Requiring a COVID-19 Vaccine (shot/s)


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, clwnuke said:

Or are you in agreement with throwing them into the streets and preventing them from providing for their families?

Actually...I’m in favor of private companies refusing to serve who they choose. So, yes. Your employer has every right to sack you if you choose to spread a communicable disease to the customers or other employees. 

You are free to not get the vaccine. You are not free to force your boss into hiring or keeping someone if it goes against their beliefs.
 

It blows my mind how people “love freedom” for themselves, but then demand that their freedom trumps mine. You are free to do what you wish. I’m free to forbid you for working for me or dining in my establishment. No matter how much you (generic) play martyr, no. This isn’t like Nazism. You have a choice. The Jews did not. In fact, you should be forced to talk to a victim of the holocaust. Then, you’ll see what real Nazism is.  You’ll see very quickly how entitled your POV is. 

 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Most of your post is - FALSE....

So....not sure who you are trying to convince except those already converted to your cause.

The vaccine was NOT supposed to completely STOP you from getting COVID-19, though some media may have portrayed it that way.  It was to reduce death and harmful symptoms of Covid-19.  What they observed was that this was caused because you got a lower viral load affecting you (though the viral load that you initially got could be just as high if not higher).  This meant the symptoms you got were more likely to not exist or be mild symptoms.  It also meant that you would be over the virus in a much shorter time period (2-7 days rather than 9-21 days) and be less likely to spread it to others (though you could probably still spread it, just not in as high dosage or for as long of a period).

1 - We do not know the answer to this yet...so saying True or False to this is actually not a right answer.

2- It CAN help prevent you from infecting them, or at least reduces the time period of infection and the viral load they get from you.  HOWEVER, you can still infect others.  If you have 20 vaccinated people around one unvaccinated, that unvaccinated individual is going to be infected and probably have a good dosage of the virus. 

3 - They have had "Breakthrough" infections from the very beginning.  They are only being sensationalized by a certain group of people who have no idea how vaccines work and thus are promoting against taking it.  The REASON Pfizer was only 95% effective on the original Covid strain was because 5% of people got COVID EVEN WITH the vaccine.  This is NOT some big mysterious secret.  In fact, they've been quite open about it.  The idea of herd immunity is that the virus lacks anyplace to actually go and kill people eventually becuase if you want a 70% herd immunity as it were, where you have 70% who aren't going to die from the disease, than you with a 95% rate you'd need around 72-74% of people vaccinated.  Delta variant is somewhat more resistant to the vaccine, but the vaccine is still effective at preventing death and serious symptoms in most individuals.  Delta is, however, FAR MORE infectious and getting infected by it is far easier than the original strain the vaccines were made for.

4-  Yes it does.  What evidence do you have that it does not.  99.5% of the people currently dying from Covid-19 are the unvaccinated.  That seems to indicate the vaccine is better protection overall.

5- Herd protection from dying...well...see point #4.  For the vaccinated it seems to be working rather well currently, even against a mutated strain the vaccine wasn't even designed against.  It seems REALLY good against the strain that it WAS designed against.

6 -Not sure where you source is on this, so though it goes against what I've read, I'll say...I don't think that' been determined yet.

7 - In most cases...this is true.  However, remember, the vaccines are not 100%, NONE of them have claimed to be.  There will still be those who have been vaccinated who will die from Covid-19, just like people who were vaccinated from a flu strain will still die of that flu strain in the year they got vaccinated.  It just tends to be far less than if no vaccination was ever taken or given.

 

My take on it, which obviously won't convince you...but is far different than your stated ideas as well.

It is the recent data sets from the US and around the world that have changed almost all of these narratives, and yes we probably won't change each other's minds but the recent changes in CDC guidance on masks for vaccinated individuals was entirely prompted by the new data which does support my statements above.

1. The issue is pretty settled at this point. Satellite data and hospital reports do not support the Chinese narrative that it started in the wet markets. It started in the lab, but without further cooperation and data from the Chinese, which is intentionally being withheld or has already been destroyed, we will only be 99% sure.

