bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Jesus, here we go again with strawman arguments and fallacies. Stay focused, I have stated that I am not anti-vax and that i support the Rona vaccine, but am anti-mandate. The mandate takes away the liberties protected in the Constitution, its that simple.

The mandates save lives so people that have REAL Medical issues with the vaccine get to enjoy the constitution longer. At this point, If it wasn't for those that are vulnerable, I would say to hell with the madates, and let the stupid people take their chances with real medical consequences, and have them sign an exclusion waiver on medical assistance related to Covid.

I understand the why, I still don't agree with the mandate though. I got it to protect others because I am not a shithead, but that doesn't mean I think the GOV can force someone to do that. If we use that as an argument, I can think of a lot of things the GOV should do or restrict further to protect other people.

We are in a point where we are mandated into a prolonged runout already because the people that didn't want to wear masks, didn't want to get vaccinated, have overwhelmed hospitals, and kept volunteers and substitutes out of schools.

We need the federal mandate for companies that work in the Government. You want to go to school, you have to get vaccines, you want to work for a job, you get a drug test. The vaccine mandates is no different than a condition of employment, because the inexcusable irrationality of people should not be allowed to make everyone else's health and well being worse.

FlapOperator wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

We've already shown in this thread, that if you don't show enough "social solidarity" whatever that means, you don't get social services.

I mean, I wish that was the standard for lots of things, like say, serving directly in uniform a totalitarian state, but I guess that doesn't.

What is social solidarity?

From the standard here, I would assume "doing what the government tells you to do."

Honestly, its a troubling standard for any free society, and should we extend it, might have some implications that should trouble us all.

I don't disagree! The Government, at least in the United States, is there to serve the people, not the other way around. Unlike in other countries, here in the United States we are NOT subjects to the Government, and the Government and foreigners need to remember that.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Might the historical fact that Saxony was part of the DDR have relevance?

To my post? Partly. Those against being vaccinations and mask mandates (actually they were generally against doing anything and some just believe the whole thing is a hoax), are a mix. Some are those that yes lived in the GDR times and so oppose anyone telling them to do anything since it happened before (mind you there are plenty of older people here who want the old days back).

Some are full on Communists who demand Capitalism be demolished so view this whole thing as a plot by the medical companies to make money (not isolated to this part of the world). Also in this part of Germany is the main support of the AfD political party and some very right wing folks who won't listen to a word the government says about anything. Then you have the full on Nazis' who again won't listen to anyone unless they are pure Germans and want to kick out all Jews and foreigners. All of these groups will happily listen to, absorb and regurgitate anything that matches their general world view no matter how insane or crazy.

Others were just lazy and because we hardly got hit in the first few waves just never thought it was serious enough to warrant getting vaxxed.

i sincerely hope the last group are the main ones, however the way things have been here the last few years I think it's a mix of all of it.

ItnStln wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

What is social solidarity?

From the standard here, I would assume "doing what the government tells you to do."

Honestly, its a troubling standard for any free society, and should we extend it, might have some implications that should trouble us all.

I don't disagree! The Government, at least in the United States, is there to serve the people, not the other way around. Unlike in other countries, here in the United States we are NOT subjects to the Government, and the Government and foreigners need to remember that.

Public health organizations and the military epidemiological research labs *are* public services. Incredible.

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The mandates save lives so people that have REAL Medical issues with the vaccine get to enjoy the constitution longer. At this point, If it wasn't for those that are vulnerable, I would say to hell with the madates, and let the stupid people take their chances with real medical consequences, and have them sign an exclusion waiver on medical assistance related to Covid.

I understand the why, I still don't agree with the mandate though. I got it to protect others because I am not a shithead, but that doesn't mean I think the GOV can force someone to do that. If we use that as an argument, I can think of a lot of things the GOV should do or restrict further to protect other people.

We are in a point where we are mandated into a prolonged runout already because the people that didn't want to wear masks, didn't want to get vaccinated, have overwhelmed hospitals, and kept volunteers and substitutes out of schools.

We need the federal mandate for companies that work in the Government. You want to go to school, you have to get vaccines, you want to work for a job, you get a drug test. The vaccine mandates is no different than a condition of employment, because the inexcusable irrationality of people should not be allowed to make everyone else's health and well being worse.

We are in this mess because a new virus was unleashed on the world, not because someone didnt wear a mask. And I disagree with all of those mandates. If a private company wants to set a condition on me using their service. then its my choice to comply and use the service or not. I'm totally cool with that, I'm not okay with these mandates being forced by the Gov without the people (Congress) weighing in.

Aaron747 wrote:

Public health organizations and the military epidemiological research labs *are* public services. Incredible.

In the case of public health organization at the federal level largely unaccountably for significant errors and public omissions made during this crisis.

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I understand the why, I still don't agree with the mandate though. I got it to protect others because I am not a shithead, but that doesn't mean I think the GOV can force someone to do that. If we use that as an argument, I can think of a lot of things the GOV should do or restrict further to protect other people.

We are in a point where we are mandated into a prolonged runout already because the people that didn't want to wear masks, didn't want to get vaccinated, have overwhelmed hospitals, and kept volunteers and substitutes out of schools.

We need the federal mandate for companies that work in the Government. You want to go to school, you have to get vaccines, you want to work for a job, you get a drug test. The vaccine mandates is no different than a condition of employment, because the inexcusable irrationality of people should not be allowed to make everyone else's health and well being worse.

