4 ms·

4) You oppose tyranny. People should be free to make their own choices. By going out unvaccinated, I'm not putting anyone in danger, except those who choose to

by tomp 5y ago

4) You oppose tyranny. People should be free to make their own choices. By going out unvaccinated, I'm not putting anyone in danger, except those who choose to be endangered (not isolating / sheltering at home, unmasked, unvaccinated). 5) You oppose discrimination. I'm immune but not vaccinated. Where's my immunity certificate?

__m 5y ago
I want to drive a car without the tyranny of speed limits, I’m not putting anyone in danger except those who choose to be endangered (driving a car, walking a street). I oppose discrimination. I know how to drive a car, where is my driver’s license?
- textgel 5y ago
  I want to be able to date without the risk of HIV, seems we have to abolish gay bars and make homsexuality itself a crime.
  - TomVDB 5y ago
    In many states, it’s a crime to have unprotected sex while knowingly having HIV and not informing your partner. That covers things right there. Do you have any other examples to demonstrate your ability to make absurd analogies?
    - underseacables 5y ago
      Not anymore… California repealed its law, and Illinois is in the process of doing the same. You can knowingly transmit HIV to someone in California without telling them anything, and its not a crime.
    - uuipplo 5y ago
      No it doesn't; you are not having fundamental rights such as free movement abolished. Now have another go at comprehending the analogy now that its basic mechanics have been explained to you in simple terms and consider that your inability to grasp the analogy demonstrates a moral or intellectual (or both) failing on your part that you seriously need to address. You are demanding the abolition of the right to free movement, god only knows what you'll want next.
- forcry 5y ago
  I think if you build your own roads, then you are free do drive a car at what ever speed you wish. Since the state has laid down roads, it makes some sense for the state to put speed limits in place for what ever reason. But state didn't own anyone's body, so the state really have no right to force vaccinations.
TomVDB 5y ago
> By going out unvaccinated, I'm not putting anyone in danger Yes, you are. * while a vaccinated person can spread the virus as well, current understanding is that it does so less than for an unvaccinated person. * vaccinated people can get sick, even if there's a much lower chance * vaccinated people can still have children who are not vaccinated None of this is absolute. It's a matter of percentages, chances and what not. Your claim is an absolute, and it's absolutely wrong.
- h_anna_h 5y ago
  > * vaccinated people can still have children who are not vaccinated They should just vaccinate them then. I don't see why it is fine for the children to be unvaccinated but not for tomp.
  - bart_spoon 5y ago
    It’s not that it’s “fine” for children to not be vaccinated, it’s that it is literally not possible to vaccinate anyone under 12 in the US right now legally.
    - h_anna_h 5y ago
      My suggestion is that this should be changed.
      - TomVDB 5y ago
        Clinical trials for that are ongoing. Earliest possible approval is October.
        h_anna_h 5y ago
        They are putting disproportionately and unjustifiably lot of effort in trying to verify the safety of the vaccine for children compared to teens or older. It should have been available for them along with the rest of the population. The argument that "there haven't been enough clinical trials in order to allow children to take the vaccine" is similar to the whole "there hasn't been FDA approval!!". Also, just came to my attention that you ignored the "You oppose discrimination. I'm immune but not vaccinated. Where's my immunity certificate?" part of tomp's argument. Why do you want him to take the vaccine despite the fact that he is not endangering others?
bart_spoon 5y ago
People are still free to make their own choices. The government isn’t holding you down and jabbing your in the arm. What’s happening here is that you are not being allowed to engage in particular aspects of society based on your choices, the same way you are prohibited from smoking in certain areas, from entering a bar if you are under 18, or driving your car on the wrong side of the road. Human societies are a trade off in which you forfeit certain individual rights in exchange for collectivist benefits you wouldn’t have otherwise. You aren’t “opposing tyranny”, you are simply angry you aren’t being allowed to leech off of society.
- swader999 5y ago
  The fact that your movements will be stored centrally and a profile developed has far more reaching implications and concerns that bad actors (future elected officials and their minions) will use this power to the detriment of society. I agree that limits to freedoms are necessary but this is too extreme.