2. That was believed but was recently shown to be false. Vaccinated individuals carry just as large  viral load as unvaccinated. We are all walking Petri dishes. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2021/08/evidence-mounts-that-people-with-breakthrough-infections-can-spread-delta-easily

3. This is also supported by the above study, and by data from Israel and other highly vaccinated countries (which should have reached herd immunity if it was possible). Vaccinated individuals are just as likely to be infected with the Delta variant as the unvaccinated. And because of the higher numbers of vaccinated people, the unvaccinated are more likely to be infected by an asymptomatic vaccinated person than an unvaccinated person.

4. It was believed that was the case, but real world wisdom came through again when the data came back.  https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital  Getting Covid confers far better protection than the vaccine, but the data also shows that together is better than just Covid. 

5. Herd immunity is now a pipe-dream now that we know the vaccinated carry just as much viral load and are easily infected with Delta.

6. The reasoning here relied on the assumption that vaccinated people would not be walking petri dishes, but the unvaccinated would be transmission vectors. Now that we know we are all transmission vectors for Delta, there is no expected reduction in mutation rates. Prior to Covid, the conventional virology wisdom was that you never vaccinate in the middle of a pandemic because it forces the virus to mutate faster. That was tossed aside, but many virologists spoke up to recommend against it.

7. We agree on that. Vaccination reduces symptoms of infection, but not the viral load.

Hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Actually...I’m in favor of private companies refusing to serve who they choose. So, yes. Your employer has every right to sack you if you choose to spread a communicable disease to the customers or other employees. 

You are free to not get the vaccine. You are not free to force your boss into hiring or keeping someone if it goes against their beliefs.
 

It blows my mind how people “love freedom” for themselves, but then demand that their freedom trumps mine. You are free to do what you wish. I’m free to forbid you for working for me or dining in my establishment. No matter how much you (generic) play martyr, no. This isn’t like Nazism. You have a choice. The Jews did not. In fact, you should be forced to talk to a victim of the holocaust. Then, you’ll see what real Nazism is.  You’ll see very quickly how entitled your POV is. 

 

So I mean no offense, but here is the flaw in your first sentence based on recent data: A vaccinated person is just as much a potential Covid transmission vector as an unvaccinated person. So to be fair to all, you will need to fire all your employees to stop the spread or refuse to serve all. Again, we are all equal walking petri dishes for Delta. The CDC admits that and that is why they changed their guidance for masking.

As for the freedom of companies to make that decision, we are agreed. I'm a conservative libertarian. But government mandates are a different category - they must not discriminate, and based on the data, any government or public mandate against the unvaccinated is discriminating without a basis at this point.

My freedom doesn't trump yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw this article, a bit long but worth the read IMHO.

image.png.66b361830fce3f983d659d5c61200542.png

https://trialsitenews.com/get-sicker-anatomy-of-a-failed-policy/

“All governments lie” was the mantra of investigative reporting legend I.F. Stone. As a journalist, I have exposed some serious lies in my career. But my reporting on the management of COVID-19 has transformed my view of government, and my profession, in a way that 25 years of investigative reporting did not.

It was a lie when the FDA trotted out a six-month-old web post recently, warning of “serious harm,” “seizures, coma and even death” from ivermectin. The March post was spurred, it said, by “multiple” reports of people harmed by an animal formulation. In response to my question – how many is “multiple”? – the agency told me four, with some “lost to follow-up.” This is how governments obfuscate, confuse and, yes, lie when discussing a drug that the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology said in 2016 “continues to provide a high margin of safety for a growing number of indications.”

FDA-sanctioned remdesivir, meanwhile, was associated with more than 500 deaths in its first year of use. Ivermectin was linked to 20 deaths in 19 years of WHO VigiAccess record-keeping. You won’t find that on the FDA web site.

In the same vein, on Aug. 26, the CDC reported a “three-fold increase…from the pre-pandemic baseline” in ivermectin calls to poison control centers. I asked the CDC press office four times: How many calls were received, and what was the baseline?

It finally answered, gave no figures, and referred me to the American Association of Poison Control Centers. I’m waiting."

