deeply, as true strength lies in self-awareness and growth beyond fear.
The tension between individual freedom and collective responsibility is a challenging balance. Do you think Nietzsche would side with either perspective fully, or would he critique both as being stuck in their own versions of "herd morality"?
Heath and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. praised Novak Djokovic in a social media post on Sunday. He called the tennis star "first in courage."
If I don’t live in the US, did I still kill all those Americans? If I’m not an anti-vaxxer, am I still responsible?
Now back to Nietzsche since you sort of brought him up with your attempt to sound intelligent, but ended up butchering the quote…
From a Nietzschean lens, those who advocate for universal vaccine mandates might embody a certain embrace of the "herd instinct" Nietzsche so often critiqued. This group might place the collective health and well-being of society above individual autonomy, which Nietzsche could interpret as prioritizing societal conformity over personal will. To him, this could risk suppressing the individual’s ability to rise above mass morality and cultivate their own path.
That said, Nietzsche wasn’t necessarily an opponent of all collective action or rules, especially when they serve to challenge stagnation and foster progress. He might, ironically, appreciate the mandate proponents’ boldness in standing firm for their interpretation of justice. In their insistence on scientific and ethical imperatives for the greater good, they could be seen as attempting to transcend chaos and disorder, albeit through a highly structured, top-down approach.
But Nietzsche might still question whether mandating vaccines represents a true overcoming of humanity’s limitations—or simply a convenient way of maintaining order. He might provoke them to reflect: Are they imposing these rules as an act of authentic will to power, aiming for a healthier world? Or does this reflect fear—of disease, dissent, or the vulnerability of their worldview? Nietzsche would likely urge them to examine their motives deeply, as true strength lies in self-awareness and growth beyond fear.
The tension between individual freedom and collective responsibility is a challenging balance. Do you think Nietzsche would side with either perspective fully, or would he critique both as being stuck in their own versions of "herd morality"?
Absolutely you did kill them if you spread antivaxx propaganda - which I’ve seen you do.
Nietzsche would think you’re bad for killing people.
This post was edited 58 seconds after it was posted.
If I don’t live in the US, did I still kill all those Americans? If I’m not an anti-vaxxer, am I still responsible?
Now back to Nietzsche since you sort of brought him up with your attempt to sound intelligent, but ended up butchering the quote…
From a Nietzschean lens, those who advocate for universal vaccine mandates might embody a certain embrace of the "herd instinct" Nietzsche so often critiqued. This group might place the collective health and well-being of society above individual autonomy, which Nietzsche could interpret as prioritizing societal conformity over personal will. To him, this could risk suppressing the individual’s ability to rise above mass morality and cultivate their own path.
That said, Nietzsche wasn’t necessarily an opponent of all collective action or rules, especially when they serve to challenge stagnation and foster progress. He might, ironically, appreciate the mandate proponents’ boldness in standing firm for their interpretation of justice. In their insistence on scientific and ethical imperatives for the greater good, they could be seen as attempting to transcend chaos and disorder, albeit through a highly structured, top-down approach.
But Nietzsche might still question whether mandating vaccines represents a true overcoming of humanity’s limitations—or simply a convenient way of maintaining order. He might provoke them to reflect: Are they imposing these rules as an act of authentic will to power, aiming for a healthier world? Or does this reflect fear—of disease, dissent, or the vulnerability of their worldview? Nietzsche would likely urge them to examine their motives deeply, as true strength lies in self-awareness and growth beyond fear.
The tension between individual freedom and collective responsibility is a challenging balance. Do you think Nietzsche would side with either perspective fully, or would he critique both as being stuck in their own versions of "herd morality"?
Absolutely you did kill them if you spread antivaxx propaganda - which I’ve seen you do.
Nietzsche would think you’re bad for killing people.
You saw me do it?
At this point it’s safe to say that our dear friend Harambe has gone off the rails. He’s now ranting about running over babies, being addicted to porn, berating his wife about his 9/11 truther beliefs and fabricating things about other posters. Is it long covid or mental illness? Who’s to tell. Thoughts and prayers though.
If I don’t live in the US, did I still kill all those Americans? If I’m not an anti-vaxxer, am I still responsible?
