|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On August 22 2022 13:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 13:37 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:02 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:
And as we all know, people who don't want to work next to unvaccinated people can just quit their jobs, too. Because freedom is such a straight forward concept that it only goes in one direction and not also the other, right? People who don't want to work next to smokers can also just quit their jobs, right? And people who's neighbors play loud music at night can just move elsewhere. And when big companies build noisy roads in front of our doors, why don't we just plug our ears? And minors who have smoker parents can just leave their homes and become orphans, of course there's no problem with that. I wasn't aware how easy this whole freedom thing is, but now I'm enlightened. We don't have to make any rules for people who make life difficult for others, we can just leave their spaces and let them do whatever they want. This is going to go very well and make for a great society. I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. thats not how rights work. you dont have a right to not become sick. you dont have a right to not get shot dead in the street. generally speaking rights is the freedom to do or not do something. rights do jackshit for preventing something from happening to you. and more specifically to your point, the claim that vaccinated people must be protected and unvaccinated people present a risk to their health, well thats the entire point why the vaccinated people got vaccinated. if the vaccine does its job then the vaccinated people are protected regardless. i dont have any stats to back it up but im quite certain that the additional risk factor of a vaccinated person mingling with an unvaccinated person is negligible Maybe it's just semantics or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but can you please elaborate on why I don't have the right to not be murdered? I thought murder was illegal? I would think I have the right to live, no?
having a right has the implication that you have control. you cant control what other people do to you. you would like to live, but that doesnt mean you have a right to life.
legally we use the term 'rights' fairly often but i personally dislike the term. i think in actuality 'privilege' is a better term. what you think may be your right to walk down the street without fear of being shot is actually just the privilege of being able to do so because you live in a safe neighborhood. its also a privilege to simply be alive. you arent given an absolute right to anything
ive said this before in the gun thread also. gun enthusiasts' 'right' to own firearms isnt some god given right. it was a privilege granted to the citizens at a time when the government thought it was relevant.
so the idea that one should have the right to be unaffected by anothers actions is terribly misguided and the law should be very careful not to think that this sort of legislation is acceptable. canadas bill c-16 was a recent example of this.
|
On August 22 2022 15:15 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 13:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 22 2022 13:37 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:02 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:
And as we all know, people who don't want to work next to unvaccinated people can just quit their jobs, too. Because freedom is such a straight forward concept that it only goes in one direction and not also the other, right? People who don't want to work next to smokers can also just quit their jobs, right? And people who's neighbors play loud music at night can just move elsewhere. And when big companies build noisy roads in front of our doors, why don't we just plug our ears? And minors who have smoker parents can just leave their homes and become orphans, of course there's no problem with that. I wasn't aware how easy this whole freedom thing is, but now I'm enlightened. We don't have to make any rules for people who make life difficult for others, we can just leave their spaces and let them do whatever they want. This is going to go very well and make for a great society. I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. thats not how rights work. you dont have a right to not become sick. you dont have a right to not get shot dead in the street. generally speaking rights is the freedom to do or not do something. rights do jackshit for preventing something from happening to you. and more specifically to your point, the claim that vaccinated people must be protected and unvaccinated people present a risk to their health, well thats the entire point why the vaccinated people got vaccinated. if the vaccine does its job then the vaccinated people are protected regardless. i dont have any stats to back it up but im quite certain that the additional risk factor of a vaccinated person mingling with an unvaccinated person is negligible Maybe it's just semantics or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but can you please elaborate on why I don't have the right to not be murdered? I thought murder was illegal? I would think I have the right to live, no? having a right has the implication that you have control. you cant control what other people do to you. you would like to live, but that doesnt mean you have a right to life. legally we use the term 'rights' fairly often but i personally dislike the term. i think in actuality 'privilege' is a better term. what you think may be your right to walk down the street without fear of being shot is actually just the privilege of being able to do so because you live in a safe neighborhood. its also a privilege to simply be alive. you arent given an absolute right to anything ive said this before in the gun thread also. gun enthusiasts' 'right' to own firearms isnt some god given right. it was a privilege granted to the citizens at a time when the government thought it was relevant. so the idea that one should have the right to be unaffected by anothers actions is terribly misguided and the law should be very careful not to think that this sort of legislation is acceptable. canadas bill c-16 was a recent example of this.