And I disagree with all of those mandates. If a private company wants to set a condition on me using their service. then its my choice to comply and use the service or not. I'm totally cool with that, I'm not okay with these mandates being forced by the Gov without the people (Congress) weighing in.

This right here is my problem!

ItnStln wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

We are in a point where we are mandated into a prolonged runout already because the people that didn't want to wear masks, didn't want to get vaccinated, have overwhelmed hospitals, and kept volunteers and substitutes out of schools.

We need the federal mandate for companies that work in the Government. You want to go to school, you have to get vaccines, you want to work for a job, you get a drug test. The vaccine mandates is no different than a condition of employment, because the inexcusable irrationality of people should not be allowed to make everyone else's health and well being worse.

And I disagree with all of those mandates. If a private company wants to set a condition on me using their service. then its my choice to comply and use the service or not. I'm totally cool with that, I'm not okay with these mandates being forced by the Gov without the people (Congress) weighing in.

This right here is my problem!

I think you are agreeing, correct?

ItnStln wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

What is social solidarity?

From the standard here, I would assume "doing what the government tells you to do."

Honestly, its a troubling standard for any free society, and should we extend it, might have some implications that should trouble us all.

I don't disagree! The Government, at least in the United States, is there to serve the people, not the other way around. Unlike in other countries, here in the United States we are NOT subjects to the Government, and the Government and foreigners need to remember that.

Americans and foreigners are subject to the law of the land. Governments make laws. Citizens are subject to the decisions of present and past governments whether they like it or not.

bpatus297 wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

And I disagree with all of those mandates. If a private company wants to set a condition on me using their service. then its my choice to comply and use the service or not. I'm totally cool with that, I'm not okay with these mandates being forced by the Gov without the people (Congress) weighing in.

This right here is my problem!

I think you are agreeing, correct?

I am agreeing with what you said!

CometII wrote:

Probably for the Ntenth time, western liberal democracy is NOT "I can do whatever I want regardless of whether it hurts the rights and pursuit of life of others".

You’ll need to specify exactly which rights of yours are hurt by people who don’t want to receive the Covid vaccine. We now have countries 80-90% vaccinated with strained hospital systems and lifestyle restrictions, so I fail to see how the very intrusive remedy of force-vaccinating people is a solve for any rights of yours that you think are hurt. I’m triple-vaccinated and am a strong proponent of the vaccines, but would never support something like forced or total compulsory vaccination for all citizens. Certain restrictions are fine, but the latter is chilling with no real limiting principle.

And while western governments are falling over themselves to enact China-like restrictions instead of getting vaccine out to the rest of the world…surprise surprise, more variants are now popping up.

CometII wrote:

That is absolutely and totally NOT what the Founding Fathers, or any of the 18th and 19th Century Enlightment ever would have envisioned. This idea of "me me me" is a recent phenomenon.

It’s not a “me me me” or recent phenomenon that the state should respect peoples’ person…not totally free from restrictions or consequences, but if someone doesn’t want to take the vaccine and would rather hole themselves up in a cabin in the middle of nowhere and homeschool their kids, that’s their right.

CometII wrote:

People in the early 20th century would not bat an eyelash at the government telling them to vote, or to get a vaccine, or to be conscripted.

Uh, hello? All of those mandates were certainly vociferously debated/objected to and/or abolished in that time.

ItnStln wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

We are in a point where we are mandated into a prolonged runout already because the people that didn't want to wear masks, didn't want to get vaccinated, have overwhelmed hospitals, and kept volunteers and substitutes out of schools.

We need the federal mandate for companies that work in the Government. You want to go to school, you have to get vaccines, you want to work for a job, you get a drug test. The vaccine mandates is no different than a condition of employment, because the inexcusable irrationality of people should not be allowed to make everyone else's health and well being worse.

And I disagree with all of those mandates. If a private company wants to set a condition on me using their service. then its my choice to comply and use the service or not. I'm totally cool with that, I'm not okay with these mandates being forced by the Gov without the people (Congress) weighing in.

This right here is my problem!

I think that is what is lost on the other side of this debate. They don't want to/can't/refuse to see this.

art wrote:

Americans and foreigners are subject to the law of the land. Governments make laws. Citizens are subject to the decisions of present and past governments whether they like it or not.

Indeed. Law. Made by legislatures, comprised of elected and thus accountable politicians.

Much of the response to this crisis in the US was made via the emergency police power vested in these organizations to respond to emergencies, vice a many months long campaign.

I don't doubt the legislatures want it that way...better to blame the faceless bureaucrat "doing his job" that face a very public political backlash.

art wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

From the standard here, I would assume "doing what the government tells you to do."

Honestly, its a troubling standard for any free society, and should we extend it, might have some implications that should trouble us all.

I don't disagree! The Government, at least in the United States, is there to serve the people, not the other way around. Unlike in other countries, here in the United States we are NOT subjects to the Government, and the Government and foreigners need to remember that.

Americans and foreigners are subject to the law of the land. Governments make laws. Citizens are subject to the decisions of present and past governments whether they like it or not.

Perhaps in your country, but in my country it is the Government who serves the people, not like some countries where the people are subjects of the Government.