Now back to Nietzsche since you sort of brought him up with your attempt to sound intelligent, but ended up butchering the quote…
From a Nietzschean lens, those who advocate for universal vaccine mandates might embody a certain embrace of the "herd instinct" Nietzsche so often critiqued. This group might place the collective health and well-being of society above individual autonomy, which Nietzsche could interpret as prioritizing societal conformity over personal will. To him, this could risk suppressing the individual’s ability to rise above mass morality and cultivate their own path.
That said, Nietzsche wasn’t necessarily an opponent of all collective action or rules, especially when they serve to challenge stagnation and foster progress. He might, ironically, appreciate the mandate proponents’ boldness in standing firm for their interpretation of justice. In their insistence on scientific and ethical imperatives for the greater good, they could be seen as attempting to transcend chaos and disorder, albeit through a highly structured, top-down approach.
But Nietzsche might still question whether mandating vaccines represents a true overcoming of humanity’s limitations—or simply a convenient way of maintaining order. He might provoke them to reflect: Are they imposing these rules as an act of authentic will to power, aiming for a healthier world? Or does this reflect fear—of disease, dissent, or the vulnerability of their worldview? Nietzsche would likely urge them to examine their motives deeply, as true strength lies in self-awareness and growth beyond fear.
The tension between individual freedom and collective responsibility is a challenging balance. Do you think Nietzsche would side with either perspective fully, or would he critique both as being stuck in their own versions of "herd morality"?
Actually a really great and apt post that elicited a completely inane response from the guy who mischaracterized the quote to begin with. Harambe is the monster he thinks he’s fighting. He’s a cancer cell that has metastasized and he’s starving for sugar and will not stop until he ruins everything in his path, including himself. That’s what narcissists do.
Absolutely you did kill them if you spread antivaxx propaganda - which I’ve seen you do.
Nietzsche would think you’re bad for killing people.
You saw me do it?
At this point it’s safe to say that our dear friend Harambe has gone off the rails. He’s now ranting about running over babies, being addicted to porn, berating his wife about his 9/11 truther beliefs and fabricating things about other posters. Is it long covid or mental illness? Who’s to tell. Thoughts and prayers though.
I’ve seen you spread baseless antivaxx propaganda.
Recent estimates show 400k Americans dead from COVID who could have been saved by the vaccine.
They chose not to get vaccinated because the firestorm of antivaxx propaganda convinced them not to. You were part of that, so you bear responsibility!
If I don’t live in the US, did I still kill all those Americans? If I’m not an anti-vaxxer, am I still responsible?
Now back to Nietzsche since you sort of brought him up with your attempt to sound intelligent, but ended up butchering the quote…
From a Nietzschean lens, those who advocate for universal vaccine mandates might embody a certain embrace of the "herd instinct" Nietzsche so often critiqued. This group might place the collective health and well-being of society above individual autonomy, which Nietzsche could interpret as prioritizing societal conformity over personal will. To him, this could risk suppressing the individual’s ability to rise above mass morality and cultivate their own path.
That said, Nietzsche wasn’t necessarily an opponent of all collective action or rules, especially when they serve to challenge stagnation and foster progress. He might, ironically, appreciate the mandate proponents’ boldness in standing firm for their interpretation of justice. In their insistence on scientific and ethical imperatives for the greater good, they could be seen as attempting to transcend chaos and disorder, albeit through a highly structured, top-down approach.
But Nietzsche might still question whether mandating vaccines represents a true overcoming of humanity’s limitations—or simply a convenient way of maintaining order. He might provoke them to reflect: Are they imposing these rules as an act of authentic will to power, aiming for a healthier world? Or does this reflect fear—of disease, dissent, or the vulnerability of their worldview? Nietzsche would likely urge them to examine their motives deeply, as true strength lies in self-awareness and growth beyond fear.
The tension between individual freedom and collective responsibility is a challenging balance. Do you think Nietzsche would side with either perspective fully, or would he critique both as being stuck in their own versions of "herd morality"?
Actually a really great and apt post that elicited a completely inane response from the guy who mischaracterized the quote to begin with. Harambe is the monster he thinks he’s fighting. He’s a cancer cell that has metastasized and he’s starving for sugar and will not stop until he ruins everything in his path, including himself. That’s what narcissists do.