I don't know if I agree with your definition of the term / implication of control, since:
+ Show Spoiler +
but I'm okay with using that definition. I do agree with you that it can be used in different ways, and that sometimes other words (like "privilege") might make more sense in other cases.
|
On August 22 2022 15:15 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 13:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 22 2022 13:37 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:02 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:
And as we all know, people who don't want to work next to unvaccinated people can just quit their jobs, too. Because freedom is such a straight forward concept that it only goes in one direction and not also the other, right? People who don't want to work next to smokers can also just quit their jobs, right? And people who's neighbors play loud music at night can just move elsewhere. And when big companies build noisy roads in front of our doors, why don't we just plug our ears? And minors who have smoker parents can just leave their homes and become orphans, of course there's no problem with that. I wasn't aware how easy this whole freedom thing is, but now I'm enlightened. We don't have to make any rules for people who make life difficult for others, we can just leave their spaces and let them do whatever they want. This is going to go very well and make for a great society. I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. thats not how rights work. you dont have a right to not become sick. you dont have a right to not get shot dead in the street. generally speaking rights is the freedom to do or not do something. rights do jackshit for preventing something from happening to you. and more specifically to your point, the claim that vaccinated people must be protected and unvaccinated people present a risk to their health, well thats the entire point why the vaccinated people got vaccinated. if the vaccine does its job then the vaccinated people are protected regardless. i dont have any stats to back it up but im quite certain that the additional risk factor of a vaccinated person mingling with an unvaccinated person is negligible Maybe it's just semantics or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but can you please elaborate on why I don't have the right to not be murdered? I thought murder was illegal? I would think I have the right to live, no? having a right has the implication that you have control. you cant control what other people do to you. you would like to live, but that doesnt mean you have a right to life. legally we use the term 'rights' fairly often but i personally dislike the term. i think in actuality 'privilege' is a better term. what you think may be your right to walk down the street without fear of being shot is actually just the privilege of being able to do so because you live in a safe neighborhood. its also a privilege to simply be alive. you arent given an absolute right to anything ive said this before in the gun thread also. gun enthusiasts' 'right' to own firearms isnt some god given right. it was a privilege granted to the citizens at a time when the government thought it was relevant. so the idea that one should have the right to be unaffected by anothers actions is terribly misguided and the law should be very careful not to think that this sort of legislation is acceptable. canadas bill c-16 was a recent example of this.
Except that the right to life is a very basic and universally, internationally accepted right. See Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
|
On August 22 2022 16:59 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 15:15 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 22 2022 13:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 22 2022 13:37 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:02 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:
And as we all know, people who don't want to work next to unvaccinated people can just quit their jobs, too. Because freedom is such a straight forward concept that it only goes in one direction and not also the other, right? People who don't want to work next to smokers can also just quit their jobs, right? And people who's neighbors play loud music at night can just move elsewhere. And when big companies build noisy roads in front of our doors, why don't we just plug our ears? And minors who have smoker parents can just leave their homes and become orphans, of course there's no problem with that. I wasn't aware how easy this whole freedom thing is, but now I'm enlightened. We don't have to make any rules for people who make life difficult for others, we can just leave their spaces and let them do whatever they want. This is going to go very well and make for a great society. I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. thats not how rights work. you dont have a right to not become sick. you dont have a right to not get shot dead in the street. generally speaking rights is the freedom to do or not do something. rights do jackshit for preventing something from happening to you. and more specifically to your point, the claim that vaccinated people must be protected and unvaccinated people present a risk to their health, well thats the entire point why the vaccinated people got vaccinated. if the vaccine does its job then the vaccinated people are protected regardless. i dont have any stats to back it up but im quite certain that the additional risk factor of a vaccinated person mingling with an unvaccinated person is negligible Maybe it's just semantics or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but can you please elaborate on why I don't have the right to not be murdered? I thought murder was illegal? I would think I have the right to live, no? having a right has the implication that you have control. you cant control what other people do to you. you would like to live, but that doesnt mean you have a right to life. legally we use the term 'rights' fairly often but i personally dislike the term. i think in actuality 'privilege' is a better term. what you think may be your right to walk down the street without fear of being shot is actually just the privilege of being able to do so because you live in a safe neighborhood. its also a privilege to simply be alive. you arent given an absolute right to anything ive said this before in the gun thread also. gun enthusiasts' 'right' to own firearms isnt some god given right. it was a privilege granted to the citizens at a time when the government thought it was relevant. so the idea that one should have the right to be unaffected by anothers actions is terribly misguided and the law should be very careful not to think that this sort of legislation is acceptable. canadas bill c-16 was a recent example of this. Except that the right to life is a very basic and universally, internationally accepted right. See Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
congratulations on completely missing the point. even that "right to life" is just a completely arbitrary string of words. if someone takes your life, the fact that you had a "right to life" means fuck all. youre dead, what are you gonna do about it. your right to life doesnt control the actions of people around you. if someone is prepared to kill you and suffer the consequences for it, good luck convincing him that he shouldnt kill you because you have a right to life. the claim that you have a right to life is just as absurd as saying you had a right to be born. you experience life because you won the lottery as a sperm cell. oh how lucky you are to have the privilege then to experience something your sperm competitors couldnt.