 

Edited by clwnuke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

This isn’t like Nazism. 

While I would prefer to agree with this statement there are some parallels worth considering. Things moved along a similar trajectory in the early years of the NAZI regime.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/1933-1939-early-stages-of-persecution/

 

Quote

Once in power, Hitler moved quickly to end German democracy. He convinced his cabinet to invoke emergency clauses of the constitution that permitted the suspension of individual freedoms of press, speech, and assembly. Special security forces — the Gestapo, the Storm Troopers (SA), and the SS — murdered or arrested leaders of opposition political parties (Communists, socialists, and liberals). The Enabling Act of March 23, 1933 — forced through the Reichstag already purged of many political opponents –gave dictatorial powers to Hitler.

There are certainly emergency powers being used around the world to shut down freedoms of assembly, speech, and a fully free press. Lockdowns influence all of these to an extent and social media censorship steps things up.

As for ending democracy, there are certainly questions the world and many Americans have about the legitimacy of the last election in the USA. Perhaps it's not as overt as the German Chancellor's moves, but that may make things more sinister. Whether the election was a free and fair election or not, there is a serious problem when likely half the world thinks it was suspicious at best and stolen at worst. Is the power no longer vested in the people? It seems more like we have rulers than public servants in what's supposed to be the free world, but there may yet be hope to reclaim the broken system.

Quote

Jews The vaccine hesitant, who numbered about 525,000 in Germany (less than one percent of the total population in 1933) (A minority) were the principal target of Nazi the establishment's hatred. The Nazis establishment identified Jews "nonconformists" as a race misguided unintelligent conspiracy theorists and defined this race group as “inferior.” They also spewed hate-mongering propaganda that unfairly blamed Jews the unvaccinated for Germany’s the world's economic depression and the country’s defeat in World War I (1914-1918).  lack of reopening economies.

At this point the science is clear that the available vaccines are not stopping infection or transmission of Covid-19 so to continue to blame the unvaccinated as a risk to anyone but themselves is preposterous, and yet here we are with people getting worked up into such a feverish frenzy that they agree the unvaccinated should lose jobs and become second-class citizens. Which mirrors 1930s Germany...

Quote

In 1933, new German laws forced Jews out of their civil service jobs, university and law court positions, and other areas of public life. In April 1933, laws proclaimed at Nuremberg made Jews second-class citizens. These Nuremberg Laws defined Jews, not by their religion or by how they wanted to identify themselves, but by the religious affiliation of their grandparents. Between 1937 and 1939, new anti-Jewish regulations segregated Jews further and made daily life very difficult for them. Jews could not attend public schools; go to theaters, cinema, or vacation resorts; or reside or even walk in certain sections of German cities.

Yikes... Is it really so unfair to look at history and see the striking resemblance? "Achtung, vaccine papers please"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favourite thing when I hear about the Vaccine rule is to say, "My body, my choice!"

It makes pro-choice advocates mad and they say, "But your choice impacts other people because herd immunity is impacted. You could kill someone by passing on COVID."

And it makes pro-life advocates mad because you point out that not getting the vaccine could cause deaths of others through no fault or choice of their own. Interestingly, most pro-life are anti-forced-Vax and most pro-choice are anti-Vax-choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

Yikes... Is it really so unfair to look at history and see the striking resemblance? "Achtung, vaccine papers please"

Yes, it is unfair. Honestly? It walks  right up to the point of delusion. It’s certainly cruel, because it downplays the horror holocaust victims went through. So there’s that. 

Again, Jews were treated much, much, much worse than people who choose not to get the shot. When people who choose not to get the shot are rounded up and put into gas chambers, than you can make the comparison. Until then, it’s just entitled whining. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Actually...I’m in favor of private companies refusing to serve who they choose. So, yes. Your employer has every right to sack you if you choose to spread a communicable disease to the customers or other employees. 

You are free to not get the vaccine. You are not free to force your boss into hiring or keeping someone if it goes against their beliefs.
 

