Popular National Acquisition - Covid

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Wow, trying to reframe the argument. No, what you said was



I simply listed some examples of state threats to force a behavior, a behavior that some may not want to be forced to do. Which according to you is totalitarian. But, apparently, these are coercions that you find acceptable and think only a troll would bring up. But why are they acceptable to you? Why aren't they totalitarian in your opinion? I personally think they are acceptable because they are for the greater good of society. They help save peoples' lives and property.

Now the issue you raised, is forcing people to get the covid vaccine (which Ben and Carter have shown is not even true) a totalitarian move? If people were forced to get the vaccine, what would be the purpose? To save lives perhaps? To reduce the number of people requiring hospitalization? For the greater good of society? Wouldn't that make it acceptable? To me it would. Yet, you want to label it as totalitarian. Just like some people might label the speed limit laws.

Troll on.

At least this time you aren't jumping in to throw a tantrum about another thread and your inability to read the text of the law. I see the inability to follow the thread and the arguments remains.

Read. The argument from the thread's openly and oft stated troll is that because one can choose to break the law, choice remains. He then doubles down and agree with "In a sense every single action ever taken in the history of humanity is a choice" in #1770, and uses that as the justification.

The problem with his justification should be obvious to any person who can read at a third grade level. If, because in some sense, a person always has a choice of how to respond to pressure or coercion or force, then every action taken (for an action cannot be taken after death) in the history of humanity qualifies as leaving a 'choice'.

A state and society run by this logic, would be most extreme totalitarian state possible, one beyond any that has ever existed. It removes any possible restriction, rejects any morality or limits. If every action still gives the victim choice in this sense, and this is acceptable, there is no possible action that goes too far. Ever.

This is the worst possible justification. Hence why every other poster, except you and the self-proclaimed troll, are engaging with the actual question. Nobody denies that there is sometimes necessity of coercion; a society cannot function with, say, a murderer on the loose and no action taken against them because their victims have the choice to try and run or to fight or to submit. There are gates around the coercion, very strong gates and the times and circumstances of coercion are very limited and defined by law. Civilization is not inherently coercive, because the coercive element is not the totality or primary driver and coercion is only used under pre-defined and very specific circumstances. In a good society, the coercion is only used for the bare minimum necessary for a functioning and safe society. In a bad one, for many more purposes. But no regime in the history of the world has gone as far as the justification here allows. Hence why the rest of the debate, between both sides, has been whether or not this case justifies coercion, in this case mostly economic pressure as the coercive element.

I get that you are really excited about forcing political opponents into doing what you want, but one would think you would seek a less extremist justification than an open totalitarian defense. Like we were debating before the troll. I liked when the left was liberal and literate and not openly endorsing total authoritarianism over a 'vaccine' that does not function like a vaccine.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by irv

When are you going acknowledge anything I wrote above?
What they did are crimes against humanity but you seem to be OK with that?

Respectfully, when you start throwing around brainwashing and reconditioning I just stop reading your posts so I won’t be responding to them.

[Republicaninmass]

Of course people were forced to get the vaccine. Its ignorant to think otherwise. Unless you dont think threatening someone's livelihood is forcing them to do something

Could any one of you, regardless of political affiliation , walk away from a 9 million dollar payday? Sure, Cube had a "choice" and was financially comfortable making it. Others, would have had to go aheqd and get the shot or risk losing 9 million for their...ahem...choice


https://www.rollingstone.com/music/m...ne-1234635633/

[irv]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Respectfully, when you start throwing around brainwashing and reconditioning I just stop reading your posts so I won’t be responding to them.

Nice slithering non answer.

You still haven't realized it yet, have you, that every part of this, right from the very beginning, has all been a lie and everything from masks to mandates was all intentional and all designed to control you, do you?
But, I get it. You love your govt daddy and believe they would never do such a thing to you, don't you?

Michael Yeadon, the former VP of Pfizer thinks everyone of these evil bastards (your hero's) should be hung, (and he is against capital punishment) and forgotten about. You, on the other hand are incapable of even seeing what it is they did to people and society and still think everything they did was all aboveboard, innocent and unintentional.
Like you said to me sometime ago, I wish you luck going forward.
https://www.tiktok.com/@anzactruther..._t=8b4bAYbq0u5

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by G1911

At least this time you aren't jumping in to throw a tantrum about another thread and your inability to read the text of the law. I see the inability to follow the thread and the arguments remains.