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I understand the why, I still don't agree with the mandate though. I got it to protect others because I am not a shithead, but that doesn't mean I think the GOV can force someone to do that. If we use that as an argument, I can think of a lot of things the GOV should do or restrict further to protect other people.

We are in a point where we are mandated into a prolonged runout already because the people that didn't want to wear masks, didn't want to get vaccinated, have overwhelmed hospitals, and kept volunteers and substitutes out of schools.

We need the federal mandate for companies that work in the Government. You want to go to school, you have to get vaccines, you want to work for a job, you get a drug test. The vaccine mandates is no different than a condition of employment, because the inexcusable irrationality of people should not be allowed to make everyone else's health and well being worse.

We are in this mess because a new virus was unleashed on the world, not because someone didnt wear a mask. And I disagree with all of those mandates. If a private company wants to set a condition on me using their service. then its my choice to comply and use the service or not. I'm totally cool with that, I'm not okay with these mandates being forced by the Gov without the people (Congress) weighing in.

The President is the Executive branch of the Government, and he has to respond to disasters, especially ones perpetuated and worsened by people, that don't mitigate the risk. People that don't like 'Mandates' are people that generally don't see the danger until it is too late, and they put others at risk.

ItnStln wrote:

art wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

I don't disagree! The Government, at least in the United States, is there to serve the people, not the other way around. Unlike in other countries, here in the United States we are NOT subjects to the Government, and the Government and foreigners need to remember that.

Americans and foreigners are subject to the law of the land. Governments make laws. Citizens are subject to the decisions of present and past governments whether they like it or not.

Perhaps in your country, but in my country it is the Government who serves the people, not like some countries where the people are subjects of the Government.

I don't know about in your country but here we elect politicians to parliament to act in our best interests - not to do what we want them to do. For example, most people dislike paying tax and, given a choice, would not pay it. It is in the electorate's best interest to have tax imposed on it against its will by the government.

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

We are in a point where we are mandated into a prolonged runout already because the people that didn't want to wear masks, didn't want to get vaccinated, have overwhelmed hospitals, and kept volunteers and substitutes out of schools.

We need the federal mandate for companies that work in the Government. You want to go to school, you have to get vaccines, you want to work for a job, you get a drug test. The vaccine mandates is no different than a condition of employment, because the inexcusable irrationality of people should not be allowed to make everyone else's health and well being worse.

We are in this mess because a new virus was unleashed on the world, not because someone didnt wear a mask. And I disagree with all of those mandates. If a private company wants to set a condition on me using their service. then its my choice to comply and use the service or not. I'm totally cool with that, I'm not okay with these mandates being forced by the Gov without the people (Congress) weighing in.

The President is the Executive branch of the Government, and he has to respond to disasters, especially ones perpetuated and worsened by people, that don't mitigate the risk. People that don't like 'Mandates' are people that generally don't see the danger until it is too late, and they put others at risk.

Emergency powers are should be short and temporary in nature. I also don't think Congress intended the National Emergencies Act to empower the POTUS to mandate a shot or lose personal liberties.

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

We are in this mess because a new virus was unleashed on the world, not because someone didnt wear a mask. And I disagree with all of those mandates. If a private company wants to set a condition on me using their service. then its my choice to comply and use the service or not. I'm totally cool with that, I'm not okay with these mandates being forced by the Gov without the people (Congress) weighing in.

The President is the Executive branch of the Government, and he has to respond to disasters, especially ones perpetuated and worsened by people, that don't mitigate the risk. People that don't like 'Mandates' are people that generally don't see the danger until it is too late, and they put others at risk.

Emergency powers are should be short and temporary in nature. I also don't think Congress intended the National Emergencies Act to empower the POTUS to mandate a shot or lose personal liberties.

Arguably the economic and healthcare emergency are abated when travel disruptions have ended and hospital capacity for non-pandemic treatment is restored everywhere.

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

We are in this mess because a new virus was unleashed on the world, not because someone didnt wear a mask. And I disagree with all of those mandates. If a private company wants to set a condition on me using their service. then its my choice to comply and use the service or not. I'm totally cool with that, I'm not okay with these mandates being forced by the Gov without the people (Congress) weighing in.

The President is the Executive branch of the Government, and he has to respond to disasters, especially ones perpetuated and worsened by people, that don't mitigate the risk. People that don't like 'Mandates' are people that generally don't see the danger until it is too late, and they put others at risk.

Emergency powers are should be short and temporary in nature. I also don't think Congress intended the National Emergencies Act to empower the POTUS to mandate a shot or lose personal liberties.

We won't have to use them once we get the vaccines rolled out. Of course since we have people continuing to perpetuate lies about long term effects, and other items, it has gotten much more difficult.
It should be as simple as showing people that unvaccinated people are dying at 8-9 times the rate of vaccinated folks, but yet we still have people ignoring that fact.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The President is the Executive branch of the Government, and he has to respond to disasters, especially ones perpetuated and worsened by people, that don't mitigate the risk. People that don't like 'Mandates' are people that generally don't see the danger until it is too late, and they put others at risk.

Emergency powers are should be short and temporary in nature. I also don't think Congress intended the National Emergencies Act to empower the POTUS to mandate a shot or lose personal liberties.

Arguably the economic and healthcare emergency are abated when travel disruptions have ended and hospital capacity for non-pandemic treatment is restored everywhere.