It blows my mind how people “love freedom” for themselves, but then demand that their freedom trumps mine. You are free to do what you wish. I’m free to forbid you for working for me or dining in my establishment. No matter how much you (generic) play martyr, no. This isn’t like Nazism. You have a choice. The Jews did not. In fact, you should be forced to talk to a victim of the holocaust. Then, you’ll see what real Nazism is.  You’ll see very quickly how entitled your POV is. 

 

The problem I have with this is that, according to the science, individuals with natural immunity are less likely to spread COVID-19 and the variants than those that have been "vaccinated".    I do agree that you have every right to discriminate against those that threaten you and others safety - but you do not have to right to discriminate against someone just because of a prejudice you have against them because that you think (prejudge without knowledge) is a threat.

In addition my problem is that COVID-19 is no threat to 90% of the population any more than many other communicable diseases and anyone that is concerned that they are among the 10% at risk have no problem what-so-ever in getting the "vaccine".  So my question is - why can't free people make this decision for themselves?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FunkyTown said:

My favourite thing when I hear about the Vaccine rule is to say, "My body, my choice!"

It makes pro-choice advocates mad and they say, "But your choice impacts other people because herd immunity is impacted. You could kill someone by passing on COVID."

And it makes pro-life advocates mad because you point out that not getting the vaccine could cause deaths of others through no fault or choice of their own. Interestingly, most pro-life are anti-forced-Vax and most pro-choice are anti-Vax-choice. 

It doesn't really work that way though.

For example I am anti abortion pro death penalty... This is not hypocritical because the death row member made choices, and had due process.  While this is not a perfect system, the judgement is not done by a single person but by a group of people (a court) organized to do exactly that, so there is at least an attempt to removed biases and emotions.   Abortion is done on the judgement of one person who is usually in a very charged emotional state, with lots of unchecked biases.

As for the COVID vaccine it does not do that.  Current studies show that the vaccinated are not immune (Or even less likely) to getting infected, and they are not immune (or even less likely) to being contagious to others.   Thus as a protection to others the COVID vaccine is showing to be a total failure.  The vaccine does show that when the vaccinated person does (not if) get infected the symptoms are lessened for them.  Thus the COVID vaccine only benefits the individual and I so I have problem with mandating for a public good that is not supported by the science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

It doesn't really work that way though.

For example I am anti abortion pro death penalty... This is not hypocritical because the death row member made choices, and had due process.  While this is not a perfect system, the judgement is not done by a single person but by a group of people (a court) organized to do exactly that, so there is at least an attempt to removed biases and emotions.   Abortion is done on the judgement of one person who is usually in a very charged emotional state, with lots of unchecked biases.

As for the COVID vaccine it does not do that.  Current studies show that the vaccinated are not immune (Or even less likely) to getting infected, and they are not immune (or even less likely) to being contagious to others.   Thus as a protection to others the COVID vaccine is showing to be a total failure.  The vaccine does show that when the vaccinated person does (not if) get infected the symptoms are lessened for them.  Thus the COVID vaccine only benefits the individual and I so I have problem with mandating for a public good that is not supported by the science.

So if it was supported by the science, you would be in favor of forced vaccinations? If I could show evidence that, say, vaccinated people were less likely to pass on COVID and less likely to develop symptoms in the first place you would say, "Break put the lawbooks, because everyone should be forced to take it"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a saying that "Those that do not learn the lessons of History are doomed to repeat them"

For the Holocaust we say "Never again" and rightly so...  But to do that we have to "learn lessons" of History, we have to learn how in a country full of decent hardworking people could be a party to this happening, in their country, on their watch, and with their tacit approval.

When we see the tactics the Nazi's used to gain power and kill millions, we need people to stand up and yell "NAZI" and hurt the feelings of the decent hardworking people so that they do not make the same mistakes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

There is a saying that "Those that do not learn the lessons of History are doomed to repeat them"

For the Holocaust we say "Never again" and rightly so...  But to do that we have to "learn lessons" of History, we have to learn how in a country full of decent hardworking people could be a party to this happening, in their country, on their watch, and with their tacit approval.

When we see the tactics the Nazi's used to gain power and kill millions, we need people to stand up and yell "NAZI" and hurt the feelings of the decent hardworking people so that they do not make the same mistakes.