Read. The argument from the thread's openly and oft stated troll is that because one can choose to break the law, choice remains. He then doubles down and agree with "In a sense every single action ever taken in the history of humanity is a choice" in #1770, and uses that as the justification.

The problem with his justification should be obvious to any person who can read at a third grade level. If, because in some sense, a person always has a choice of how to respond to pressure or coercion or force, then every action taken (for an action cannot be taken after death) in the history of humanity qualifies as leaving a 'choice'.

A state and society run by this logic, would be most extreme totalitarian state possible, one beyond any that has ever existed. It removes any possible restriction, rejects any morality or limits. If every action still gives the victim choice in this sense, and this is acceptable, there is no possible action that goes too far. Ever.

This is the worst possible justification. Hence why every other poster, except you and the self-proclaimed troll, are engaging with the actual question. Nobody denies that there is sometimes necessity of coercion; a society cannot function with, say, a murderer on the loose and no action taken against them because their victims have the choice to try and run or to fight or to submit. There are gates around the coercion, very strong gates and the times and circumstances of coercion are very limited and defined by law. Civilization is not inherently coercive, because the coercive element is not the totality or primary driver and coercion is only used under pre-defined and very specific circumstances. In a good society, the coercion is only used for the bare minimum necessary for a functioning and safe society. In a bad one, for many more purposes. But no regime in the history of the world has gone as far as the justification here allows. Hence why the rest of the debate, between both sides, has been whether or not this case justifies coercion, in this case mostly economic pressure as the coercive element.

I get that you are really excited about forcing political opponents into doing what you want, but one would think you would seek a less extremist justification than an open totalitarian defense. Like we were debating before the troll. I liked when the left was liberal and literate and not openly endorsing total authoritarianism over a 'vaccine' that does not function like a vaccine.

Exaggeration for effect, nice.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

I get that you are really excited about forcing political opponents into doing what you want.

You, sir, have an impeccable judgment of character.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Of course people were forced to get the vaccine. Its ignorant to think otherwise. Unless you dont think threatening someone's livelihood is forcing them to do something

Could any one of you, regardless of political affiliation , walk away from a 9 million dollar payday? Sure, Cube had a "choice" and was financially comfortable making it. Others, would have had to go aheqd and get the shot or risk losing 9 million for their...ahem...choice


https://www.rollingstone.com/music/m...ne-1234635633/

You’re talking about an extremely small percentage. Sigh.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

At least this time you aren't jumping in to throw a tantrum about another thread and your inability to read the text of the law. I see the inability to follow the thread and the arguments remains.

Read. The argument from the thread's openly and oft stated troll is that because one can choose to break the law, choice remains. He then doubles down and agree with "In a sense every single action ever taken in the history of humanity is a choice" in #1770, and uses that as the justification.

The ”troll” happens to be correct. Your name calling doesn’t change that fact.

Originally Posted by G1911

The problem with his justification should be obvious to any person who can read at a third grade level. If, because in some sense, a person always has a choice of how to respond to pressure or coercion or force, then every action taken (for an action cannot be taken after death) in the history of humanity qualifies as leaving a 'choice'.

What you’re wanting to do is change the definition of the word “choice” in order to match your politically motivated ideology. If a third grader is told that he needs to eat his broccoli or else he doesn’t get dessert, that third grader knows he has a choice. (A) Eat the broccoli and get dessert or (B) don’t eat the broccoli and don’t get dessert. Not even a third grader is naïve enough to think that since both options aren’t favorable to him, he has no choice.

Originally Posted by G1911

A state and society run by this logic, would be most extreme totalitarian state possible, one beyond any that has ever existed. It removes any possible restriction, rejects any morality or limits. If every action still gives the victim choice in this sense, and this is acceptable, there is no possible action that goes too far. Ever.

You’ve created a strawman argument. Neither the “troll” or I have said what I’ve put in bold above. Let’s say a parent tells his third-grader to steal the neighbor’s hose or get punished. The third-grader is given a choice between two options. But it is not acceptable for the parent to make this demand. Even the third-grader would know that.

