|
|
Corona
Jan 1, 2021 11:51:29 GMT -5
Post by BOGC on Jan 1, 2021 11:51:29 GMT -5
You have a right to risk YOURSELF to be wrong, but not to risk anyone else. What part of that is too hard to understand? What's so hard not to understand that if anyone is fearful (like you) and wants to protect themselves, they can CHOOSE to vaccinate themselves? They should be safe then, right? Fearful is avoiding something that works, or carrying distancing to extremes that exceed the practical in the absence of (or unwillingness to use) something that works. There are a FEW people who cannot safely be vaccinated; with their wide-ranging allergies or other immune system issues, they're already at enough risk, and the more carriers there are, the more their risk. There are some number of people that, while not strongly opposed to a vaccine, may not get it soon enough to protect them from all those who choose to be potential carriers. So no, it's not all people who can be vaccinated if they want to be, or people who don't want to be. For darn sure, someone that gets vaccinated is NOT endangering anyone else, while someone who (without good reason, like unusually high risk to themselves) refuses to be vaccinated, IS endangering others. |
|
|
|
Corona
Jan 1, 2021 11:56:28 GMT -5
Post by Gust on Jan 1, 2021 11:56:28 GMT -5
What's so hard not to understand that if anyone is fearful (like you) and wants to protect themselves, they can CHOOSE to vaccinate themselves? They should be safe then, right? Fearful is avoiding something that works, or carrying distancing to extremes that exceed the practical in the absence of (or unwillingness to use) something that works. There are a FEW people who cannot safely be vaccinated; with their wide-ranging allergies or other immune system issues, they're already at enough risk, and the more carriers there are, the more their risk. There are some number of people that, while not strongly opposed to a vaccine, may not get it soon enough to protect them from all those who choose to be potential carriers. So no, it's not all people who can be vaccinated if they want to be, or people who don't want to be. For darn sure, someone that gets vaccinated is NOT endangering anyone else, while someone who (without good reason, like unusually high risk to themselves) refuses to be vaccinated, IS endangering others. So get the vaxx so you can feel better and leave the rest of us alone. |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jan 1, 2021 11:57:03 GMT -5
Leftists have committed fraud in every election (whether or not it changed the outcome). And they commit fraud every time they tell the big lie that there can be magic to meet all needs. They are unfit to hold any office. And in particular, in the US where the federal government is supposed to stay within LIMITED POWERS that DO NOT INCLUDE MAGIC FREE STUFF, they are immediately in violation of their oath of office. Most of them think the Constitution is outdated or should be twisted (not by amendment, but simply because they want it) to fit their pursuit of creating total dependency and absolute power for themselves.
|
|
|
|
Corona
Jan 1, 2021 12:05:44 GMT -5
Post by BOGC on Jan 1, 2021 12:05:44 GMT -5
Fearful is avoiding something that works, or carrying distancing to extremes that exceed the practical in the absence of (or unwillingness to use) something that works. There are a FEW people who cannot safely be vaccinated; with their wide-ranging allergies or other immune system issues, they're already at enough risk, and the more carriers there are, the more their risk. There are some number of people that, while not strongly opposed to a vaccine, may not get it soon enough to protect them from all those who choose to be potential carriers. So no, it's not all people who can be vaccinated if they want to be, or people who don't want to be. For darn sure, someone that gets vaccinated is NOT endangering anyone else, while someone who (without good reason, like unusually high risk to themselves) refuses to be vaccinated, IS endangering others. So get the vaxx so you can feel better and leave the rest of us alone. So just get a welfare check and leave the leftists alone. Doesn't make so much sense like that, does it? Getting a welfare check hurts everyone. Getting a vaccination helps protect everyone, not just that person. It's not me I'm worried about. And as important as liberty is, nobody's liberty is so unlimited that it can justify _actively_ endangering others. The risk of killing by spreading a preventable disease far outweighs the microscopic risk of vaccination. |
|
|
|
Corona
Jan 1, 2021 12:13:58 GMT -5
Post by Gust on Jan 1, 2021 12:13:58 GMT -5
So get the vaxx so you can feel better and leave the rest of us alone.
Doesn't make so much sense like that, does it? Getting a welfare check hurts everyone. Getting a vaccination helps protect everyone, not just that person. It's not me I'm worried about. And as important as liberty is, nobody's liberty is so unlimited that it can justify _actively_ endangering others. The risk of killing by spreading a preventable disease far outweighs the microscopic risk of vaccination. Welfare checks and required vaccinations both come through force - both are wrong. You are inconsistent in your reasoning |
|
|
|
Corona
Jan 1, 2021 12:15:45 GMT -5
Post by eulenspiegel on Jan 1, 2021 12:15:45 GMT -5
Leftists have committed fraud in every election (whether or not it changed the outcome). And they commit fraud every time they tell the big lie that there can be magic to meet all needs. They are unfit to hold any office. And in particular, in the US where the federal government is supposed to stay within LIMITED POWERS that DO NOT INCLUDE MAGIC FREE STUFF, they are immediately in violation of their oath of office. Most of them think the Constitution is outdated or should be twisted (not by amendment, but simply because they want it) to fit their pursuit of creating total dependency and absolute power for themselves. Also you...the same lies again and again...no proof, never, no single one....in the contrary...when there was proof...real proof...always by Republicans or other conservatives, right wing, far right...people... It started in the 19th century and still to this day never changed You and Trump and all his other followers are just now pissed that your cheating was not enough this time, did not work out... |
|
|
|
Corona
Jan 1, 2021 12:34:15 GMT -5
Post by eulenspiegel on Jan 1, 2021 12:34:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Gust on Jan 1, 2021 12:58:21 GMT -5
Tyranny is blossoming in the good 'ol USA
|
|
|
|
Corona
Jan 1, 2021 13:22:45 GMT -5
Post by BOGC on Jan 1, 2021 13:22:45 GMT -5
So just get a welfare check and leave the leftists alone.