Arguably a lot of things could be better if they didn’t have to go through a legislature. What’s your point?

flyguy89 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Emergency powers are should be short and temporary in nature. I also don't think Congress intended the National Emergencies Act to empower the POTUS to mandate a shot or lose personal liberties.

Arguably the economic and healthcare emergency are abated when travel disruptions have ended and hospital capacity for non-pandemic treatment is restored everywhere.

Arguably a lot of things could be better if they didn’t have to go through a legislature. What’s your point?

That emergency powers are indeed temporary, as are pandemics.

Absolutely wrong.

There is a reason color of your skin, ethnicity and sexuality is protected by anti-discrimination laws, while actively being stupid jerks (which people that refuse to vaccinate are) aren’t.

The same applies here.

ItnStln wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

I seem to remember a similar situation in the 1930s and 1940s in Germany.

Our German friend Tommy already called out the absurdity of that equivocation upthread - I suggest reading it to avoid further embarassment.

What I said is a perfect analogy, and not a false equivocation as you allude to. It is in fact you who needs to avoid further embarassment!

M564038 wrote:

Absolutely wrong.

There is a reason color of your skin, ethnicity and sexuality is protected by anti-discrimination laws, while actively being stupid jerks (which people that refuse to vaccinate are) aren’t.

The same applies here.

ItnStln wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Our German friend Tommy already called out the absurdity of that equivocation upthread - I suggest reading it to avoid further embarassment.

What I said is a perfect analogy, and not a false equivocation as you allude to. It is in fact you who needs to avoid further embarassment!

You are acting like there isn't a difference between vaccines and masks. I am not anti-vax, I support it. But I do see the rightful concern of putting a really new substance into your body with out long term studies into its long term effects. Masks are a little different. They are temporary and you can take it off, you cant remove the vaccine.

bpatus297 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Absolutely wrong.

There is a reason color of your skin, ethnicity and sexuality is protected by anti-discrimination laws, while actively being stupid jerks (which people that refuse to vaccinate are) aren’t.

The same applies here.

ItnStln wrote:

What I said is a perfect analogy, and not a false equivocation as you allude to. It is in fact you who needs to avoid further embarassment!

You are acting like there isn't a difference between vaccines and masks. I am not anti-vax, I support it. But I do see the rightful concern of putting a really new substance into your body with out long term studies into its long term effects. Masks are a little different. They are temporary and you can take it off, you cant remove the vaccine.

I really don't get this argument. We don't have "long terms studies into its long term effects" for COVID either, although we know anecdotally that long COVID is a thing and that it can be nasty for some people. Why do you presume that the potential long-term effects of vaccination are worse than the potential long-term effects of COVID?

How we enforce these rules here is the vaccinated people have a certificate (like on your phone on Apple wallet) and you show that to enter stores or venues. You still can go to essential stores like supermarkets without being vaccinated or otherwise you need to show medical exemption.

bpatus297 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Absolutely wrong.

There is a reason color of your skin, ethnicity and sexuality is protected by anti-discrimination laws, while actively being stupid jerks (which people that refuse to vaccinate are) aren’t.

The same applies here.

ItnStln wrote:

What I said is a perfect analogy, and not a false equivocation as you allude to. It is in fact you who needs to avoid further embarassment!

You are acting like there isn't a difference between vaccines and masks. I am not anti-vax, I support it. But I do see the rightful concern of putting a really new substance into your body with out long term studies into its long term effects. Masks are a little different. They are temporary and you can take it off, you cant remove the vaccine.

If you get long term Covid effects then you are equally stuffed. The vaccine is a good safety measure.

Cubsrule wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Absolutely wrong.

There is a reason color of your skin, ethnicity and sexuality is protected by anti-discrimination laws, while actively being stupid jerks (which people that refuse to vaccinate are) aren’t.

The same applies here.

You are acting like there isn't a difference between vaccines and masks. I am not anti-vax, I support it. But I do see the rightful concern of putting a really new substance into your body with out long term studies into its long term effects. Masks are a little different. They are temporary and you can take it off, you cant remove the vaccine.

I really don't get this argument. We don't have "long terms studies into its long term effects" for COVID either, although we know anecdotally that long COVID is a thing and that it can be nasty for some people. Why do you presume that the potential long-term effects of vaccination are worse than the potential long-term effects of COVID?

Maybe for some people. You not I know the answer to this. It is a decision that should be made between your doctor and yourself, not the Gov.

cpd wrote:

How we enforce these rules here is the vaccinated people have a certificate (like on your phone on Apple wallet) and you show that to enter stores or venues. You still can go to essential stores like supermarkets without being vaccinated or otherwise you need to show medical exemption.

bpatus297 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Absolutely wrong.

There is a reason color of your skin, ethnicity and sexuality is protected by anti-discrimination laws, while actively being stupid jerks (which people that refuse to vaccinate are) aren’t.

The same applies here.

You are acting like there isn't a difference between vaccines and masks. I am not anti-vax, I support it. But I do see the rightful concern of putting a really new substance into your body with out long term studies into its long term effects. Masks are a little different. They are temporary and you can take it off, you cant remove the vaccine.

If you get long term Covid effects then you are equally stuffed. The vaccine is a good safety measure.