Originally Posted by G1911

This is the worst possible justification. Hence why every other poster, except you and the self-proclaimed troll, are engaging with the actual question. Nobody denies that there is sometimes necessity of coercion; a society cannot function with, say, a murderer on the loose and no action taken against them because their victims have the choice to try and run or to fight or to submit. There are gates around the coercion, very strong gates and the times and circumstances of coercion are very limited and defined by law. Civilization is not inherently coercive, because the coercive element is not the totality or primary driver and coercion is only used under pre-defined and very specific circumstances. In a good society, the coercion is only used for the bare minimum necessary for a functioning and safe society. In a bad one, for many more purposes. But no regime in the history of the world has gone as far as the justification here allows. Hence why the rest of the debate, between both sides, has been whether or not this case justifies coercion, in this case mostly economic pressure as the coercive element.

As pointed out by others, and as far as I’m aware, there is no federal or state requirement forcing people to get the covid vaccine. You’re arguing a politically motivated false construction. But even if there had been a federal or state requirement that everyone get the vaccine, you’d still be wrong. “Nobody denies that there is sometimes necessity of coercion.” “In a good society, the coercion is only used for the bare minimum necessary for a functioning and safe society.” The vaccines have been proven to safe and effective in reducing the severity of the virus. Hence, if the vaccine had been required for all to take, it would have been for the safety of society and would be justified. Even by you.

Originally Posted by G1911

I get that you are really excited about forcing political opponents into doing what you want, but one would think you would seek a less extremist justification than an open totalitarian defense. Like we were debating before the troll. I liked when the left was liberal and literate and not openly endorsing total authoritarianism over a 'vaccine' that does not function like a vaccine.

It’s unfortunate that you don’t think the vaccine has helped. But I get that your political ideology won’t allow you to go there. Hence, you attempt to change definitions and make strawman arguments in order to show what a big, bad government we have.

[irv]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

The ”troll” happens to be correct. Your name calling doesn’t change that fact.

The vaccines have been proven to safe and effective in reducing the severity of the virus. Hence, if the vaccine had been required for all to take, it would have been for the safety of society and would be justified. Even by you.

It’s unfortunate that you don’t think the vaccine has helped. But I get that your political ideology won’t allow you to go there. Hence, you attempt to change definitions and make strawman arguments in order to show what a big, bad government we have.

And another fool in denial.

Are you getting your info from that same clown, the "blogger" the "cartoonist" from Skeptical Science in John Cook?
Great source, Mike. I guess when one gets desperate to find info that agrees with their beliefs, a cartoonist is better than nothing.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by irv

And another fool in denial.

Are you getting your info from that same clown, the "blogger" the "cartoonist" from Skeptical Science in John Cook?
Great source, Mike. I guess when one gets desperate to find info that agrees with their beliefs, a cartoonist is better than nothing.

LOL, this coming from a guy that posts a tinfoil hat being better than a mask.

To be fair that probably is something you actually believe.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

The ”troll” happens to be correct. Your name calling doesn’t change that fact.

What name were you called? Were?

Originally Posted by AustinMike

What you’re wanting to do is change the definition of the word “choice” in order to match your politically motivated ideology. If a third grader is told that he needs to eat his broccoli or else he doesn’t get dessert, that third grader knows he has a choice. (A) Eat the broccoli and get dessert or (B) don’t eat the broccoli and don’t get dessert. Not even a third grader is naïve enough to think that since both options aren’t favorable to him, he has no choice.

You’ve created a strawman argument. Neither the “troll” or I have said what I’ve put in bold above. Let’s say a parent tells his third-grader to steal the neighbor’s hose or get punished. The third-grader is given a choice between two options. But it is not acceptable for the parent to make this demand. Even the third-grader would know that. [/QUOTE]

He very directly said this. The argument that because there is a possible choice to break the law or accept the consequences of pressure, the action is justified. That was the argument. Very directly. It is right here, on this same page, in the transcript. Learn to read.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

As pointed out by others, and as far as I’m aware, there is no federal or state requirement forcing people to get the covid vaccine. You’re arguing a politically motivated false construction. But even if there had been a federal or state requirement that everyone get the vaccine, you’d still be wrong. “Nobody denies that there is sometimes necessity of coercion.” “In a good society, the coercion is only used for the bare minimum necessary for a functioning and safe society.” The vaccines have been proven to safe and effective in reducing the severity of the virus. Hence, if the vaccine had been required for all to take, it would have been for the safety of society and would be justified. Even by you.