Doesn't make so much sense like that, does it? Getting a welfare check hurts everyone. Getting a vaccination helps protect everyone, not just that person. It's not me I'm worried about. And as important as liberty is, nobody's liberty is so unlimited that it can justify _actively_ endangering others. The risk of killing by spreading a preventable disease far outweighs the microscopic risk of vaccination. Welfare checks and required vaccinations both come through force - both are wrong. You are inconsistent in your reasoning I'm not ALWAYS opposed to force. Libertarians are nice people but they're wrong about many things. Power vacuums will ALWAYS be filled by someone, and if we don't, someone worse will. People that endanger others should themselves be put in danger. |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jan 1, 2021 13:37:35 GMT -5
Voter suppression mostly consists of letting dead people vote, real people vote twice or in the wrong district, fictional people vote, etc. Nobody is hanging out at a polling station anymore chasing away people that don't look like them. At least not in the historical sense, although in some inner city districts, there might be a bit of the reverse going on, and large unanimous votes in some districts are suspicious, to put it mildly. Or in some smaller districts, when there are people that claim to have voted the other way. Funny how it's always the Democrats that benefit in those situations. As for those for which voting in person is too difficult or "dangerous", they don't deserve to vote. Voting in person even with distancing and all was no problem. I don't particularly mind LIMITED (like if you're traveling or in the military) and properly controlled absentee ballots, but accepting everything regardless of laws requiring signature checks etc is just crazy and crooked. Nor do I particularly mind a couple of days of early voting, but more than that makes it harder to make the process secure; not to mention that something could come up a few days before the official date that might change people's minds. The real answer to long lines (which aren't THAT much of a hardship even if it's painful; been there, done that) is more polling places. |
|
|
|
Corona
Jan 1, 2021 13:39:11 GMT -5
Post by Gust on Jan 1, 2021 13:39:11 GMT -5
So get the vaxx so you can feel better and leave the rest of us alone. Doesn't make so much sense like that, does it? Getting a welfare check hurts everyone. Getting a vaccination helps protect everyone, not just that person. It's not me I'm worried about. And as important as liberty is, nobody's liberty is so unlimited that it can justify _actively_ endangering others. The risk of killing by spreading a preventable disease far outweighs the microscopic risk of vaccination. You live on an island with 3 people: 1) You - who are vastly wealthy and have enough food for 20 lifetimes 2) A neighbor who is starving to death and has no ability to feed himself 3) The island governor (who is loaded with weapons) Should the island governor take some of your wealth and feed the starving person? Or this scenario? You live on an island with 3 people with a COVID outbreak in a neighboring island and a vaccine has been developed 1) You 2) A neighbor who is adamantly against vaccines 3) The island governor (who is loaded with weapons and the vaccines) Should the island governor force the neighbor to get the vaccine when you have the choice to take it yourself? |
|
|
|
Corona
Jan 1, 2021 13:49:52 GMT -5
Post by eulenspiegel on Jan 1, 2021 13:49:52 GMT -5
So just get a welfare check and leave the leftists alone.Doesn't make so much sense like that, does it? Getting a welfare check hurts everyone. Getting a vaccination helps protect everyone, not just that person. It's not me I'm worried about. And as important as liberty is, nobody's liberty is so unlimited that it can justify _actively_ endangering others. The risk of killing by spreading a preventable disease far outweighs the microscopic risk of vaccination. You live on an island with 3 people: 1) You - who are vastly wealthy and have enough food for 20 lifetimes 2) A neighbor who is starving to death and has no ability to feed himself 3) The island governor (who is loaded with weapons) Should the island governor take some of your wealth and feed the starving person? Or this scenario? You live on an island with 3 people with a COVID outbreak in a neighboring island and a vaccine has been developed 1) You 2) A neighbor who is adamantly against vaccines 3) The island governor (who is loaded with weapons and the vaccines) Should the island governor force the neighbor to get the vaccine when you have the choice to take it yourself? First scenario - yes, he shoukd Second scenario - does not fit with Covid19 - to stop the spread according to recent discoveries - 80-90% vaccination rate is needed - because with every mutation that gets more infectious a higher vaccination rate is needed...and always risk that with one mutation vaccines suddenly don‘t work anymore - USA has 330 Million citizens not 3 - so with every outbreak the health care system is at risk - so even the vaccinated, the rich is at risk. |
|
|
|
Corona
Jan 1, 2021 14:13:12 GMT -5
Post by BOGC on Jan 1, 2021 14:13:12 GMT -5
