Tweet

More from @bobscartoons

Bob Moran

@bobscartoons

1 Dec

There are two important things to realise about the mask exemption rules:
1. They are so broad and open to interpretation that they provide exemption to anybody who doesn’t like the idea of masks (causes anxiety). This is deliberate. The government wants to make it clear that

absolutely nobody HAS to wear one. Therefore, when the majority do choose to wear them, it is a sign of total compliance. “I know I don’t really have to do it but my government wants me to.”
This attitude then spreads to other issues.

2. The fact that everybody has a legitimate excuse not to wear a mask, within the exemption rules, means that discrimination becomes commonplace. This is also very deliberate. The government want people to get used to ‘othering’ members of society on the basis of their personal

Read 4 tweets

Bob Moran

@bobscartoons

3 May

Let me make my moral position on this whole situation as clear as possible:

I believe that any government or advisory body, faced with a pandemic of a virus which appears to be dangerous, should take action to limit the harm it causes to a population.

(thread)

However, ANY action taken should UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES directly cause suffering (financial, psychological or physical) or death to any person in that population, whether or not that person is at risk from said virus.
It follows that any leaders NOT imposing measures against

a virus because they are in direct conflict with that principle, cannot be blamed for injury or death attributed to the virus. It also means that death or injury caused as a direct result of ignoring that principle, CAN and SHOULD be blamed on the leaders in question.

Read 8 tweets

Bob Moran

@bobscartoons

21 Apr

I have never been on a protest march before.

Previously, they never made sense to me. I doubted their ability to influence events and always thought there were more effective ways of opposing things you disagreed with.

This time it's different.

This time I'm marching.

Over the past year we have lived through the greatest assault on our fundamental rights and freedoms in living memory. We have seen the total abandonment of moral principles and rational thought. Absolutely none of it has been justifiable and our institutions have failed us.

Parliament, the judiciary, the media, the education system, the health service; all of the people who were supposed to protect us from something like this happening, ALL of them, have aided and abetted the country's descent into mass-psychosis and tyrannical rule.

Read 8 tweets

Bob Moran

@bobscartoons

14 Apr

Thread:

There are many issues worthy of serious debate in a civilised society. There are ethical questions and moral dilemmas for which we have no clear cut solutions; Euthanasia, abortion, welfare, foreign aid. It is perfectly acceptable to be on either side of such debates.

But there are other areas of morality and ethics which are settled. The clear cut answers exist and ought to be understood by the majority in any decent society.
Over the past year, we have found ourselves debating such issues. They've been presented as difficult moral problems.

New conundrums never faced or considered previously:

Is it ethical to intentionally let one group of people die because you have a vague hunch it might let another group of people live?

Is the life of an 85 year old worth saving as much as the life of a five year old?

Read 10 tweets

Bob Moran

@bobscartoons

19 Mar

I have no problem with people trying to argue that lockdown was entirely justified. It's important that we have this debate to establish whether we should ever do it again.
But what you can't do is claim that the justification for lockdown is the '130,000' people who have died.

We are not at the beginning of this, debating whether or not to lockdown. We've been doing it for a whole year. We have had stricter measures, for a longer period of time, than almost any other country on Earth. And still, you claim, 130,000 people died from the virus.

This does not help your argument. It helps ours. What you need to be questioning, establishing and the asserting is how many lives have been SAVED by what we've done.
You then need to question, establish and assert how many people have been KILLED by these measures and will be

Read 5 tweets

Bob Moran

@bobscartoons

2 Mar

A lot of people are still confused about the difference between Sars-CoV-2 (the virus) and COVID-19 (the disease), and why it matters.
Several have suggested it's just semantics. I don't think it is and I will try to explain why. (thread)

H1N1 is a respiratory virus. If you contract that virus, you will likely have mild symptoms. We refer to this as a COLD.

In rarer cases, H1N1 can lead to a more severe collection of symptoms, characterising a disease we call INFLUENZA.

SARS-CoV-2 is a respiratory virus. If you contract that virus, you will likely have mild symptoms. We refer to this as a COLD.

In rarer cases, SARS-CoV-2 can lead to a more severe collection of symptoms, characterising a disease we call COVID-19.

Read 6 tweets

Share this page!

Bob Moran

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @bobscartoons

Bob Moran

Bob Moran

Bob Moran

Bob Moran

Bob Moran

Bob Moran

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?