Standing up for what counts
Sometimes it occurs to me that, given the frequency with which contributors to this organ feel obliged to open their musings with an apology and/or ‘declaration of interest’ for being either an oldie and/or generally ‘out of touch’, our average reader might be forgiven for gaining the impression that – in terms of the passage of Time – the modern world is on board a trans-continental “bullet” express train hurtling through the countryside towards the future whilst the Rust and its contributors are the equivalent of a bunch of elderly country bumpkins still waving as they fade into the distance (and irrelevance/obscurity) in some proverbial communal rear-view mirror.
It is therefore with a degree of relish that today I offer no such caveat as I address my chosen subject du jour – I decline to do so because, it seems to me, my comments are no more or less than straightforward (common or garden) common sense.
GENDER CHOICE AND SELF-IDENTIFICATION
From my perspective, it seems obvious that a human being can no more choose his or her gender – especially perhaps upon a whim and/or having been convinced by friends or even “fake news” or propaganda they’ve come across on the internet – than they can choose their sexuality.
I’ve never read a single word of any of her Harry Potter books but I not only defend the right of the author J.K. Rowling to hold and express her view that only biological women possess wombs, breasts and vaginas and can physically have babies, I also agree with it 100%.
I’m also fully supportive of those women who take issue on principle with men who self-identify as being transgender and/or female being entitled (as a matter of legal right) to use “Ladies” toilets.
It’s why media stories such as this one drive me nuts – see here, as appears today upon the website of the – DAILY MAIL
THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF CHOICE VERSES THE DUTY OF THOSE WHO GOVERN US TO ACT FOR “THE GREATER GOOD OF THE GREATEST NUMBER”
I’m fed up to the back teeth with listening to – or reading about – those who persist in proclaiming (on issues such as anti-pandemic vaccinations and/or measures designed to improve the health of nations generally) that they have an inalienable right to refuse to take part and/or do anything to live more healthily than they do presently.
In particular I greatly resent the examples of people either openly or impliedly spouting on about their “human right” to behave like complete idiots (if they should so wish) – but who later also are the first to demand – and then receive – expert medical attention whenever – via the exercising of that supposed “right” – they perhaps unfortunately but inevitably at some point thereafter become a drain upon the NHS, requiring expensive and complicated treatments that might otherwise have gone to others who have done their best to live “healthy” lives and (in my view) deserve it far more.
Never mind about every human being’s “human rights” – what about every human being’s “human duties”?
That’s why I laughed when about eighteen months ago now one Rust columnist – sadly I cannot recall which – penned a spoof piece stating that he had volunteered for a new NHS crack unit of operatives set up by the Government that would patrol the streets of Britain summarily injecting every vaccination refusnick they came across with Covid-19, just so that the latter could fully appreciate and understand why the authorities needed everyone to be vaccinated for the common good.
Then again – and I don’t have the actual figures to hand as I type – I would love to know what proportion of those now hospitalised with Covid were/are un-vaccinated.
To my mind – to the extent that NHS emergency units are under pressure and filled with Covid patients – those who have refused to get vaccinated should automatically be placed at the back of the queue for treatment.
It’s back to that basic point – whether they like it or not, people should take responsibility for their own lives. If hitherto they haven’t been doing so, they should be forced to. Because every act – or sometime non-act – has consequences.
To take another example – obesity.
Everyone is aware that fat people exist because they eat more (intake more calories) than they should, i.e. over the course of time they consistently consume more calories than they burn off.
It’s a simple but brutal equation – and here, to be fair, I would accept that there are some medical conditions (inherent or otherwise) that afflict some people and about which they can do nothing.
However, I’d apply the same principle to fatties that I’d apply to vaccine-refusers – if they are not going to act responsibly, fine, but then they should also take the consequences of their decision(s).
In my view the authorities should not be “wringing their hands” over how to encourage fatties to take more exercise or eat less.
Instead they should leave them to eat themselves to an early demise.
Because that’s their choice, that’s what fatties are doing by eating irresponsibility. Furthermore, I’d maintain, the authorities should also adopt a “good riddance” attitude towards those who do.
They certainly shouldn’t be doing the some of the things detailed in this report by Dr Max Pemberton that appears today upon the website of the – DAILY MAIL