|
On August 22 2022 17:08 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 16:59 Mikau313 wrote:On August 22 2022 15:15 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 22 2022 13:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 22 2022 13:37 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:02 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:
And as we all know, people who don't want to work next to unvaccinated people can just quit their jobs, too. Because freedom is such a straight forward concept that it only goes in one direction and not also the other, right? People who don't want to work next to smokers can also just quit their jobs, right? And people who's neighbors play loud music at night can just move elsewhere. And when big companies build noisy roads in front of our doors, why don't we just plug our ears? And minors who have smoker parents can just leave their homes and become orphans, of course there's no problem with that. I wasn't aware how easy this whole freedom thing is, but now I'm enlightened. We don't have to make any rules for people who make life difficult for others, we can just leave their spaces and let them do whatever they want. This is going to go very well and make for a great society. I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. thats not how rights work. you dont have a right to not become sick. you dont have a right to not get shot dead in the street. generally speaking rights is the freedom to do or not do something. rights do jackshit for preventing something from happening to you. and more specifically to your point, the claim that vaccinated people must be protected and unvaccinated people present a risk to their health, well thats the entire point why the vaccinated people got vaccinated. if the vaccine does its job then the vaccinated people are protected regardless. i dont have any stats to back it up but im quite certain that the additional risk factor of a vaccinated person mingling with an unvaccinated person is negligible Maybe it's just semantics or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but can you please elaborate on why I don't have the right to not be murdered? I thought murder was illegal? I would think I have the right to live, no? having a right has the implication that you have control. you cant control what other people do to you. you would like to live, but that doesnt mean you have a right to life. legally we use the term 'rights' fairly often but i personally dislike the term. i think in actuality 'privilege' is a better term. what you think may be your right to walk down the street without fear of being shot is actually just the privilege of being able to do so because you live in a safe neighborhood. its also a privilege to simply be alive. you arent given an absolute right to anything ive said this before in the gun thread also. gun enthusiasts' 'right' to own firearms isnt some god given right. it was a privilege granted to the citizens at a time when the government thought it was relevant. so the idea that one should have the right to be unaffected by anothers actions is terribly misguided and the law should be very careful not to think that this sort of legislation is acceptable. canadas bill c-16 was a recent example of this. Except that the right to life is a very basic and universally, internationally accepted right. See Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. congratulations on completely missing the point. even that "right to life" is just a completely arbitrary string of words. if someone takes your life, the fact that you had a "right to life" means fuck all. youre dead, what are you gonna do about it. your right to life doesnt control the actions of people around you. if someone is prepared to kill you and suffer the consequences for it, good luck convincing him that he shouldnt kill you because you have a right to life. the claim that you have a right to life is just as absurd as saying you had a right to be born. you experience life because you won the lottery as a sperm cell. oh how lucky you are to have the privilege then to experience something your sperm competitors couldnt.
I think this is about to go down a rabbit hole of philosophical, legal, and linguistic semantics, and I'm not sure if we want the covid thread to go there.
|
On August 22 2022 17:08 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 16:59 Mikau313 wrote:On August 22 2022 15:15 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 22 2022 13:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 22 2022 13:37 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:02 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:
And as we all know, people who don't want to work next to unvaccinated people can just quit their jobs, too. Because freedom is such a straight forward concept that it only goes in one direction and not also the other, right? People who don't want to work next to smokers can also just quit their jobs, right? And people who's neighbors play loud music at night can just move elsewhere. And when big companies build noisy roads in front of our doors, why don't we just plug our ears? And minors who have smoker parents can just leave their homes and become orphans, of course there's no problem with that. I wasn't aware how easy this whole freedom thing is, but now I'm enlightened. We don't have to make any rules for people who make life difficult for others, we can just leave their spaces and let them do whatever they want. This is going to go very well and make for a great society. I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. thats not how rights work. you dont have a right to not become sick. you dont have a right to not get shot dead in the street. generally speaking rights is the freedom to do or not do something. rights do jackshit for preventing something from happening to you. and more specifically to your point, the claim that vaccinated people must be protected and unvaccinated people present a risk to their health, well thats the entire point why the vaccinated people got vaccinated. if the vaccine does its job then the vaccinated people are protected regardless. i dont have any stats to back it up but im quite certain that the additional risk factor of a vaccinated person mingling with an unvaccinated person is negligible Maybe it's just semantics or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but can you please elaborate on why I don't have the right to not be murdered? I thought murder was illegal? I would think I have the right to live, no? having a right has the implication that you have control. you cant control what other people do to you. you would like to live, but that doesnt mean you have a right to life. legally we use the term 'rights' fairly often but i personally dislike the term. i think in actuality 'privilege' is a better term. what you think may be your right to walk down the street without fear of being shot is actually just the privilege of being able to do so because you live in a safe neighborhood. its also a privilege to simply be alive. you arent given an absolute right to anything ive said this before in the gun thread also. gun enthusiasts' 'right' to own firearms isnt some god given right. it was a privilege granted to the citizens at a time when the government thought it was relevant. so the idea that one should have the right to be unaffected by anothers actions is terribly misguided and the law should be very careful not to think that this sort of legislation is acceptable. canadas bill c-16 was a recent example of this. Except that the right to life is a very basic and universally, internationally accepted right. See Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. congratulations on completely missing the point. even that "right to life" is just a completely arbitrary string of words. if someone takes your life, the fact that you had a "right to life" means fuck all. youre dead, what are you gonna do about it. your right to life doesnt control the actions of people around you. if someone is prepared to kill you and suffer the consequences for it, good luck convincing him that he shouldnt kill you because you have a right to life. the claim that you have a right to life is just as absurd as saying you had a right to be born. you experience life because you won the lottery as a sperm cell. oh how lucky you are to have the privilege then to experience something your sperm competitors couldnt.
