Yes, let's ban Telegram because criminals use it to commit crimes. But while we're at it, let's also ban money, because they use that in the transactions for their crimes, and as the incentive. And let's ban cars, because they use them to get around while committing their crimes.
I'd also point out that most, if not all, of the politicians wanting to ban Telegram and other encryption protocols use encrypted emails, and would not be willing to post their private contents of their computers online, yet that's basically what they're asking the public to do. Whenever public officials want to ban something, it's almost always something they themselves use in some form and would not want their own use infringed, e.g. politicians and celebrities that want to ban guns, yet use armed bodyguards. Funny how they deserve the protection but others don't. Same concept applies here: they want to ban Telegram and outlaw the public's ability to encrypt their communications, devices, etc, yet they wouldn't want their own private lives left unprotected.
As for the whole vaccine "debate," which is really just people that, IME, have very little real knowledge about it claiming that because vaccines in general are a good thing, if you're "anti-vax" for any reason--and without even really caring to know the reasons--you're wrong because vaccines=good and so "anti-vax" automatically equals bad. Never mind that pretty much every person I've ever spoken with that's "anti-vax" is categorically NOT against vaccinations, but against certain aspects of them. But hey, we don't want to deal with the nitty-gritty facts, we just want to demonize people and label them extremists because they go against what the government tells us, because we know from recent history they're very trustworthy, and we should absolutely accept everything they tell us without question. It just amazes me how little people, in general, have learned after the past 20 years.
I would pose one question to @_MT_ and others that believe people should be forced to be injected with a barely tested, very controversial vaccine because the government who, again, we all trust whole-heartedly, assures us it's safe and effective and because the health of society (the same society that, by the way, by and large really doesn't care that much about their health and expects society to foot the bill for their health issues while simultaneously treating their bodies like dumpsters) is more important than individual rights: at what point do we draw the line where that's no longer an acceptable proposition? Many argue this planet is overpopulated and we're strangling it, stripping it of natural resources, destroying the land by over-farming (really improperly farming for reasons of profit and supply/demand, but I'm simplifying), polluting, etc, and that the population needs to be cut back if the human race is to survive. So should we get rid of everyone over age 60, you know, for the good of the whole? I assume the answer by most would be no, that doing so would be extreme. The point being, many would argue that forcing an injection on a healthy individual is extreme as well. And the question being, where is the line drawn?
Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
Magyar