Not a single person has written that a law was passed forcing the vaccine in the United States. You keep arguing against things you appear to have made up. We have said many corporations used economic leverage as the tools of force to effectively make peoples medical decisions for them. The use of force here was, while strongly supported and encouraged by the state, directly of the economic variety from most large employers and many smaller ones.

I don't think I said any action taken under the label of safety is justified. I would love to see that post! My specific example you cut out was that we have laws against murder, because a society cannot function without some limiters. A minisucle reduction in an absolute risk rate for a flu is, and here's an area where a reasonable argument could actually happen, not doing a whole lot for the security of the citizen body that drives people to live together in societies.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

It’s unfortunate that you don’t think the vaccine has helped. But I get that your political ideology won’t allow you to go there. Hence, you attempt to change definitions and make strawman arguments in order to show what a big, bad government we have.

I have written about 100 times in this thread that I think the vaccine has had a positive impact, and is an effective pre-treatment that lessens the risk of severe cases, and may be a good option for this. I do not know how to make it clearer than that. I do not know why I have to repeat this for the 101st time. I really wish our leftists could learn to read. I know it is evidently extremely confusing to you all that Irv and I do not agree either, but I'm sure if you try really, really hard you can do this.

I am greatly amused every time our posters who keep rejecting the need for textual, evidentiary or logically consistent bases like to play false straw man.

Nowhere did I say we have a totalitarian state - no nation in the history of the world has operated on bnorth's postulation you are defending as I have written multiple times. Our example is the logic used to justify the position; not an actual state. Are you genuinely unable to read?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

LOL, this coming from a guy that posts a tinfoil hat being better than a mask.

To be fair that probably is something you actually believe.

He really does believe that. Pretty amazing.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Carter08

He really does believe that. Pretty amazing.

This coming from the guy that got himself and his children vaccinated because he was told to.
Pretty amazing is right.

[irv]

CDC and FDA contracts show they prepared for massive amounts of serious adverse events months before Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out
https://thecanadianindependent.subst...utm_medium=web

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by irv

CDC and FDA contracts show they prepared for massive amounts of serious adverse events months before Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out
https://thecanadianindependent.subst...utm_medium=web

LOL, isn't that their purpose.

[irv]

Attorney General
@JeffLandry
's opening statement on Missouri v. Biden and the US Government's censorship industrial complex:

"The White House pressured YouTube to reduce watch time of 'borderline' content by 70%, the FBI boasted a 50% success rate in getting platforms to censor misinformation, the Election Integrity Partnership bragged that 35% of URLs shared with Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, and YouTube were either labeled, removed or soft blocked.

As a result of this collaboration between social media companies and the CDC, NIH, and NIAID, American citizens, scientists, and journalists were shadowbanned, censored, silenced, and de-platformed for their valid concerns about lockdowns, masks, COVID vaccines, and more."
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/...FQ4EWg26s%3D19

[Cliff Bowman]

"In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Many ask reasonable questions given the possibility of such a scenario - however remote - should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what are the processes involved in that decision? Scientists working in this field might say - as indeed I have said - that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks."

Anthony Fauci October 2012

[irv]

Originally Posted by bnorth

LOL, isn't that their purpose.

Their job was to ensure these weren't released based on what they knew.

But keep on defending them, Ben. You're a good little compliant lamb that they adore and love so much.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by irv

Attorney General
@JeffLandry
's opening statement on Missouri v. Biden and the US Government's censorship industrial complex:

"The White House pressured YouTube to reduce watch time of 'borderline' content by 70%, the FBI boasted a 50% success rate in getting platforms to censor misinformation, the Election Integrity Partnership bragged that 35% of URLs shared with Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, and YouTube were either labeled, removed or soft blocked.

As a result of this collaboration between social media companies and the CDC, NIH, and NIAID, American citizens, scientists, and journalists were shadowbanned, censored, silenced, and de-platformed for their valid concerns about lockdowns, masks, COVID vaccines, and more."
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/...FQ4EWg26s%3D19

It wasn't borderline stuff it was straight up nut cases posting bad info. It needed to be done because too many morons will believe anything posted on social media that fits their wacko belief system.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by irv

Their job was to ensure these weren't released based on what they knew.

But keep on defending them, Ben. You're a good little compliant lamb that they adore and love so much.

What exactly is "these"? serious question.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

"In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Many ask reasonable questions given the possibility of such a scenario - however remote - should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what are the processes involved in that decision? Scientists working in this field might say - as indeed I have said - that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks."