Humm, sounds a bit like "show me your papers!".

bpatus297 wrote:

cpd wrote:

How we enforce these rules here is the vaccinated people have a certificate (like on your phone on Apple wallet) and you show that to enter stores or venues. You still can go to essential stores like supermarkets without being vaccinated or otherwise you need to show medical exemption.

bpatus297 wrote:

You are acting like there isn't a difference between vaccines and masks. I am not anti-vax, I support it. But I do see the rightful concern of putting a really new substance into your body with out long term studies into its long term effects. Masks are a little different. They are temporary and you can take it off, you cant remove the vaccine.

If you get long term Covid effects then you are equally stuffed. The vaccine is a good safety measure.

Humm, sounds a bit like "show me your papers!".

Half the time most places I go to never ask to see it. All it shows is that you have been vaccinated, your name, the document number and some other details. It does the job and it’s better than being extremely sick and not being able to do all the things you used to do..

We have a high vaccination rate here.

bpatus297 wrote:

cpd wrote:

How we enforce these rules here is the vaccinated people have a certificate (like on your phone on Apple wallet) and you show that to enter stores or venues. You still can go to essential stores like supermarkets without being vaccinated or otherwise you need to show medical exemption.

bpatus297 wrote:

You are acting like there isn't a difference between vaccines and masks. I am not anti-vax, I support it. But I do see the rightful concern of putting a really new substance into your body with out long term studies into its long term effects. Masks are a little different. They are temporary and you can take it off, you cant remove the vaccine.

If you get long term Covid effects then you are equally stuffed. The vaccine is a good safety measure.

Humm, sounds a bit like "show me your papers!".

Indeed it does!

cpd wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

cpd wrote:

How we enforce these rules here is the vaccinated people have a certificate (like on your phone on Apple wallet) and you show that to enter stores or venues. You still can go to essential stores like supermarkets without being vaccinated or otherwise you need to show medical exemption.



If you get long term Covid effects then you are equally stuffed. The vaccine is a good safety measure.

Humm, sounds a bit like "show me your papers!".

Half the time most places I go to never ask to see it. All it shows is that you have been vaccinated, your name, the document number and some other details. It does the job and it’s better than being extremely sick and not being able to do all the things you used to do..

We have a high vaccination rate here.

Congratulations. I'll take my dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery, or something like that.

art wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

art wrote:

Americans and foreigners are subject to the law of the land. Governments make laws. Citizens are subject to the decisions of present and past governments whether they like it or not.

Perhaps in your country, but in my country it is the Government who serves the people, not like some countries where the people are subjects of the Government.

I don't know about in your country but here we elect politicians to parliament to act in our best interests - not to do what we want them to do. For example, most people dislike paying tax and, given a choice, would not pay it. It is in the electorate's best interest to have tax imposed on it against its will by the government.

So unlike in my country you are a subject to your politicians, got it! Keep that nonsense in your country because here politicians serve the people and are not their subjects as in your country.

ItnStln wrote:

art wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

Perhaps in your country, but in my country it is the Government who serves the people, not like some countries where the people are subjects of the Government.

I don't know about in your country but here we elect politicians to parliament to act in our best interests - not to do what we want them to do. For example, most people dislike paying tax and, given a choice, would not pay it. It is in the electorate's best interest to have tax imposed on it against its will by the government.

So unlike in my country you are a subject to your politicians, got it! Keep that nonsense in your country because here politicians serve the people and are not their subjects as in your country.

Wait... You don't pay taxes? And if you do, why can't you just stop so as not to be a 'subject'?

What an infantile and simplistic argument.

ItnStln wrote:

art wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

Perhaps in your country, but in my country it is the Government who serves the people, not like some countries where the people are subjects of the Government.

I don't know about in your country but here we elect politicians to parliament to act in our best interests - not to do what we want them to do. For example, most people dislike paying tax and, given a choice, would not pay it. It is in the electorate's best interest to have tax imposed on it against its will by the government.

So unlike in my country you are a subject to your politicians, got it! Keep that nonsense in your country because here politicians serve the people and are not their subjects as in your country.

Sorry if I misunderstood. I did not realise that in your country all laws proposed required a public referendum to become law (ie the people decide what laws are to be made, not the elected politicians). I think there is a lot to be said for such a system.

ItnStln wrote:

art wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

Perhaps in your country, but in my country it is the Government who serves the people, not like some countries where the people are subjects of the Government.

I don't know about in your country but here we elect politicians to parliament to act in our best interests - not to do what we want them to do. For example, most people dislike paying tax and, given a choice, would not pay it. It is in the electorate's best interest to have tax imposed on it against its will by the government.

So unlike in my country you are a subject to your politicians, got it! Keep that nonsense in your country because here politicians serve the people and are not their subjects as in your country.

Politicians serve the people in the US, are you sure ? It seems to me they serve corporations and the mighty dollar, mostly. In the case of the pandemic both align since having people dying or cooped up at home isn't exactly good for business.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Might the historical fact that Saxony was part of the DDR have relevance?

It’s not only Saxony. If you check this map here : https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/N ... n-Tab.html

you can see that even some west German states like Bavaria have rather low vaccination rates. Very frustrating… things ain‘t what they used to be in Germany.

bpatus297 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

You are acting like there isn't a difference between vaccines and masks. I am not anti-vax, I support it. But I do see the rightful concern of putting a really new substance into your body with out long term studies into its long term effects. Masks are a little different. They are temporary and you can take it off, you cant remove the vaccine.