by tomp 5y ago

__m 5y ago

I want to drive a car without the tyranny of speed limits, I’m not putting anyone in danger except those who choose to be endangered (driving a car, walking a street). I oppose discrimination. I know how to drive a car, where is my driver’s license?

textgel 5y ago
I want to be able to date without the risk of HIV, seems we have to abolish gay bars and make homsexuality itself a crime.
- TomVDB 5y ago
  In many states, it’s a crime to have unprotected sex while knowingly having HIV and not informing your partner. That covers things right there. Do you have any other examples to demonstrate your ability to make absurd analogies?
  - underseacables 5y ago
    Not anymore… California repealed its law, and Illinois is in the process of doing the same. You can knowingly transmit HIV to someone in California without telling them anything, and its not a crime.
  - uuipplo 5y ago
    No it doesn't; you are not having fundamental rights such as free movement abolished. Now have another go at comprehending the analogy now that its basic mechanics have been explained to you in simple terms and consider that your inability to grasp the analogy demonstrates a moral or intellectual (or both) failing on your part that you seriously need to address. You are demanding the abolition of the right to free movement, god only knows what you'll want next.
forcry 5y ago
I think if you build your own roads, then you are free do drive a car at what ever speed you wish. Since the state has laid down roads, it makes some sense for the state to put speed limits in place for what ever reason. But state didn't own anyone's body, so the state really have no right to force vaccinations.

TomVDB 5y ago

> By going out unvaccinated, I'm not putting anyone in danger Yes, you are. * while a vaccinated person can spread the virus as well, current understanding is that it does so less than for an unvaccinated person. * vaccinated people can get sick, even if there's a much lower chance * vaccinated people can still have children who are not vaccinated None of this is absolute. It's a matter of percentages, chances and what not. Your claim is an absolute, and it's absolutely wrong.

h_anna_h 5y ago
> * vaccinated people can still have children who are not vaccinated They should just vaccinate them then. I don't see why it is fine for the children to be unvaccinated but not for tomp.
- bart_spoon 5y ago
  It’s not that it’s “fine” for children to not be vaccinated, it’s that it is literally not possible to vaccinate anyone under 12 in the US right now legally.
  - h_anna_h 5y ago
    My suggestion is that this should be changed.
    - TomVDB 5y ago
      Clinical trials for that are ongoing. Earliest possible approval is October.
      - h_anna_h 5y ago
        They are putting disproportionately and unjustifiably lot of effort in trying to verify the safety of the vaccine for children compared to teens or older. It should have been available for them along with the rest of the population. The argument that "there haven't been enough clinical trials in order to allow children to take the vaccine" is similar to the whole "there hasn't been FDA approval!!". Also, just came to my attention that you ignored the "You oppose discrimination. I'm immune but not vaccinated. Where's my immunity certificate?" part of tomp's argument. Why do you want him to take the vaccine despite the fact that he is not endangering others?

bart_spoon 5y ago

People are still free to make their own choices. The government isn’t holding you down and jabbing your in the arm. What’s happening here is that you are not being allowed to engage in particular aspects of society based on your choices, the same way you are prohibited from smoking in certain areas, from entering a bar if you are under 18, or driving your car on the wrong side of the road. Human societies are a trade off in which you forfeit certain individual rights in exchange for collectivist benefits you wouldn’t have otherwise. You aren’t “opposing tyranny”, you are simply angry you aren’t being allowed to leech off of society.

swader999 5y ago
The fact that your movements will be stored centrally and a profile developed has far more reaching implications and concerns that bad actors (future elected officials and their minions) will use this power to the detriment of society. I agree that limits to freedoms are necessary but this is too extreme.