So now we're having a philosophical debate on the meaning of the word "right"?
It's not me who missed the point, it's you with the quasi-philosophical 'arbitrary string of words'.
|
yeah i know this has gone off on a tangent. the only reason i brought it up was to point out that the argument for why you need to mandate vaccines is because "vaccinated people have a right to feel safe" is nonsense. find another argument
|
In most countries, the police don't owe an absolute duty to prevent a robber from killing you. So your right to life as an unfortunate victim is limited to the police saving you (but only if they so happen to be on the spot or nearby when being alerted). Even then, the police also has a duty not to harm the attacker more than necessary. So the police has to respect the right to life of both victim and attacker! And if you're dead, the right of life extends to the right for your family to get justice - that the police do a proper investigation and put the asshole behind bars.
There's some recent fiasco in the US that I read recently about how the police was slow to react in some recent school shooting. Maybe the officers will be dismissed or even charged for negligence on duty. But that still doesn't really translate to a right to be saved from being killed by some random stranger.
Not sure if the thread needs to be derailed in such fashion. But that's what I understand from the criminal justice system (which actually tends to guarantee more rights to suspects and accused). Maybe that's just true in some parts in the world.
|
On August 22 2022 17:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:
yeah i know this has gone off on a tangent. the only reason i brought it up was to point out that the argument for why you need to mandate vaccines is because "vaccinated people have a right to feel safe" is nonsense. find another argument
Who argued for the right to feel safe?
|
On August 22 2022 14:19 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 13:35 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 07:55 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:37 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:02 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:
And as we all know, people who don't want to work next to unvaccinated people can just quit their jobs, too. Because freedom is such a straight forward concept that it only goes in one direction and not also the other, right? People who don't want to work next to smokers can also just quit their jobs, right? And people who's neighbors play loud music at night can just move elsewhere. And when big companies build noisy roads in front of our doors, why don't we just plug our ears? And minors who have smoker parents can just leave their homes and become orphans, of course there's no problem with that. I wasn't aware how easy this whole freedom thing is, but now I'm enlightened. We don't have to make any rules for people who make life difficult for others, we can just leave their spaces and let them do whatever they want. This is going to go very well and make for a great society. I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. False. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, I think the vaccinated are well enough protected with their vaccine that they should not need to compel everyone around them to get the vaccine as well. That's not ignoring their rights - that's carefully considering their rights and deciding that they don't overrule the rights of people to decide what goes into their body. What you (or anyone) thinks is irrelevant in the face of the facts. Fact is that boosters make transmission less likely in both directions. You'll no doubt once again dispute my claim and pretend that it's false, even though your argument fails when put into the correct context? Wrong again. Why would I dispute the claim that boosters make transmission less likely? I’m the one here that’s been posting studies that show boosters offer some protection for at least 3 months and then maybe a tiny bit after that. If boosters didn’t make transmission less likely the Vaccine efficacy would have been 0% across the board, don’t you agree? I have absolutely no idea what your question says, maybe you want to rephrase that.