I really don't get this argument. We don't have "long terms studies into its long term effects" for COVID either, although we know anecdotally that long COVID is a thing and that it can be nasty for some people. Why do you presume that the potential long-term effects of vaccination are worse than the potential long-term effects of COVID?

Maybe for some people. You not I know the answer to this. It is a decision that should be made between your doctor and yourself, not the Gov.

Ignorance is not an excuse for irresponsible opinions. As I explained upthread, any belief that the content of mRNA vaccine can cause long term effects is pseudoscience. There is no foreign ‘substance’ introduced to the body...your cells use mRNA uncountable times per day your entire life. Molecular biology explains why this type of therapy is safe.

The waters have been seriously muddied by bad faith actors planting ideas in people’s heads. Synthetic drugs that will be taken over a period of time require long term study on harm to the body, not this type of vaccine. The only long term study relevant to the vaccine is effectiveness via antibody production.

It's quite astonishing, and worrying, how supposedly robust liberal democracies are willing to throw a firesale of civil liberties and fundamental freedoms the moment a mild pandemic appears. I am sorry, but this isn't Ebola and most of us will come out unscathed from an infection. What also concerns me is how quick citizens of said democracies are willing to embrace draconian and extreme state measures in order to quell this pandemic. Mind you, the right to preserve our bodies are among the most basic freedoms, no one may insert anything into our bodies without our permission - or take something out of it for that matter. Yet this is exactly what the governments of Germany and Austria etc. are currently doing, and it is (in my opinion) a gross overstep of the social contract theorised by brilliant minds such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes etc. Perhaps we have completely forgot the values of freedom, and the values of an open society in our quest to find ways to stop this pandemic.

We could solve a major problem with the current lack organ donors if we mandated that all healthy adults must donate one kidney, or simply force a certain amount of adults to give up all of their organs to save a greater amount of sick people. This is also why utilitarianism does not work in practice.

Georges Clemenceau famously said after WW1 that war is a matter too serious to be left for the generals, and I firmly believe that a pandemic like Covid-19 is too important to be left to the doctors and professors in medicine. For the person equipped with a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and what we seem to lack are experts in political philosophy and theory, who are able to think beyond the natural sciences and help steer our nations through this current mess, and act as a necessary counterbalance to doctors and experts (whose profession and job I dearly respect).

fallap wrote:

It's quite astonishing, and worrying, how supposedly robust liberal democracies are willing to throw a firesale of civil liberties and fundamental freedoms the moment a mild pandemic appears.

It's also astonishing and worrying how many people will resist making simple gestures that benefit everyone around them in the name of a dated interpretation of individual rights.

JJJ wrote:

fallap wrote:

It's quite astonishing, and worrying, how supposedly robust liberal democracies are willing to throw a firesale of civil liberties and fundamental freedoms the moment a mild pandemic appears.

It's also astonishing and worrying how many people will resist making simple gestures that benefit everyone around them in the name of a dated interpretation of individual rights.

Thank you for making my point. If you think a pandemic is bad, try living in a state rid of so-called "dated interpretations" of individual rights. It's called despotism - the same kind of failed statescraft (China) that allowed this mess to start in the first place.

JJJ wrote:

fallap wrote:

It's quite astonishing, and worrying, how supposedly robust liberal democracies are willing to throw a firesale of civil liberties and fundamental freedoms the moment a mild pandemic appears.

It's also astonishing and worrying how many people will resist making simple gestures that benefit everyone around them in the name of a dated interpretation of individual rights.

Didn’t realize that bodily autonomy and right to be secure in your person were dated individual rights. In China you’re absolutely correct about interpretation of such concepts being antiquated.

As implied above, why stop with just force vaccinating people. If we’re transitioning beyond such “silly” interpretations of individuals having the right to bodily autonomy and respect of person in service to greater society, there are a whole host new applications that would benefit the many: forced kidney removal, forced bone marrow removal, forced blood sampling, forced conscription of DNA samples from all citizens, forced partial liver removal, involuntary human challenge trials for medication, etc. Scoff at the notion if you’d like, but it was only earlier this year that we were all snorting and laughing at the anti-vaxxers conspiratorial and nonsense idea that the state was going to make them take the vaccine…yet here we are.

flyguy89 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

fallap wrote:

It's quite astonishing, and worrying, how supposedly robust liberal democracies are willing to throw a firesale of civil liberties and fundamental freedoms the moment a mild pandemic appears.

It's also astonishing and worrying how many people will resist making simple gestures that benefit everyone around them in the name of a dated interpretation of individual rights.

Didn’t realize that bodily autonomy and right to be secure in your person were dated individual rights. In China you’re absolutely correct about interpretation of such concepts being antiquated.

As implied above, why stop with just force vaccinating people. If we’re transitioning beyond such “silly” interpretations of individuals having the right to bodily autonomy and respect of person in service to greater society, there are a whole host new applications that would benefit the many: forced kidney removal, forced bone marrow removal, forced blood sampling, forced conscription of DNA samples from all citizens, forced partial liver removal, involuntary human challenge trials for medication, etc. Scoff at the notion if you’d like, but it was only earlier this year that we were all snorting and laughing at the anti-vaxxers conspiratorial and nonsense idea that the state was going to make them take the vaccine…yet here we are.