So just get a welfare check and leave the leftists alone.Doesn't make so much sense like that, does it? Getting a welfare check hurts everyone. Getting a vaccination helps protect everyone, not just that person. It's not me I'm worried about. And as important as liberty is, nobody's liberty is so unlimited that it can justify _actively_ endangering others. The risk of killing by spreading a preventable disease far outweighs the microscopic risk of vaccination. You live on an island with 3 people: 1) You - who are vastly wealthy and have enough food for 20 lifetimes 2) A neighbor who is starving to death and has no ability to feed himself 3) The island governor (who is loaded with weapons) Should the island governor take some of your wealth and feed the starving person? Or this scenario? You live on an island with 3 people with a COVID outbreak in a neighboring island and a vaccine has been developed 1) You 2) A neighbor who is adamantly against vaccines 3) The island governor (who is loaded with weapons and the vaccines) Should the island governor force the neighbor to get the vaccine when you have the choice to take it yourself? The starving should either feed themselves or expect to die; the wealthy should VOLUNTEER but not be required to feed them, and the governor should butt out or have his head caved in with a rock one night (he has no guards if there are only three people there). I and the governor should get together to force the anti-vaxxer to choose between getting vaccinated or being exiled to the island of sick people (after all, if nature does everything and the sickness is mostly imaginary, he'll be fine there, right?). Although I'd just as soon rid myself of both of them. Although realistically, if there are three healthy people there, there's no disease to vaccinate against; just use force to keep those from the infected neighboring island out. I see no inconsistency. The non-self-supporting are parasites; and so are those that could safely enough get vaccinated but insist on not doing so (and I really don't care whether their objection is to the use of force, or some imagined hazard, or some non-mainstream religious objection), although technically, they're also the potential hosts of parasites. Parasites (the allegedly human ones, anyway) should be either enabled to stop being parasites by voluntary private means, or subjected to whatever force ends their parasitism or ends them. A more realistic scenario would involve larger numbers of people, some of which were immunocompromised and allergic to the vaccine. They'll probably die regardless (Darwin Award, even if not for anything they did wrong, unless they're willing to live in a bubble and we have the will and means to provide them a bubble to live in), but the anti-vaxxer is definitely putting them at increased risk. Either way, government, the non-self-supporting, and ideologues (those like anti-vaxxers that have BS beliefs that DO affect others adversely) are all obnoxious; the question of which is less obnoxious varies according to details. I want to be left alone, meaning I don't really want to share the island with any of them; but as long as they neither boss me around nor increase risk to others, I don't care enough to go all zombie apocalypse on them. |
|
|
|
Corona
Jan 1, 2021 14:28:57 GMT -5
Post by Gust on Jan 1, 2021 14:28:57 GMT -5
You live on an island with 3 people: 1) You - who are vastly wealthy and have enough food for 20 lifetimes 2) A neighbor who is starving to death and has no ability to feed himself 3) The island governor (who is loaded with weapons) Should the island governor take some of your wealth and feed the starving person? Or this scenario? You live on an island with 3 people with a COVID outbreak in a neighboring island and a vaccine has been developed 1) You 2) A neighbor who is adamantly against vaccines 3) The island governor (who is loaded with weapons and the vaccines) Should the island governor force the neighbor to get the vaccine when you have the choice to take it yourself? First scenario - yes, he shoukd Second scenario - does not fit with Covid19 - to stop the spread according to recent discoveries - 80-90% vaccination rate is needed - because with every mutation that gets more infectious a higher vaccination rate is needed...and always risk that with one mutation vaccines suddenly don‘t work anymore - USA has 330 Million citizens not 3 - so with every outbreak the health care system is at risk - so even the vaccinated, the rich is at risk. In the first scenario, you have allowed the governor to become a criminal. He will break his own laws - "don't steal" |
|
|
|
Corona
Jan 1, 2021 14:50:11 GMT -5
Post by eulenspiegel on Jan 1, 2021 14:50:11 GMT -5
First scenario - yes, he shoukd Second scenario - does not fit with Covid19 - to stop the spread according to recent discoveries - 80-90% vaccination rate is needed - because with every mutation that gets more infectious a higher vaccination rate is needed...and always risk that with one mutation vaccines suddenly don‘t work anymore - USA has 330 Million citizens not 3 - so with every outbreak the health care system is at risk - so even the vaccinated, the rich is at risk. In the first scenario, you have allowed the governor to become a criminal. He will break his own laws - "don't steal" No in the contrary, one of the basic purposes of government is to secure the life, well-being of every citizen - it is the duty of the governor. There may be a discussion to the extent...but even in ancient, in medieval, in the most harsh ideas of the industrial revolution a government had always to protect its citizen - even only with poor houses - therefore taxes are there ..without taxes no working society - btw. same idea in christianity, islam - the 10th |
|