The question is why would you think I would dispute that boosters makes transmission less likely. I gave 4 links that showed boosters offered protection against Omicron infection for at least a few months and than a tiny bit after that. Protection against infection is protection against transmission. It's not complicated.
|
On August 22 2022 20:18 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 14:19 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 13:35 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 07:55 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:37 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:02 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:
And as we all know, people who don't want to work next to unvaccinated people can just quit their jobs, too. Because freedom is such a straight forward concept that it only goes in one direction and not also the other, right? People who don't want to work next to smokers can also just quit their jobs, right? And people who's neighbors play loud music at night can just move elsewhere. And when big companies build noisy roads in front of our doors, why don't we just plug our ears? And minors who have smoker parents can just leave their homes and become orphans, of course there's no problem with that. I wasn't aware how easy this whole freedom thing is, but now I'm enlightened. We don't have to make any rules for people who make life difficult for others, we can just leave their spaces and let them do whatever they want. This is going to go very well and make for a great society. I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. False. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, I think the vaccinated are well enough protected with their vaccine that they should not need to compel everyone around them to get the vaccine as well. That's not ignoring their rights - that's carefully considering their rights and deciding that they don't overrule the rights of people to decide what goes into their body. What you (or anyone) thinks is irrelevant in the face of the facts. Fact is that boosters make transmission less likely in both directions. You'll no doubt once again dispute my claim and pretend that it's false, even though your argument fails when put into the correct context? Wrong again. Why would I dispute the claim that boosters make transmission less likely? I’m the one here that’s been posting studies that show boosters offer some protection for at least 3 months and then maybe a tiny bit after that. If boosters didn’t make transmission less likely the Vaccine efficacy would have been 0% across the board, don’t you agree? I have absolutely no idea what your question says, maybe you want to rephrase that. The question is why would you think I would dispute that boosters makes transmission less likely. I gave 4 links that showed boosters offered protection against Omicron infection for at least a few months and than a tiny bit after that. Protection against infection is protection against transmission. It's not complicated.
If you agree that boosters make transmission less likely, then this opinion of yours
As I have said repeatedly in this thread, I think the vaccinated are well enough protected with their vaccine that they should not need to compel everyone around them to get the vaccine as well.
is irrelevant. According to the scientific facts, people would be rightfully concerned having to live and work side by side with unvaccinated people.
|
On August 22 2022 20:36 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 20:18 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 14:19 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 13:35 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 07:55 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:37 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:02 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:
And as we all know, people who don't want to work next to unvaccinated people can just quit their jobs, too. Because freedom is such a straight forward concept that it only goes in one direction and not also the other, right? People who don't want to work next to smokers can also just quit their jobs, right? And people who's neighbors play loud music at night can just move elsewhere. And when big companies build noisy roads in front of our doors, why don't we just plug our ears? And minors who have smoker parents can just leave their homes and become orphans, of course there's no problem with that. I wasn't aware how easy this whole freedom thing is, but now I'm enlightened. We don't have to make any rules for people who make life difficult for others, we can just leave their spaces and let them do whatever they want. This is going to go very well and make for a great society. I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. False. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, I think the vaccinated are well enough protected with their vaccine that they should not need to compel everyone around them to get the vaccine as well. That's not ignoring their rights - that's carefully considering their rights and deciding that they don't overrule the rights of people to decide what goes into their body. What you (or anyone) thinks is irrelevant in the face of the facts. Fact is that boosters make transmission less likely in both directions. You'll no doubt once again dispute my claim and pretend that it's false, even though your argument fails when put into the correct context? Wrong again. Why would I dispute the claim that boosters make transmission less likely? I’m the one here that’s been posting studies that show boosters offer some protection for at least 3 months and then maybe a tiny bit after that. If boosters didn’t make transmission less likely the Vaccine efficacy would have been 0% across the board, don’t you agree? I have absolutely no idea what your question says, maybe you want to rephrase that. The question is why would you think I would dispute that boosters makes transmission less likely. I gave 4 links that showed boosters offered protection against Omicron infection for at least a few months and than a tiny bit after that. Protection against infection is protection against transmission. It's not complicated. If you agree that boosters make transmission less likely, then this opinion of yours Show nested quote +As I have said repeatedly in this thread, I think the vaccinated are well enough protected with their vaccine that they should not need to compel everyone around them to get the vaccine as well. is irrelevant. According to the scientific facts, people would be rightfully concerned having to live and work side by side with unvaccinated people.
Sure they can be concerned all they want. I can't dictate how concerned they feel.