Anthony Fauci October 2012

Nobody believes they were just the guinea pigs. I've mentioned this numerous times now and the fact the vaccines were based on hope (Birx said this herself) but their cognitive dissonance, Stockholm syndrome and arrogance gets in their way, blinds them to those facts.

[irv]

Originally Posted by bnorth

It wasn't borderline stuff it was straight up nut cases posting bad info. It needed to be done because too many morons will believe anything posted on social media that fits their wacko belief system.

Originally Posted by bnorth

What exactly is "these"? serious question.

Holy eff, you're dense.
I don't know whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you, Ben.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by irv

Nobody believes they were just the guinea pigs. I've mentioned this numerous times now and the fact the vaccines were based on hope (Birx said this herself) but their cognitive dissonance, Stockholm syndrome and arrogance gets in their way, blinds them to those facts.

This post honestly makes no sense at all. EVERYONE knew exactly what the vaccines were. Yes they 100% based on hope, hope that a virus that was killing people could be slowed down and/or the severity of it greatly reduced. A person would have to be a complete moron to think differently as there was no time for the usual trials. I know for a FACT is was killing my friends as I lost several.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by irv

This coming from the guy that got himself and his children vaccinated because he was told to.
Pretty amazing is right.

Number one, don’t ever mention someone else’s kids. Most sane people know that you don’t go there. You are not one of those so i give you one free pass. Number two, I listen to medical doctors over idiots like you.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by irv

Holy eff, you're dense.
I don't know whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you, Ben.

I get it, I honestly still hope you are just going all in on playing some silly conspiracy theorist character and don't believe the stuff you post.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Number one, don’t ever mention someone else’s kids. Most sane people know that you don’t go there. You are not one of those so i give you one free pass. Number two, I listen to medical doctors over idiots like you.

So some doctor's are never wrong? Have you ever heard the saying, "always get a second opinion"?
These doctors, and counting, plus all the others with the pending lawsuits knew better but I suppose in your world, these are all just conspiracy theorists too?
Any idea why your govt wanted this info censored/banned? Trust me, it wasn't your health and well being they were concerned with.
https://gbdeclaration.org/

[irv]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I get it, I honestly still hope you are just going all in on playing some silly conspiracy theorist character and don't believe the stuff you post.

There is something seriously wrong with you, Ben. I hope you get the help you need, seriously.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by irv

There is something seriously wrong with you, Ben. I hope you get the help you need, seriously.

Have you always felt the government was out to get you or has it only been a recent thing that you have discovered the truth? Serious question

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Much of what you are referring to involves private businesses. Are you saying the government should have stepped in to regulate what a private business can or cannot do? I like it!

private business was following the government, unless you really believe if the govt was silent on the issue everything else would be the same...public and private are intertwined in many ways.

[irv]

And they knew all this before they even rolled them out. But that's OK, according to some, because money and control, destroying lives, killing people, even kids, and being a guinea pig for the govt and big pharma is more important.
https://rumble.com/v2fh4lu-new-the-w...y-kids-an.html

EMA’s failure to pull COVID 19 jabs even though risk-benefit balance nullified
EU safety report on Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reveals damning data.
It is high time to hold the EMA and the EU Commission and their complicit partners – starting with WHO and FDA, CDC – accountable for their dereliction of duty in failing to protect public health by ignoring the glaring safety signals and standing by the obviously erroneous statement that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine’s ‘benefit-risk profile remains favourable.’ This long existing safety report, published in August, 2021 serves as solid evidence that parties involved in evaluation and decision to allow COVID-19 ‘vaccinations’ to market were aware of the devastating impact they brought about. They did not only fail in their duty to properly evaluate mRNA ‘vaccinations’ before application on humans but they continue ignoring safety indicators at hand causing unmeasurable harm and destruction.
https://childrenshealthdefense.eu/eu...nce-nullified/

Again, like the former VP of Pfizer, Michael Yeadon stated, the main people behind this need to be hung and the rest imprisoned for the rest of their pathetic lives and I couldn't agree more.
https://www.tiktok.com/@anzactruther..._t=8b4bAYbq0u5

[Deertick]

I can't believe I'm getting sucked in again.

The 'mandate' that government employees and some business chose to enact, required the A) administration of the vaccine OR B) testing and other safeguards OR C) find another job. That was the CHOICE that a very small percentage of the population had to make. Nearly all subject to this predicament, statistically, chose A or B. Where all happy about it, no. BUT they had not one, but THREE CHOICES.