 

I understand what you're saying here, but it isn't what you said previously. That makes your first argument a red herring - something irrelevant.

 

So the counterargument would be that the nonvaccinated person made choices as well, and there will be due process in investigating their guilt with regards to the vaccine as well.

Your arguments against the vaccine also encourage a prochoice view.

 

What you are engaging in is called "motivational reasoning" . You ignore evidence counter to what you want to see while focusing on what you want. That's fine: Everyone does to some extent, but not seeing it means it's difficult to counter the oppositions arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FunkyTown said:

So if it was supported by the science, you would be in favor of forced vaccinations? If I could show evidence that, say, vaccinated people were less likely to pass on COVID and less likely to develop symptoms in the first place you would say, "Break put the lawbooks, because everyone should be forced to take it"?

You say two things here and they are not the same.  The protection of the individual, is the individuals choice, I only support getting good information to them.

Then there is protection of Others from the actions of Individual.  As a society we do have cases were an individuals rights are abridged and removed, for the safety of others (aka the whole legal system).  But note that there is a whole process involved and a whole framework  setup for this to happen it, it does not happen quickly.

And if we want to add something new to protect others from we have or should have robust discussions on them becoming law, laws which can later be removed if we desire.  We should be very leery of rights removal/abridgements done, in panic or emergency settings or being force through by fear.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

I understand what you're saying here, but it isn't what you said previously. That makes your first argument a red herring - something irrelevant.

I am addressing different subjects don't conflate them...  The first one is the COVID vaccine...   The second is the idea no one should ever shout "NAZI!" because it will hurt someone feelings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

You say two things here and they are not the same.  The protection of the individual, is the individuals choice, I only support getting good information to them.

Then there is protection of Others from the actions of Individual.  As a society we do have cases were an individuals rights are abridged and removed, for the safety of others (aka the whole legal system).  But note that there is a whole process involved and a whole framework  setup for this to happen it, it does not happen quickly.

And if we want to add something new to protect others from we have or should have robust discussions on them becoming law, laws which can later be removed if we desire.  We should be very leery of rights removal/abridgements done, in panic or emergency settings or being force through by fear.

 

I agree. But "We should discuss this" is a far cry from, "Vaccines shouldn't be mandated." It's true, but says nothing about what the consequences of those discussions are.

"My body, my choice" is a rallying cry of something already enshrined in law. If it's true, then the effects on others is irrelevant. 

If it's not, and we must consider the effects our choice about our bodies has on others, then prochoice arguments must be revisited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

I agree. But "We should discuss this" is a far cry from, "Vaccines shouldn't be mandated." It's true, but says nothing about what the consequences of those discussions are.

"My body, my choice" is a rallying cry of something already enshrined in law. If it's true, then the effects on others is irrelevant. 

If it's not, and we must consider the effects our choice about our bodies has on others, then prochoice arguments must be revisited.

"Vaccines shouldn't be mandated" is the counter position that can't not exist, until someone else declares "Mandatory vaccination"   You can't criticize the existence of one without criticizing one that caused it.  And when both are subject to criticism, that the discussion.  You can't have the discussion if only one side gets heard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

"Vaccines shouldn't be mandated" is the counter position that can't not exist, until someone else declares "Mandatory vaccination"   You can't criticize the existence of one without criticizing one that caused it.  And when both are subject to criticism, that the discussion.  You can't have the discussion if only one side gets heard. 

Yes, but it is trivially true. We're having the discussion now. Saying we should have the discussion when we are having the discussion says nothing about what the outcome should be.

There is something called a "base moral imperative" - that is, a base reason that something is immoral or moral. "Murder is wrong", for instance, would mean that we should pass a law preventing murder and we should protect others from murder 

Sometimes, those can be in conflict - you and I probably agree murder is wrong. But what if someone is attacking you or a loved one? Or an innocent? Is murder wrong if done in defense of someone's life?