|
On August 22 2022 20:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 20:36 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 20:18 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 14:19 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 13:35 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 07:55 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:37 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:02 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:
And as we all know, people who don't want to work next to unvaccinated people can just quit their jobs, too. Because freedom is such a straight forward concept that it only goes in one direction and not also the other, right? People who don't want to work next to smokers can also just quit their jobs, right? And people who's neighbors play loud music at night can just move elsewhere. And when big companies build noisy roads in front of our doors, why don't we just plug our ears? And minors who have smoker parents can just leave their homes and become orphans, of course there's no problem with that. I wasn't aware how easy this whole freedom thing is, but now I'm enlightened. We don't have to make any rules for people who make life difficult for others, we can just leave their spaces and let them do whatever they want. This is going to go very well and make for a great society. I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. False. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, I think the vaccinated are well enough protected with their vaccine that they should not need to compel everyone around them to get the vaccine as well. That's not ignoring their rights - that's carefully considering their rights and deciding that they don't overrule the rights of people to decide what goes into their body. What you (or anyone) thinks is irrelevant in the face of the facts. Fact is that boosters make transmission less likely in both directions. You'll no doubt once again dispute my claim and pretend that it's false, even though your argument fails when put into the correct context? Wrong again. Why would I dispute the claim that boosters make transmission less likely? I’m the one here that’s been posting studies that show boosters offer some protection for at least 3 months and then maybe a tiny bit after that. If boosters didn’t make transmission less likely the Vaccine efficacy would have been 0% across the board, don’t you agree? I have absolutely no idea what your question says, maybe you want to rephrase that. The question is why would you think I would dispute that boosters makes transmission less likely. I gave 4 links that showed boosters offered protection against Omicron infection for at least a few months and than a tiny bit after that. Protection against infection is protection against transmission. It's not complicated. If you agree that boosters make transmission less likely, then this opinion of yours As I have said repeatedly in this thread, I think the vaccinated are well enough protected with their vaccine that they should not need to compel everyone around them to get the vaccine as well. is irrelevant. According to the scientific facts, people would be rightfully concerned having to live and work side by side with unvaccinated people. Sure they can be concerned all they want. I can't dictate how concerned they feel.
Just like evil you're also misrepresenting the argument. They're rightfully concerned, not concerned. Unvaccinated people are basically saying "more of you may get infected by me, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make". Your argument is akin to saying "I don't wash myself with soap, so what? At least I'm not injecting anything into your body. What, am I hurting your feelings by being needlessly unsanitary?"
You're only willing to acknowledge the rights of the unvaccinated but not the rights of the vaccinated.
I could use your dishonest reframing against you. Sure the unvaccinated can be concerned about side effects from vaccines all they want. I can't dictate how concerned they feel.
That is totally not dismissive and dishonest at all, or is it now?
|
On August 22 2022 19:48 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 17:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:
yeah i know this has gone off on a tangent. the only reason i brought it up was to point out that the argument for why you need to mandate vaccines is because "vaccinated people have a right to feel safe" is nonsense. find another argument Who argued for the right to feel safe?
On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 07:02 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:
And as we all know, people who don't want to work next to unvaccinated people can just quit their jobs, too. Because freedom is such a straight forward concept that it only goes in one direction and not also the other, right? People who don't want to work next to smokers can also just quit their jobs, right? And people who's neighbors play loud music at night can just move elsewhere. And when big companies build noisy roads in front of our doors, why don't we just plug our ears? And minors who have smoker parents can just leave their homes and become orphans, of course there's no problem with that. I wasn't aware how easy this whole freedom thing is, but now I'm enlightened. We don't have to make any rules for people who make life difficult for others, we can just leave their spaces and let them do whatever they want. This is going to go very well and make for a great society. I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people.
you did. i dont see how you could argue that you were implying something else in this post.
|
On August 22 2022 21:12 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 20:41 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 20:36 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 20:18 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 14:19 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 13:35 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 07:55 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:37 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:02 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. False. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, I think the vaccinated are well enough protected with their vaccine that they should not need to compel everyone around them to get the vaccine as well. That's not ignoring their rights - that's carefully considering their rights and deciding that they don't overrule the rights of people to decide what goes into their body. What you (or anyone) thinks is irrelevant in the face of the facts. Fact is that boosters make transmission less likely in both directions. You'll no doubt once again dispute my claim and pretend that it's false, even though your argument fails when put into the correct context? Wrong again. Why would I dispute the claim that boosters make transmission less likely? I’m the one here that’s been posting studies that show boosters offer some protection for at least 3 months and then maybe a tiny bit after that. If boosters didn’t make transmission less likely the Vaccine efficacy would have been 0% across the board, don’t you agree? I have absolutely no idea what your question says, maybe you want to rephrase that. The question is why would you think I would dispute that boosters makes transmission less likely. I gave 4 links that showed boosters offered protection against Omicron infection for at least a few months and than a tiny bit after that. Protection against infection is protection against transmission. It's not complicated. If you agree that boosters make transmission less likely, then this opinion of yours As I have said repeatedly in this thread, I think the vaccinated are well enough protected with their vaccine that they should not need to compel everyone around them to get the vaccine as well. is irrelevant. According to the scientific facts, people would be rightfully concerned having to live and work side by side with unvaccinated people. Sure they can be concerned all they want. I can't dictate how concerned they feel. Just like evil you're also misrepresenting the argument. They're rightfully concerned, not concerned. Unvaccinated people are basically saying "more of you may get infected by me, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make". Your argument is akin to saying "I don't wash myself with soap, so what? At least I'm not injecting anything into your body. What, am I hurting your feelings by being needlessly unsanitary?" You're only willing to acknowledge the rights of the unvaccinated but not the rights of the vaccinated. I could use your dishonest reframing against you. Sure the unvaccinated can be concerned about side effects from vaccines all they want. I can't dictate how concerned they feel. That is totally not dismissive and dishonest at all, or is it now?