It's always the slippery slope. The hyperbole machine in full force.

Putting vaccination in the same category as genital mutilation or forced medical experimentation without batting an eye, even.

But sure "I've made my own research".

fallap wrote:

It's quite astonishing, and worrying, how supposedly robust liberal democracies are willing to throw a firesale of civil liberties and fundamental freedoms the moment a mild pandemic appears. I am sorry, but this isn't Ebola and most of us will come out unscathed from an infection. What also concerns me is how quick citizens of said democracies are willing to embrace draconian and extreme state measures in order to quell this pandemic. Mind you, the right to preserve our bodies are among the most basic freedoms, no one may insert anything into our bodies without our permission - or take something out of it for that matter. Yet this is exactly what the governments of Germany and Austria etc. are currently doing, and it is (in my opinion) a gross overstep of the social contract theorised by brilliant minds such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes etc. Perhaps we have completely forgot the values of freedom, and the values of an open society in our quest to find ways to stop this pandemic.

We could solve a major problem with the current lack organ donors if we mandated that all healthy adults must donate one kidney, or simply force a certain amount of adults to give up all of their organs to save a greater amount of sick people. This is also why utilitarianism does not work in practice.

Georges Clemenceau famously said after WW1 that war is a matter too serious to be left for the generals, and I firmly believe that a pandemic like Covid-19 is too important to be left to the doctors and professors in medicine. For the person equipped with a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and what we seem to lack are experts in political philosophy and theory, who are able to think beyond the natural sciences and help steer our nations through this current mess, and act as a necessary counterbalance to doctors and experts (whose profession and job I dearly respect).

I think there are some things that are seen as being demonstrably true (ie there is data to support such assertions)

- there is a new form of coronavirus which can cause severe disease and death
- the virus is contagious
- vaccination reduces the severity of the disease if one is infected and reduces the transmission rate to others

As such people who decline vaccination present a heightened risk to others with whom they mix so it is sensible to minimise their mixing with others. I do not see how that is difficult to understand.

JJJ wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

It's also astonishing and worrying how many people will resist making simple gestures that benefit everyone around them in the name of a dated interpretation of individual rights.

Didn’t realize that bodily autonomy and right to be secure in your person were dated individual rights. In China you’re absolutely correct about interpretation of such concepts being antiquated.

As implied above, why stop with just force vaccinating people. If we’re transitioning beyond such “silly” interpretations of individuals having the right to bodily autonomy and respect of person in service to greater society, there are a whole host new applications that would benefit the many: forced kidney removal, forced bone marrow removal, forced blood sampling, forced conscription of DNA samples from all citizens, forced partial liver removal, involuntary human challenge trials for medication, etc. Scoff at the notion if you’d like, but it was only earlier this year that we were all snorting and laughing at the anti-vaxxers conspiratorial and nonsense idea that the state was going to make them take the vaccine…yet here we are.

It's always the slippery slope. The hyperbole machine in full force.

Putting vaccination in the same category as genital mutilation or forced medical experimentation without batting an eye, even.

But sure "I've made my own research".

It's always the slippery slope because modern liberal democray, our individual freedoms and way of life are not a natural given. It's a complicated system that has taken centuries to form and perfect, one that must be taught and re-created for every generation. History is rich of democratic backsliding and already now we see democracy on the run across the globe. You may shrug your shoulders at me and flyguy89, but we are concerned because we in fact "have done our research" we know how precious freedom is, how easy they are to curb and how difficult they are to reclaim once taken away.

Oh, and about your remark about research, what research have you done? What academic papers have you read, what research have you produced yourself? People love to stand behind science as the beacon of reason and modernity as a light that shines through the darkness of dogma and superstition; but I'm afraid that people forget what science is about, how it is conducted, and more importantly; that science is not reserved exclusively for the natural Sciences conducted by scientists in lab coats. But also by people like me studying philosophy and political theory.

flyguy89 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

fallap wrote:

It's quite astonishing, and worrying, how supposedly robust liberal democracies are willing to throw a firesale of civil liberties and fundamental freedoms the moment a mild pandemic appears.

It's also astonishing and worrying how many people will resist making simple gestures that benefit everyone around them in the name of a dated interpretation of individual rights.

Didn’t realize that bodily autonomy and right to be secure in your person were dated individual rights. In China you’re absolutely correct about interpretation of such concepts being antiquated.

As implied above, why stop with just force vaccinating people. If we’re transitioning beyond such “silly” interpretations of individuals having the right to bodily autonomy and respect of person in service to greater society, there are a whole host new applications that would benefit the many: forced kidney removal, forced bone marrow removal, forced blood sampling, forced conscription of DNA samples from all citizens, forced partial liver removal, involuntary human challenge trials for medication, etc. Scoff at the notion if you’d like, but it was only earlier this year that we were all snorting and laughing at the anti-vaxxers conspiratorial and nonsense idea that the state was going to make them take the vaccine…yet here we are.

How do you explain the popularity of indoor smoking regulations then? The basic premise there that individual rights reach limitations when they infringe on health/activities of others.

fallap wrote:

I am sorry, but this isn't Ebola and most of us will come out unscathed from an infection.

I am sorry, but this is a substantially misinformed take.

