Why are you afraid to answer the question?
âStrawman argument.â
ThereâI answered yours as fulsomely as you answered mine.
Whoosh? Did that go over your head? It was your terrible attempt at an analogy. Perhaps you can expand on how quantum mechanics and physicists who study it have anything to do with covid or idiots pretending to be experts? How are that theoretical physicists related in way to the political bureaucrats are claiming expertise on a matter that is not, by and large, their necessary specialty, yet somehow make policy that affect everybody with not only no evidence that what they suggest actually works, but has proven contrarily not to work.
New York has the most ridiculous, restrictive laws in the nation and currently has somewhere near the worst spread of covid at this point in time.
The fact is, that the virus seems to be weakening, the ill gotten power the government has taken is becoming increasingly difficult to justify, but instead of letting it go they double down.
Biden just said the âunvaccinated can look forward to a winter of illness and deathâ. What kind of an asshole says something like that about his citizens? Especially, when he is letting millions of unvaccinated and untested people stream across the southern border with no intention of stopping them.
1 Like
Whether or not boosters work really isnât the question. I would think logic would dictate that persistent immunization will increase itâs protective effects, until the point of diminishing returns. Thatâs not my problem. My problem is the constant moving of the goal posts and the attempts at forced compliance.
Not only that, but compelled behavior regarding something we donât actually know in any kind of high resolution, the effects of. Further, compelling behavior, by restricting the rights of citizens, where those rights are written into the law as inalienable.
Debating the efficacy of the vaccine really doesnât seem pertinent to me. Itâs clearly not as effective as people hoped. And itâs a little disturbing that instead of working on a better one, the effort is being put on forcing people to do that which they donât want to do and have a right to refuse.
Thatâs a dystopian hell and it needs to be fought.
The whole point of this conversation was about removing unvax from societyâŠmy question is on point
All i did was point out times in history when normal citizens are removed from society for various reasons
2 Likes
Man you are bad at analogies. Drinking and then driving is a voluntary act and itâs prohibition does fit the English common law model of negative law. Which prohibits behavior that can take away somebody elseâs right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Taking away inalienable rights on the basis of compelled behavior is something totally different and contrary to DUI, there is no LAW compelling it. There are only tyrannical dictates by assholes trying to flex their power over the population and illegally using law enforcement to target people who violate their illegal dictates while ignoring people who are actually breaking laws. These are political hits. Not one of these people from biden to deblasio give a shit about your well-being, much less mine. But they damn sure appreciate your compliance and recognition of their ill gotten power.
It makes me less sick that they ordered these dictates than it does that the police are actually enforcing them. Thatâs the scary part, because again, none of these mandates are actual LAW. They are merely the whims of evil and civil support for such thing is the banality of that evil.
I think this is a fair analogy. I do think from a libertarian standpoint it is reasonable to be against drunk driving laws though. I believe you used that comparison because most everyone believes in drunk driving laws, but I think there is a reasonable argument against them, in that drunk driving doesnât harm anyone. Drunk crashing does though. Some would just argue that we shouldnât have the law against the act, but should penalize a crash in which the driver was drunk heavily.
I would say a repercussion for those that are consistent on being against the vax to work mandate and the drunk driving laws should be that they should be last in line at the hospital when they get a bad case of Covid.
Pfizer is creating an omicron specific vaccine.
This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Please tell me this was a joke?
No, it isnât a joke. FWIW, I am for drunk driving laws. I just can see a perspective that we shouldnât have laws for things that donât negatively impact others, and that we should focus our laws to combat things that do negatively impact others.
It is along the lines of your right to swing your arms ends at my nose. If you can do it safely, and not impact others fine. If you canât, then you are breaking the law.
Okay so it shouldnât be illegal to spin in a circle and fire a machine gun in the middle of a busy park, but you should be punished if you hurt someone?
Fucking hell, are people really that stupid.
Holy stawman batman.
That would be breaking all sorts of property destruction laws as well.
Address the argument, not some made up thing that is easier to defeat.
Do you think all drivers are equal in skill? Should the limit be an arbitrary number for everyone? Would you be a better driver than say Lewis Hamilton after he had 3 beers and you were sober.
As I said, I am for the law, as I think people are too stupid to handle themselves, but that doesnât mean the law doesnât have issues with it. Issues that conflict with my view that laws should be created in a way that allows as many freedoms as possible, and from there creates laws to prohibit activities that negatively impact others.
I am for the law, cause I accept that giving up some freedoms is okay in the effort to reduce the chances that someone swings their arms too much. I am donât take the pure libertarian stance. I was just pointing out that many may not accept the analogy of drunk driving and vax mandate, if they donât accept drunk driving laws (which was stated in a way that seemed to assume everyone accepts them as correct, when that isnât true).
1 Like
Then the answer would be to deny them treatment for Covid, not to remove them from society.
Itâs a law thatâs based on statistics, created to protect and keep people safe.
Kinda like the covid ones donât you think.
Oh goodie, I guess 30 billion plus in profit was not enough. It is not about money though.
Agreed on both the driving laws and Covid ones.
We have for the most part accepted laws to keep people safe. All I was arguing is that not everyone agrees with safety laws (because they come at the cost of giving up liberties).
A more palatable example for many (compared to the drunk driving one) is that we allow gun ownership. Owning a gun greatly increases your risk of having a fatal gun incident in your home. Yet we have deemed that as acceptable. Driving a Hellcat (or sports car, or motorcycle) increases your chances of getting into an accident many times that of driving an Accord, but we allow that.
It seems we kinda pick and choose which of these types of things are acceptable and which are not, and the math doesnât always support the laws and the penalties for breaking such laws. Distracted driving (which has been show in some studies to be more dangerous than drunk driving) is a small fine you can mail in, but drunk driving might cost you $10K.
Got to keep the money train going. I am sure there are no cardiovascular issues with the vaccine though.
Canât go losing profits or being responsible.
1/33,000, and the likelihood of serious cardiovascular repercussions is far lower
CVD is like⊠the number one killer in secular countries⊠itâs a profitable venture regardless.
Covid 19 commonly causes cardiac complications in the middle aged and elderly.
I donât know much about the gun ownership as I am not in the US. But is it fair to say that you and the people you live with are more at risk but not the wider public due to the gun being in the house? You are putting your own saftey is at risk.
The risky vehicle ownership again, providing you are following the other laws of the road doesnât put others at higher risk but it puts you personally at higher risk. If you crash into someone by accident at the speed limit then it doesnât really matter to them if you are in a 2 seater sports car or a honda civic. Again your own safety at risk.
I fully agree tougher penalties need to be in place for other driving related crimes.
Itâs come to the point where these covid things have had to become laws because people are too stupid and pig headed to do right by others by their own free will. It unfortunate but its the world we live in. Oh you have to wear a mask for 15 minutes in a shop and covid will just be like a mild cold anyway, poor you. Someone else in there may have loved ones at home going through chemo and they are petrified.
2 Likes