Didn’t you say that “I’ve never argued that vaccinated people should be banned from the workplace” like a page ago? So…? Do you think they should be then? Because if not you seem to be taking a lot of issue with something you agree with me on lol. If you do then that’s fine. We’ll agree to disagree. Or disagree to disagree.
|
On August 22 2022 21:41 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 19:48 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 17:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:
yeah i know this has gone off on a tangent. the only reason i brought it up was to point out that the argument for why you need to mandate vaccines is because "vaccinated people have a right to feel safe" is nonsense. find another argument Who argued for the right to feel safe? Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:02 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:
And as we all know, people who don't want to work next to unvaccinated people can just quit their jobs, too. Because freedom is such a straight forward concept that it only goes in one direction and not also the other, right? People who don't want to work next to smokers can also just quit their jobs, right? And people who's neighbors play loud music at night can just move elsewhere. And when big companies build noisy roads in front of our doors, why don't we just plug our ears? And minors who have smoker parents can just leave their homes and become orphans, of course there's no problem with that. I wasn't aware how easy this whole freedom thing is, but now I'm enlightened. We don't have to make any rules for people who make life difficult for others, we can just leave their spaces and let them do whatever they want. This is going to go very well and make for a great society. I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. you did. i dont see how you could argue that you were implying something else in this post.
No I didn't.
|
On August 22 2022 21:56 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 21:12 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 20:41 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 20:36 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 20:18 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 14:19 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 13:35 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 07:55 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:37 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. False. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, I think the vaccinated are well enough protected with their vaccine that they should not need to compel everyone around them to get the vaccine as well. That's not ignoring their rights - that's carefully considering their rights and deciding that they don't overrule the rights of people to decide what goes into their body. What you (or anyone) thinks is irrelevant in the face of the facts. Fact is that boosters make transmission less likely in both directions. You'll no doubt once again dispute my claim and pretend that it's false, even though your argument fails when put into the correct context? Wrong again. Why would I dispute the claim that boosters make transmission less likely? I’m the one here that’s been posting studies that show boosters offer some protection for at least 3 months and then maybe a tiny bit after that. If boosters didn’t make transmission less likely the Vaccine efficacy would have been 0% across the board, don’t you agree? I have absolutely no idea what your question says, maybe you want to rephrase that. The question is why would you think I would dispute that boosters makes transmission less likely. I gave 4 links that showed boosters offered protection against Omicron infection for at least a few months and than a tiny bit after that. Protection against infection is protection against transmission. It's not complicated. If you agree that boosters make transmission less likely, then this opinion of yours As I have said repeatedly in this thread, I think the vaccinated are well enough protected with their vaccine that they should not need to compel everyone around them to get the vaccine as well. is irrelevant. According to the scientific facts, people would be rightfully concerned having to live and work side by side with unvaccinated people. Sure they can be concerned all they want. I can't dictate how concerned they feel. Just like evil you're also misrepresenting the argument. They're rightfully concerned, not concerned. Unvaccinated people are basically saying "more of you may get infected by me, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make". Your argument is akin to saying "I don't wash myself with soap, so what? At least I'm not injecting anything into your body. What, am I hurting your feelings by being needlessly unsanitary?" You're only willing to acknowledge the rights of the unvaccinated but not the rights of the vaccinated. I could use your dishonest reframing against you. Sure the unvaccinated can be concerned about side effects from vaccines all they want. I can't dictate how concerned they feel. That is totally not dismissive and dishonest at all, or is it now? Didn’t you say that “I’ve never argued that vaccinated people should be banned from the workplace” like a page ago? So…? Do you think they should be then? Because if not you seem to be taking a lot of issue with something you agree with me on lol. If you do then that’s fine. We’ll agree to disagree. Or disagree to disagree.