You guys continue to spread antivaxx propaganda tirelessly. Sub 9 is defending antivaxx parents who killed their daughter — focusing instead on the hospital who tried and failed to undo their murderous intent.
400k dead Americans and you guys just glaze each others novel-length propaganda daily.
Remember the title of this thread. You helped kill moms and dads, shattered families, and struck down people in the prime of their life. Sub9 is on the record saying young healthy people didn’t need the vaccine. That was deadly and wrong and they won’t stop saying it.
You both revel in the deaths of the unvaccinated. It’s proof your propaganda is working.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Actually a really great and apt post that elicited a completely inane response from the guy who mischaracterized the quote to begin with. Harambe is the monster he thinks he’s fighting. He’s a cancer cell that has metastasized and he’s starving for sugar and will not stop until he ruins everything in his path, including himself. That’s what narcissists do.
You guys continue to spread antivaxx propaganda tirelessly. Sub 9 is defending antivaxx parents who killed their daughter — focusing instead on the hospital who tried and failed to undo their murderous intent.
You both revel in the deaths of the unvaccinated. It’s proof your propaganda is working.
Untrue. Completely baseless lie. Not defending the parents whatsoever. You know this of course, speaking of propaganda.
And nobody is reveling in anybody’s death no matter how many times you assert it. All any of us said from the very beginning is that natural immunity to COVID is just as effective as vaccine-induced immunity, once obtained (note the key caveat) and you should not coerce anyone to get a novel mRNA fragment in a lipid nanoparticle coat vaccine that can deliver the payload anywhere in the body. A stance ultimately backed up by the former head of the CDC DURING Covid. The coercion, ostracization, and media censorship was the problem.
Certainly, the highest risk groups as defined by the CDC should’ve been vaccinated from the jump. How many people did we kill with a nephro- and hepatotoxic antiviral, which causes pulmonary edema, followed by a ventilator? You were on board with all the dogma. You murdered hundreds of thousands of people with your dumb institutionalized orthodoxy, did you not?
Do you ever get sick of hearing yourself and not realizing that the abyss is staring right back at you and engulfing you?
You guys continue to spread antivaxx propaganda tirelessly. Sub 9 is defending antivaxx parents who killed their daughter — focusing instead on the hospital who tried and failed to undo their murderous intent.
You both revel in the deaths of the unvaccinated. It’s proof your propaganda is working.
Untrue. Completely baseless lie. Not defending the parents whatsoever. You know this of course, speaking of propaganda.
And nobody is reveling in anybody’s death no matter how many times you assert it. All any of us said from the very beginning is that natural immunity to COVID is just as effective as vaccine-induced immunity, once obtained (note the key caveat) and you should not coerce anyone to get a novel mRNA fragment in a lipid nanoparticle coat vaccine that can deliver the payload anywhere in the body. A stance ultimately backed up by the former head of the CDC DURING Covid. The coercion, ostracization, and media censorship was the problem.
Certainly, the highest risk groups as defined by the CDC should’ve been vaccinated from the jump. How many people did we kill with a nephro- and hepatotoxic antiviral, which causes pulmonary edema, followed by a ventilator? You were on board with all the dogma. You murdered hundreds of thousands of people with your dumb institutionalized orthodoxy, did you not?
Do you ever get sick of hearing yourself and not realizing that the abyss is staring right back at you and engulfing you?
The first post in this thread shows that plenty of people outside the “highest risk” groups still died of COVID.
Many of them would be alive if they’d taken the vaccine that you told them they didn’t need.
Instead you hype up natural immunity which, you know, is exactly what killed these young healthy people.
At this point it’s safe to say that our dear friend Harambe has gone off the rails. He’s now ranting about running over babies, being addicted to porn, berating his wife about his 9/11 truther beliefs and fabricating things about other posters. Is it long covid or mental illness? Who’s to tell. Thoughts and prayers though.
I’ve seen you spread baseless antivaxx propaganda.
Recent estimates show 400k Americans dead from COVID who could have been saved by the vaccine.
They chose not to get vaccinated because the firestorm of antivaxx propaganda convinced them not to. You were part of that, so you bear responsibility!
Can you point to that spreading of baseless propaganda?