And judging from some of the opinions posted here, those who chose C shouldn't have had any trouble finding employment in a like minded enterprise that is woke to the conspiracy, happily working beside other unmasked, unvaccinated co-workers who chose to actively do nothing. Or retire and collect government entitlements or state unemployment, and sign up for Obamacare while opening an Etsy store selling custom tin-foiled hats.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Deertick

I can't believe I'm getting sucked in again.

The 'mandate' that government employees and some business chose to enact, required the A) administration of the vaccine OR B) testing and other safeguards OR C) find another job. That was the CHOICE that a very small percentage of the population had to make. Nearly all subject to this predicament, statistically, chose A or B. Where all happy about it, no. BUT they had not one, but THREE CHOICES.

And judging from some of the opinions posted here, those who chose C shouldn't have had any trouble finding employment in a like minded enterprise that is woke to the conspiracy, happily working beside other unmasked, unvaccinated co-workers who chose to actively do nothing. Or retire and collect government entitlements or state unemployment, and sign up for Obamacare while opening an Etsy store selling custom tin-foiled hats.

But someone read an article once where a guy decided to quit his job to protest the vaccine, so there was clearly mass coercion on the issue. That is of course despite the fact that almost everyone on this thread seems to have refused the vaccine and no one seems to have been fired for their position.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Deertick

I can't believe I'm getting sucked in again.

The 'mandate' that government employees and some business chose to enact, required the A) administration of the vaccine OR B) testing and other safeguards OR C) find another job. That was the CHOICE that a very small percentage of the population had to make. Nearly all subject to this predicament, statistically, chose A or B. Where all happy about it, no. BUT they had not one, but THREE CHOICES.

And judging from some of the opinions posted here, those who chose C shouldn't have had any trouble finding employment in a like minded enterprise that is woke to the conspiracy, happily working beside other unmasked, unvaccinated co-workers who chose to actively do nothing. Or retire and collect government entitlements or state unemployment, and sign up for Obamacare while opening an Etsy store selling custom tin-foiled hats.

Arrogance is strong with this one!


Get a vaccine or leave...your employment is no longer based on merit, intelligence or performance!


That's the liberal way!


Who is John Galt?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Carter08

But someone read an article once where a guy decided to quit his job to protest the vaccine, so there was clearly mass coercion on the issue. That is of course despite the fact that almost everyone on this thread seems to have refused the vaccine and no one seems to have been fired for their position.

Making assumptions again, like Irv thinking you lined up your kids for a vaccine for a virus that's 99% asymptomatic...for kids

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Making assumptions again, like Irv thinking you lined up your kids for a vaccine for a virus that's 99% asymptomatic...for kids

and cant sue if they get sick from the shot on top of that...

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Arrogance is strong with this one!


Get a vaccine or leave...your employment is no longer based on merit, intelligence or performance!


That's the liberal way!


Who is John Galt?

It appears that you missed the entire point of Deertick's post. It's not get the vaccine or leave. Its get the vaccine or get tested weekly. I work for a liberal municipality in Virginia, and that is exactly what happened. The people that didn't want to get the vaccine just had to get tested weekly. Not really that big of a deal.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

and cant sue if they get sick from the shot on top of that...

1952Boynton--you've written literally dozens of posts saying that people got fired for not getting the vaccine. Are you conceding that you were wrong, and that people generally just needed to get tested to avoid being let go?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

1952Boynton--you've written literally dozens of posts saying that people got fired for not getting the vaccine. Are you conceding that you were wrong, and that people generally just needed to get tested to avoid being let go?

He is just mad as a lawyer he can't make money by taking advantage of anyone wanting to sue by taking the lions share IF he wins the case.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

1952Boynton--you've written literally dozens of posts saying that people got fired for not getting the vaccine. Are you conceding that you were wrong, and that people generally just needed to get tested to avoid being let go?

It takes a special kind of person to not admit when they are wrong. He is that special person.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Making assumptions again, like Irv thinking you lined up your kids for a vaccine for a virus that's 99% asymptomatic...for kids

One, again, it’s a dbag move to talk about other people’s kids. I am not surprised you join Irv in doing it. Two, nice invented number.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Carter08

It takes a special kind of person to not admit when they are wrong. He is that special person.