No they should not be banned. My point of view is that radical points of view need to get out of the debate. That is yours and JimmiC's.
|
On August 22 2022 21:59 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 21:41 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 22 2022 19:48 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 17:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:
yeah i know this has gone off on a tangent. the only reason i brought it up was to point out that the argument for why you need to mandate vaccines is because "vaccinated people have a right to feel safe" is nonsense. find another argument Who argued for the right to feel safe? On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:02 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:
And as we all know, people who don't want to work next to unvaccinated people can just quit their jobs, too. Because freedom is such a straight forward concept that it only goes in one direction and not also the other, right? People who don't want to work next to smokers can also just quit their jobs, right? And people who's neighbors play loud music at night can just move elsewhere. And when big companies build noisy roads in front of our doors, why don't we just plug our ears? And minors who have smoker parents can just leave their homes and become orphans, of course there's no problem with that. I wasn't aware how easy this whole freedom thing is, but now I'm enlightened. We don't have to make any rules for people who make life difficult for others, we can just leave their spaces and let them do whatever they want. This is going to go very well and make for a great society. I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. you did. i dont see how you could argue that you were implying something else in this post. No I didn't.
then what do you mean by "rights of the vaccinated"?
|
On August 22 2022 22:05 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 21:59 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 21:41 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 22 2022 19:48 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 17:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:
yeah i know this has gone off on a tangent. the only reason i brought it up was to point out that the argument for why you need to mandate vaccines is because "vaccinated people have a right to feel safe" is nonsense. find another argument Who argued for the right to feel safe? On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:02 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:
And as we all know, people who don't want to work next to unvaccinated people can just quit their jobs, too. Because freedom is such a straight forward concept that it only goes in one direction and not also the other, right? People who don't want to work next to smokers can also just quit their jobs, right? And people who's neighbors play loud music at night can just move elsewhere. And when big companies build noisy roads in front of our doors, why don't we just plug our ears? And minors who have smoker parents can just leave their homes and become orphans, of course there's no problem with that. I wasn't aware how easy this whole freedom thing is, but now I'm enlightened. We don't have to make any rules for people who make life difficult for others, we can just leave their spaces and let them do whatever they want. This is going to go very well and make for a great society. I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. you did. i dont see how you could argue that you were implying something else in this post. No I didn't. then what do you mean by "rights of the vaccinated"?
Exactly what it says. The rights of some don't outweigh the rights of others. Laws must be balanced accordingly.
Since this virus is much more severe than the flu, the law has to be adjusted accordingly. It's the same as with all other laws. Private citizens can't own grenade launchers, but they can own guns. They can't wear a police uniform, but they can do citizen's arrest. They can't smoke in their workplace (except in some states), but they can smoke outdoors. This is how a functioning society operates, it cooperates and doesn't just refuse to budge on literally everything at all times.
There's nuance, and people who are either completely against any vaccine laws or completely in favor of all vaccine laws are making a mockery of the debate around more nuanced and balanced views that can serve more people to create an overall healthier environment.
|
On August 22 2022 22:11 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2022 22:05 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 22 2022 21:59 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 21:41 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 22 2022 19:48 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 17:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:
yeah i know this has gone off on a tangent. the only reason i brought it up was to point out that the argument for why you need to mandate vaccines is because "vaccinated people have a right to feel safe" is nonsense. find another argument Who argued for the right to feel safe? On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 07:02 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:
And as we all know, people who don't want to work next to unvaccinated people can just quit their jobs, too. Because freedom is such a straight forward concept that it only goes in one direction and not also the other, right? People who don't want to work next to smokers can also just quit their jobs, right? And people who's neighbors play loud music at night can just move elsewhere. And when big companies build noisy roads in front of our doors, why don't we just plug our ears? And minors who have smoker parents can just leave their homes and become orphans, of course there's no problem with that. I wasn't aware how easy this whole freedom thing is, but now I'm enlightened. We don't have to make any rules for people who make life difficult for others, we can just leave their spaces and let them do whatever they want. This is going to go very well and make for a great society. I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. you did. i dont see how you could argue that you were implying something else in this post. No I didn't. then what do you mean by "rights of the vaccinated"? Exactly what it says. The rights of some don't outweigh the rights of others. Laws must be balanced accordingly. Since this virus is much more severe than the flu, the law has to be adjusted accordingly. It's the same as with all other laws. Private citizens can't own grenade launchers, but they can own guns. They can't wear a police uniform, but they can do citizen's arrest. They can't smoke in their workplace (except in some states), but they can smoke outdoors. This is how a functioning society operates, it cooperates and doesn't just refuse to budge on literally everything at all times. There's nuance, and people who are either completely against any vaccine laws or completely in favor of all vaccine laws are making a mockery of the debate around more nuanced and balanced views that can serve more people to create an overall healthier environment.
youre not answering the question. what rights specifcally do vaccinated people have that youre afraid is being compromised?
also its interesting you put this line "The rights of some don't outweigh the rights of others" in your post. based on your last few points, that quote works less in your favour and more in mine. whatever rights of the vaccinated youre referring to shouldnt be enough to infringe on the right of the unvaccinated to choose whether they receive the vaccine or not.
to be clear, im not trying to argue against mandates entirely. im saying the specific argument that a mandate should be in place because people need to be safer despite all the measures they can take, including taking the vaccine, isnt a good enough argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/5gIl0Rd.png)