But those moral imperatives we have are still there. In this case, if we believe the greatest moral imperative is the defense of the Innocent, then there is a moral obligation to get the vaccine if the science says so. If it's body autonomy and the defense of the Innocent doesn't trump that, then there is a moral imperative to stop attempts to force the vaccine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

....

As for the COVID vaccine it does not do that.  Current studies show that the vaccinated are not immune (Or even less likely) to getting infected, and they are not immune (or even less likely) to being contagious to others.   Thus as a protection to others the COVID vaccine is showing to be a total failure.  The vaccine does show that when the vaccinated person does (not if) get infected the symptoms are lessened for them.  Thus the COVID vaccine only benefits the individual and I so I have problem with mandating for a public good that is not supported by the science.

It is my understanding that those "vaccinated" have increased immunity and do become less contagious - especially if they did not have natural immunity prior to being vaccinated.  I think the statement that the COVID-19 "vaccine" is a total failure if anything is totally false.  It does seem that we are missing a lot of information about who is most effected.  From my personal experiences (and this includes posting on this forum) that any suggestion that being fat (overweight) is both a threat to individuals and society in general is considered cruel and bigoted.  But it would seem that being overweight is a greater problem than not being "vaccinated".  Thus if there is reason to discriminate because of COVID - Why not discriminate overweight?  Nothin extra needs to be issued to realize there is a problem.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2021 at 8:12 AM, clwnuke said:

Once those threats started, Vazi authorities became an accurate description IMHO. I would use something much stronger against those that have suggested that the unvaccinated be rounded up and shot (pun?).

Fun story: My father was in WWII.  He was in the Battle of the Bulge, pushed into Germany, and witnessed the end of the war.  He helped liberate one of the lesser known, less-horrible POW camps full of starving prisoners.  He told me stories about how the average German infantryman was pretty much exactly like him - some poor SOB doing a job to try to feed their family.  He heard about the end of the war by almost shooting a Germain soldier who came running at them yelling "The war is over!" in German.  Getting ready to move into Germany from Belgium, he witnessed endless refugees flooding out of Germany - including one guy who paddled himself across the Rhine in a washtub.  My dad told me some stories when I was a kid, some more weighty stories when I turned 18, and the most horrible ones after I turned 21.  

He was also part of the allied occupation forces for a while.  Processed a lot of surrendered and captured German military.  The German people were overjoyed things were over.  So were most of the military.   One of the stories I got when I turned 21, was the captured Nazi SS doctor.  "Everyone else was just defeated and wanting to go home, but that SS doctor, he had the cruelest eyes of any man I've ever seen.  Like they weren't even human eyes."  Nothing ever phased my dad.  But just telling the story and remembering that evil man, phased him. 

For 40 years, we all learned about the holocaust, the "Final solution", the torturous medical experimentation, how they trained German Shepherds in the concentration camps to specifically target the genitals of whomever they were set on.  We've pretty much buried all our original storytellers, all we have now are a few 100+ folks, the endless records of history growing dustier every hour, and a cultural awareness that fades a bit more with every death and new birth.

@clwnuke, I assume that you, like most people happily arguing away on message boards, have an interest in effectively arguing your points, perhaps persuading someone here or there, handing out links and facts and notions, hoping to have a beneficial impact on the grand debate.   Your ability to do so, is severely hampered if you're gonna push hogwash like you just pushed.   You might want to re-think your demonization tactics.  Because no matter how true your facts, how worthy your opinions, you run the risk of just plain old being "that guy who likens pro-vax activists to Nazis".  

Don't be that guy.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

Yes, but it is trivially true. We're having the discussion now. Saying we should have the discussion when we are having the discussion says nothing about what the outcome should be.

 

This is some minor forum in a corner of the internet...  on the subject of politics all we do is have trivial discussions about discussion

 

49 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

But those moral imperatives we have are still there. In this case, if we believe the greatest moral imperative is the defense of the Innocent, then there is a moral obligation to get the vaccine if the science says so. If it's body autonomy and the defense of the Innocent doesn't trump that, then there is a moral imperative to stop attempts to force the vaccine.