While generally people didn't get fired for refusing the vaccine, there were exceptions. New York City actually enforced vaccine mandates for both private and public sector workers (although they lifted the mandate for the private sector and didn't do much enforcement). So there were cases where employers fired people for not getting the vaccine, without giving them the chance to just get tested periodically instead.

But I believe this was the exception to the rule. And a judge ordered NYC to reinstate workers fired over the mandate.

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/27/11443...k-city-workers

But the Biden COVID vaccination mandate (which I believe the Supreme Court struck down) allowed federal workers to retain their jobs if they got tested weekly. And I believe many municipalities followed that guideline. So the general point that the Federal Government didn't directly fire people because they didn't get the covid vaccine is true.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Arrogance is strong with this one!


Get a vaccine or leave...your employment is no longer based on merit, intelligence or performance!


That's the liberal way!


Who is John Galt?

And they still haven't figure it out yet.
Their govt daddy knew these shots didn't stop contraction nor transmission, so what they implemented is fascist and totalitarian.
Control the media, social and mainstream, suppress, shame and shun those who speak out against their narrative, use various methods of control (firing people) deny basic liberties, expect/command obedience to authority, use of police to force compliance and persecute those that don't.

If you're young or ignorant, or both, and are not familiar with these things, it's time you educated yourselves. We've been through this before, about 80 yrs ago, and were told nothing like this would ever happen again.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Carter08

One, again, it’s a dbag move to talk about other people’s kids. I am not surprised you join Irv in doing it. Two, nice invented number.

And, just like I you did last night, you used Dick's views because you're incapable of having any thoughts of your own.
For what it's worth, idiot, we are not talking about your kids, we are talking about what you did to them.
Why is that so hard for you to figure out??

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by irv

And, just like I you did last night, you used Dick's views because you're incapable of having any thoughts of your own.
For what it's worth, idiot, we are not talking about your kids, we are talking about what you did to them.
Why is that so hard for you to figure out??

So you don’t agree to stop referencing my kids? Noted. Do you have any? I’d like to start talking about them then. Let me know. Thanks in advance.

[Republicaninmass]

Just curious why the numbers were not as "deadly" among healthcare workers if masks didnt work so well.


Breaking news, its because they washed their hands. The #1 way to prevent a virus!

I know, news to the people still living in 1918.


Some new terrible virus... combat same way as the old virus.


I did get an extra booster for my son for measles when the real anti-vaxxers, the Hasid, starting having an outbreak of cases.


Depends on your circumstances and your demographic but should always be ones choice. For my job, whether you are vaxxer or not, you are still required to test, even as soon as last week, for covid. I guess I could just quit and work at Lowes if I dont like it, but I am forced to take tests. I did hit one asymptomatic positive, however at 47 I have no comorbidities. I'm wondering what side effects from testing there will be?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Just curious why the numbers were not as "deadly" among healthcare workers if masks didnt work so well.


Breaking news, its because they washed their hands. The #1 way to prevent a virus!

I know, news to the people still living in 1918.


Some new terrible virus... combat same way as the old virus.


I did get an extra booster for my son for measles when the real anti-vaxxers, the Hasid, starting having an outbreak of cases.


Depends on your circumstances and your demographic but should always be ones choice. For my job, whether you are vaxxer or not, you are still required to test, even as soon as last week, for covid. I guess I could just quit and work at Lowes if I dont like it, but I am forced to take tests. I did hit one asymptomatic positive, however at 47 I have no comorbidities. I'm wondering what side effects from testing there will be?

Severe depression, the type that requires professional help. Maybe contact our resident lawyer and sue for damages.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I'm wondering what side effects from testing there will be?

Desensitized gag reflex? Saving money on tissues?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

1952Boynton--you've written literally dozens of posts saying that people got fired for not getting the vaccine. Are you conceding that you were wrong, and that people generally just needed to get tested to avoid being let go?

i think there were like 50 posts about 'choice' to leave..there appears to be an argument of whether there was real choice on many of the occasions when people lost their jobs...... also to act like you were treated the same and to get the same promotions as others when labeled 'anti vax', easy to sit here now and look back but you forget 'emergency rooms were full etc attitude that pervaded' and how employees were viewed .. i am not sure also if the employees on some occasions had to pay for the weekly tests or were those all to be paid by the employer....when you got 5 employees and you got to pay weekly for one versus another one. that could impact employment, if you are an employee and have to pay for tests versus others that could also impact you as well... ..