Meta analysis shows more than 80% who survived COVID have at least one long-term symptom, and as many as 1/3 have significant symptoms affecting daily life. That is not ‘unscathed’.

https://www.fox29.com/news/study-80-of- ... ffects.amp

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1626

Your statement is tantamount to claiming it’s ‘just a cold’.

JJJ wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

It's also astonishing and worrying how many people will resist making simple gestures that benefit everyone around them in the name of a dated interpretation of individual rights.

Didn’t realize that bodily autonomy and right to be secure in your person were dated individual rights. In China you’re absolutely correct about interpretation of such concepts being antiquated.

As implied above, why stop with just force vaccinating people. If we’re transitioning beyond such “silly” interpretations of individuals having the right to bodily autonomy and respect of person in service to greater society, there are a whole host new applications that would benefit the many: forced kidney removal, forced bone marrow removal, forced blood sampling, forced conscription of DNA samples from all citizens, forced partial liver removal, involuntary human challenge trials for medication, etc. Scoff at the notion if you’d like, but it was only earlier this year that we were all snorting and laughing at the anti-vaxxers conspiratorialC and nonsense idea that the state was going to make them take the vaccine…yet here we are.

It's always the slippery slope. The hyperbole machine in full force.

Putting vaccination in the same category as genital mutilation or forced medical experimentation without batting an eye, even.

Until you outline a limiting principle, you kind of have to. And to clarify…not putting simply vaccination in the same category of the above, specifically forced vaccination. I am very much Covid vaccine proponent.

Aaron747 wrote:

How do you explain the popularity of indoor smoking regulations then? The basic premise there that individual rights reach limitations when they infringe on health/activities of others.

Again, you’re going to have to break down how you think there is no degree of difference between requiring smokers to step outside (where they can still continue their activity, where they’re not blanketly prohibited from interacting with non-smokers, where Chantix or Nicorette aren’t being shoved down their throats, etc.) and the government forcing every citizen to be injected with something against their will, no matter how moronic their objection may be.

flyguy89 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Didn’t realize that bodily autonomy and right to be secure in your person were dated individual rights. In China you’re absolutely correct about interpretation of such concepts being antiquated.

As implied above, why stop with just force vaccinating people. If we’re transitioning beyond such “silly” interpretations of individuals having the right to bodily autonomy and respect of person in service to greater society, there are a whole host new applications that would benefit the many: forced kidney removal, forced bone marrow removal, forced blood sampling, forced conscription of DNA samples from all citizens, forced partial liver removal, involuntary human challenge trials for medication, etc. Scoff at the notion if you’d like, but it was only earlier this year that we were all snorting and laughing at the anti-vaxxers conspiratorialC and nonsense idea that the state was going to make them take the vaccine…yet here we are.

It's always the slippery slope. The hyperbole machine in full force.

Putting vaccination in the same category as genital mutilation or forced medical experimentation without batting an eye, even.

Until you outline a limiting principle, you kind of have to. And to clarify…not putting simply vaccination in the same category of the above, specifically forced vaccination. I am very much Covid vaccine proponent.

Aaron747 wrote:

How do you explain the popularity of indoor smoking regulations then? The basic premise there that individual rights reach limitations when they infringe on health/activities of others.

Again, you’re going to have to break down how you think there is no degree of difference between requiring smokers to step outside (where they can still continue their activity, where they’re not blanketly prohibited from interacting with non-smokers, where Chantix or Nicorette aren’t being shoved down their throats, etc.) and the government forcing every citizen to be injected with something against their will, no matter how moronic their objection may be.

I haven’t advocated that - others have. In the OP I suggested mandatory vaccination wholesale is counterproductive and disruptive. But requiring a status of vaccination for defined activities/settings is not that, and seems logical and prudent if the healthcare system is under duress.

Aaron747 wrote:

I haven’t advocated that - others have. In the OP I suggested mandatory vaccination wholesale is counterproductive and disruptive. But requiring a status of vaccination for defined activities/settings is not that, and seems logical and prudent if the healthcare system is under duress.

And I’m not arguing wholesale against the latter, so it would seem we’re talking over each other. My objection is specifically with state-backed top-down compulsory vaccination.

JJJ wrote:

It's always the slippery slope. The hyperbole machine in full force.

Putting vaccination in the same category as genital mutilation or forced medical experimentation without batting an eye, even.

But sure "I've made my own research".

Hasn't the US been mutilating the genitals of baby boys for generations without any consideration for their consent ?

I'm not necessarily in favor of mandating vaccination in this particular case (although several other vaccines are mandated in my country, if you want your kids to be accepted in school), however I'm in favor of not vaccinating meaning facing consequences regarding doing stuff where you might catch the virus or give it to others. Especially when the healthcare system is largely or mostly publicly founded.

Some are arguing there should be an option to renounce medical care in case you catch it while having declined the vaccine, but it would probably be unconstitutional here in France, and you'd always have hospitals accepting ill people regardless of the law.

fallap wrote:

It's quite astonishing, and worrying, how supposedly robust liberal democracies are willing to throw a firesale of civil liberties and fundamental freedoms the moment a mild pandemic appears.

I take issue with your intimation that this is 'a mild pandemic', given that in excess of 250,000,000 people are recorded as having been infected with COVID-19 and in excess of 5,000,000 people are recorded as dying after becoming infected with COVID-19.

Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/