4 ms·

The burden that promiscuity-derived HIV imposes on the healthcare system is not hypothetical. And no, laws against high-risk sexual activity have to do with di

The burden that promiscuity-derived HIV imposes on the healthcare system is not hypothetical. And no, laws against high-risk sexual activity have to do with discriminating against a behavior, not a protected classes. Gay men are perfectly capable of being monogamous, and avoiding high-risk sexual activity. But yes, you are advocating that people have their rights infringed upon, when you advocate for a vaccine mandate. And worse, you're being blatantly inconsistent, based on shallow ideological considerations. Apparently virtue signalling as a supporter of gay rights, or supporter of the obese, is more important for vaccine mandate supporters than minimizing the costs that irresponsible behavior burdens society with. Or maybe minimizing the costs of irresponsibility isn't the real motivation at all - the real motivation is persecuting anti-vaxxer MAGA types, under the pretense of holding people responsible for the costs they burden society with.

jasonlaramburu 5y ago
You weaken your position by speculating about the motivations of those who support of the vaccine mandates. It is just as easy to speculate about the motivations of those who reject vaccines. Perhaps they just want to create chaos for the current administration. Your hypothetical HIV vaccine example is not relevant to the situation with Covid. As stated in the original post, the current mandate is to ensure workplace safety. It is not possible to contract HIV in an elevator or under normal workplace conditions.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>Your hypothetical HIV vaccine example is not relevant to the situation with Covid. I never posed a hypothetical HIV vaccine example, and your deliberate mischaracterization of my point is another demonstration of the bad faith and manipulative tactics you employ.
  - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
    No not really. Your claim (perhaps in bad faith) is that HIV and Covid should be treated as equivalents (or that it is at least hypocritical to NOT consider them equivalents). However that is not relevant to this particular discussion or mandate. One is a matter of workplace safety. One cannot be contracted under normal work conditions.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      My point was not that at all. My point was that there are a myriad of preventable illnesses, that impose a massive cost on society, that the same members of the left wing tribe that are advocating for a vaccine mandate, would never dream of advocating be combated through any restrictions that violate bodily autonomy, and that this inconsistency reveals that these vaccine mandate supporters are disingenuous when they claim their motivation for advocating for a vaccine mandate is the burden the unvaccinated put on the healthcare system.
      - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
        > My point was not that at all. Sure it was. You said in reference to 'liberals' who support covid vaccine mandates (but presumably wouldn't support measures to restrict 100% of other risky behaviors): "Their hypocrisy is staggering." My point, which you continue to ignore, is that the societal cost of other diseases or risky behaviors is irrelevant to the current discussion. The COVID-19 vaccine mandate discussed in the OP is a matter of workplace safety. Cancer, heart disease, HIV etc are not threats to workplace safety. If there are other circulating diseases that present an equivalent scale threat to workplace safety please feel free to present them. Addiction may be, however in the US employers already have wide latitude to test for it and terminate employees in violation.

jasonlaramburu 5y ago

You weaken your position by speculating about the motivations of those who support of the vaccine mandates. It is just as easy to speculate about the motivations of those who reject vaccines. Perhaps they just want to create chaos for the current administration. Your hypothetical HIV vaccine example is not relevant to the situation with Covid. As stated in the original post, the current mandate is to ensure workplace safety. It is not possible to contract HIV in an elevator or under normal workplace conditions.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>Your hypothetical HIV vaccine example is not relevant to the situation with Covid. I never posed a hypothetical HIV vaccine example, and your deliberate mischaracterization of my point is another demonstration of the bad faith and manipulative tactics you employ.
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago
  No not really. Your claim (perhaps in bad faith) is that HIV and Covid should be treated as equivalents (or that it is at least hypocritical to NOT consider them equivalents). However that is not relevant to this particular discussion or mandate. One is a matter of workplace safety. One cannot be contracted under normal work conditions.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    My point was not that at all. My point was that there are a myriad of preventable illnesses, that impose a massive cost on society, that the same members of the left wing tribe that are advocating for a vaccine mandate, would never dream of advocating be combated through any restrictions that violate bodily autonomy, and that this inconsistency reveals that these vaccine mandate supporters are disingenuous when they claim their motivation for advocating for a vaccine mandate is the burden the unvaccinated put on the healthcare system.
    - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
      > My point was not that at all. Sure it was. You said in reference to 'liberals' who support covid vaccine mandates (but presumably wouldn't support measures to restrict 100% of other risky behaviors): "Their hypocrisy is staggering." My point, which you continue to ignore, is that the societal cost of other diseases or risky behaviors is irrelevant to the current discussion. The COVID-19 vaccine mandate discussed in the OP is a matter of workplace safety. Cancer, heart disease, HIV etc are not threats to workplace safety. If there are other circulating diseases that present an equivalent scale threat to workplace safety please feel free to present them. Addiction may be, however in the US employers already have wide latitude to test for it and terminate employees in violation.