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

What name were you called? Were?

Where did I claim you called me a name? Hmm, where?

What I said was, "The ”troll” happens to be correct. Your name calling doesn’t change that fact." Here let me explain that to you. You called Ben a "troll." I said he was correct despite your need to call him a "troll." See. I never said you called me a name. I don't think even a third-grader would think I claimed you were calling me a name from that.

Originally Posted by G1911

He very directly said this. The argument that because there is a possible choice to break the law or accept the consequences of pressure, the action is justified. That was the argument. Very directly. It is right here, on this same page, in the transcript. Learn to read.

This really made me laugh. Really. Where did Ben very directly, right here, on this same page, in the transcript say the action is justified if there is a possible choice to break the law or accept the consequences of pressure.
Again, not even a third-grader would be naive enough to think that highlighting "In a sense every single action ever taken in the history of humanity is a choice" means every resulting action is justified. Learn to read, indeed.

Originally Posted by G1911

Not a single person has written that a law was passed forcing the vaccine in the United States. You keep arguing against things you appear to have made up. We have said many corporations used economic leverage as the tools of force to effectively make peoples medical decisions for them. The use of force here was, while strongly supported and encouraged by the state, directly of the economic variety from most large employers and many smaller ones.

This is in response to this quote by me, "As pointed out by others, and as far as I’m aware, there is no federal or state requirement forcing people to get the covid vaccine. You’re arguing a politically motivated false construction." And your response, "Not a single person has written that a law was passed forcing the vaccine in the United States. You keep arguing against things you appear to have made up." What a total disconnect that would probably even amaze a third-grader.

Originally Posted by G1911

I don't think I said any action taken under the label of safety is justified. I would love to see that post! My specific example you cut out was that we have laws against murder, because a society cannot function without some limiters. A minisucle reduction in an absolute risk rate for a flu is, and here's an area where a reasonable argument could actually happen, not doing a whole lot for the security of the citizen body that drives people to live together in societies.

I even quoted you which you quoted in you response, "In a good society, the coercion is only used for the bare minimum necessary for a functioning and safe society.” If you want to argue that the vaccine offers only a "minisucle (sic) reduction in an absolute risk rate," and therefore the vaccine doesn't result in a safer society, that's your prerogative. If you want to say that all coercions that result in a safe society aren't justified, that's your prerogative also. I guess we can disagree on the vaccine.

Originally Posted by G1911

I have written about 100 times in this thread that I think the vaccine has had a positive impact, and is an effective pre-treatment that lessens the risk of severe cases, and may be a good option for this. I do not know how to make it clearer than that. I do not know why I have to repeat this for the 101st time. I really wish our leftists could learn to read. I know it is evidently extremely confusing to you all that Irv and I do not agree either, but I'm sure if you try really, really hard you can do this.

You might make it clearer if you don't post things like above regarding the miniscule reduction in risk in regards to the vaccine or post 1598 where you say "The so-called vaccine does not, obviously, have much of any statistical value to most people."

Originally Posted by G1911

Nowhere did I say we have a totalitarian state - no nation in the history of the world has operated on bnorth's postulation you are defending as I have written multiple times. Our example is the logic used to justify the position; not an actual state. Are you genuinely unable to read?

Again, where is Ben's postulation that every coercion is acceptable? He never said it. You did say in Post 1771, "If threats and punishment to dictate a choice is acceptable, because one can still respond with defiance and suffer the consequences, then there’s no boundary at all. A state run on a coercion is choice philosophy is totalitarian." I then listed several example where our government coerces certain action based on the threat of punishment. And there are many others examples I could have listed. Based on your flawed definition of a totalitarian state, one could imagine the U.S. as totalitarian. And by the way, a totalitarian state probably really doesn't care if its citizens think they have a choice or not which makes your definition meaningless. But, that doesn't surprise me. You make up your own definition of "choice" so why not make up a meaningless definition for "totalitarian."

I only entered this fray to point out to Ben that his choice argument was correct and I get dragged in to this. So, if you'll excuse me, I'm thinking of watching a movie. It's about a woman in a concentration camp during WWII. She has two kids and is told that she has to pick which of her two kids will be gassed. If she doesn't, both will be gassed. Horrible options. It's called "Sophie's Choice." You might remember all the complaints about the title. Yeah, me neither.

[Cliff Bowman]

Nevermind.