A moral imperative... isn't a moral imperative if it is imposed by outside forces.   And when you have government or other organizations using terms like 'mandatory'  you are in a place of imposition not morality.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

This is some minor forum in a corner of the internet...  on the subject of politics all we do is have trivial discussions about discussion

 

A moral imperative... isn't a moral imperative if it is imposed by outside forces.   And when you have government or other organizations using terms like 'mandatory'  you are in a place of imposition not morality.

 

I meant it was trivially true. As in, "It's true, but it's simplistic and obtained with little effort." - Yes, we should discuss it. But that doesn't suggest whether it's true or not.

 

The second is more interesting. A moral imperative isn't a moral imperative if it is imposed by outside forces. That isn't true, and you know it isn't true. You aren't advocating the removal of murder laws, despite those being imposed by outside forces. You aren't advocating the removal of rape laws, despite those being imposed by outside forces. You aren't advocating the removal of intellectual property laws, despite those being imposed by outside forces.

 

You're advocating a specific application of that particular idea, and only as it applies to supporting something you already support. That is an example of 'motivated rationality'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

@clwnuke, I assume that you, like most people happily arguing away on message boards, have an interest in effectively arguing your points, perhaps persuading someone here or there, handing out links and facts and notions, hoping to have a beneficial impact on the grand debate.   Your ability to do so, is severely hampered if you're gonna push hogwash like you just pushed.   You might want to re-think your demonization tactics.  Because no matter how true your facts, how worthy your opinions, you run the risk of just plain old being "that guy who likens pro-vax activists to Nazis".  

Don't be that guy.

So I want to be sure I understand, unless six million people dying via genocide are involved, you do not believe any parallels can be drawn from the rise of the National Socialist German Workers Party? We can't look at their step-by-step rise to power from 1920 to 1933, and how during those years the Nazi anti-Jewish policy functioned on two primary levels: legal measures to expel the Jews from society and strip them of their rights and property while simultaneously engaging in campaigns of incitement, abuse, terror and violence of varying proportions?

The Nazis had one goal: to make the Jews leave Germany. And at that time they were free to do so. After Hitler assumed power in 1933, organized attacks on the Jews began, and only weeks thereafter Dachau was opened as a concentration camp.

Can you and I agree that since the vaccines have become available, there has been a slow progression of the pressure being put upon the un-vaccinated? And can we further agree that we have progressed from discussion and persuasion to various measures of force from government authorities? And can't we also agree that if governments start mandating the vaccine with threats of losing jobs, freedoms, and liberty - that there are parallels to the Nazi tactics against the Jews from 1920 to 1933?

Every day I read headlines like:

CNN medical analyst suggests life 'needs to be hard' for unvaccinated Americans

or

You Don't Deserve Health Care if You're Not Vaccinated

and those are on the mild side. And didn't the US Department of Homeland Security recently label the unvaccinated as a potential Domestic Terrorist threat, similar to how the Jews were accused of being enemies of the Reich?

image.thumb.png.4dae8835dd252c004a637902277b959f.png

These types of threats and policies are very similar to the Nazi's anti-Jewish measures prior to beginning the final solution, so I have difficulty understanding why the comparison is unjust or disrespectful.

The goal is to stop these types of measures early. How much suffering could have been avoided if the German people had stopped the Nazi's before they came to power?

You can't expect people to be pushed into a corner with threats to their jobs and freedoms, by the very government that should be holding their freedom sacred, to not fight back.

What kind and respectful name would you suggest for the Vaccine Authorities who are labeling me a terrorist threat to my country, wanting to deny me healthcare, travel, and housing, and potentially firing me from my job? I choose Vazis.

I truly wish it had not progressed to this point, but as the vaccinated population in this country grew in size, mob mentality set in. Now the leaders in that majority want mob rule. I can't stay idle any longer. I've unfortunately been forced to speak up against those leaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LDSGator said:

Wrong. Their goal was world domination. Hence why Hitler invaded Poland and France. So there’s that. 

I can't disagree with that. Hitler certainly wanted world dominion, but their anti-Jewish policies were designed to push Jews out of Germany.

Edited by clwnuke
clarity of thought
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share