5 ms·

First of all...the supreme court is about to rule on this next week so we'll see if they believe your view reflects the truth or if they believe your view to be

First of all...the supreme court is about to rule on this next week so we'll see if they believe your view reflects the truth or if they believe your view to be off base. Second of all, If you're born without an immune system...that sucks...but no one's problem but yours. Get a bubble suit, be creative. That's what America's all about. Concerts and arena sports are still going on daily dispute highest caseloads ever. People as a whole, have moved past your way of thinking with the manipulative: "what about immunocompromised children and granny" heartstring stuff. People want to see Coachella or the Lakers and live their lives... despite an immunocompromised child or granny dying. They aren't going to stand for questionable vaccines and questionable Covid restrictions any longer. Society wide, for all intents and purposes, Covid is over being the center of people life anymore.

notacoward 5y ago
> the supreme court is about to rule on this next week What the supreme court will rule on is not whether the facts I've laid out are correct. What they will rule on is whether it is permissible under the constitution to take action that will weigh one small group's major freedoms for another larger group's minor ones. That's quite a different thing. Some might even argue that what the court will decide, given its current makeup, is whether they can find an excuse to do what one political faction wants, and that's different again. > If you're born without an immune system...that sucks...but no one's problem but yours That is an extremely callow position, supported by neither the law nor the popular will. The US constitution, among others, was written as part of a philosophical tradition in which protection of society's most vulnerable was a high moral value. Its content and subsequent interpretation reflect that, as do vast numbers of statutes passed under it. What you're arguing for is nothing less than eugenics, and that's not just a "manipulating heartstrings" issue. It's almost universally reviled, for good reason. > People as a whole, have moved past Appeal to popularity, fallacious and false. > They aren't going to stand for questionable vaccines You haven't provided one shred of evidence calling those vaccines' efficacy (or safety) into question. Haven't even tried. On the other hand, evidence proving that efficacy has been provided. Any good-faith interlocutor would be able to make better arguments.
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  > eugenics You didnt wear a mask before the pandemic which spreads deadly flu and other respiratory diseases so you're contributing to eugenics which is very callow of you. It's not eugenics if it's naturally present in the environment like covid or the flu. > The US constitution, among others, was written as part of a philosophical tradition in which protection of society's most vulnerable was a high moral value The constitution said colored people were 2/3 of a person, slaves, and women weren't allowed to vote. Not sure you want to go down that road. > What they will rule on is whether it is permissible under the constitution to take action that will trade off one group's freedoms for another's. Well that's the fundamental argument. Does protecting the tiny fraction of those vulnerable to Covid warrant the vast majority of society giving up their freedoms. You say it does others say it doesn't. The fact that the Lakers are playing in an arena and Coachella is happening means society as a whole gave your line of thinking a chance...realized it didn't work..and decided you're wrong. >You haven't provided one shred of evidence calling those vaccines' efficacy (or safety) into question. If two thirds of the population is vaccinated and case counts haven't decreased but in fact have have DOUBLED thats very suspicious sounding to me. >That is an extremely callow position, Did you wear a mask before the pandemic to protect immunocomprosed children and granny from the flu which kills tens of thousands per year? If not, that seems like pretty callow behavior of you. Who knows how many people died as a result of you passing on a disease. You really should wear a mask and ideally quarantine as much as possible forever to minimize risk to others.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    > Not sure you want to go down that road. You were the one who brought up the supreme court - a constitutional body - as though they're the ultimate authority. You went down that road. Since that failed spectacularly, I guess it's no surprise that you're trying to abandon it and poison the well behind you. > Does protecting the tiny fraction of those vulnerable to Covid warrant the vast majority of society giving up their freedoms. It's not a tiny fraction, and their freedoms are lost otherwise. Why do you keep ignoring that, and them? This isn't just a unilateral loss of freedom; it's a tradeoff. There's even precedent from prior vaccine mandates, suggesting that the amount of freedom gained vs. the amount of freedom lost allows them. You've still failed to provide any basis by which such long standing and universally accepted (hardly any challenges) precedent should be overturned now. > If two thirds of the population is vaccinated and case counts haven't decreased The basic math behind that has already been explained to you. Why would you expect anyone to engage further or take you seriously when you just repeat ridiculous claims instead of addressing prior refutations?

notacoward 5y ago

> the supreme court is about to rule on this next week What the supreme court will rule on is not whether the facts I've laid out are correct. What they will rule on is whether it is permissible under the constitution to take action that will weigh one small group's major freedoms for another larger group's minor ones. That's quite a different thing. Some might even argue that what the court will decide, given its current makeup, is whether they can find an excuse to do what one political faction wants, and that's different again. > If you're born without an immune system...that sucks...but no one's problem but yours That is an extremely callow position, supported by neither the law nor the popular will. The US constitution, among others, was written as part of a philosophical tradition in which protection of society's most vulnerable was a high moral value. Its content and subsequent interpretation reflect that, as do vast numbers of statutes passed under it. What you're arguing for is nothing less than eugenics, and that's not just a "manipulating heartstrings" issue. It's almost universally reviled, for good reason. > People as a whole, have moved past Appeal to popularity, fallacious and false. > They aren't going to stand for questionable vaccines You haven't provided one shred of evidence calling those vaccines' efficacy (or safety) into question. Haven't even tried. On the other hand, evidence proving that efficacy has been provided. Any good-faith interlocutor would be able to make better arguments.

edmcnulty101 5y ago
> eugenics You didnt wear a mask before the pandemic which spreads deadly flu and other respiratory diseases so you're contributing to eugenics which is very callow of you. It's not eugenics if it's naturally present in the environment like covid or the flu. > The US constitution, among others, was written as part of a philosophical tradition in which protection of society's most vulnerable was a high moral value The constitution said colored people were 2/3 of a person, slaves, and women weren't allowed to vote. Not sure you want to go down that road. > What they will rule on is whether it is permissible under the constitution to take action that will trade off one group's freedoms for another's. Well that's the fundamental argument. Does protecting the tiny fraction of those vulnerable to Covid warrant the vast majority of society giving up their freedoms. You say it does others say it doesn't. The fact that the Lakers are playing in an arena and Coachella is happening means society as a whole gave your line of thinking a chance...realized it didn't work..and decided you're wrong. >You haven't provided one shred of evidence calling those vaccines' efficacy (or safety) into question. If two thirds of the population is vaccinated and case counts haven't decreased but in fact have have DOUBLED thats very suspicious sounding to me. >That is an extremely callow position, Did you wear a mask before the pandemic to protect immunocomprosed children and granny from the flu which kills tens of thousands per year? If not, that seems like pretty callow behavior of you. Who knows how many people died as a result of you passing on a disease. You really should wear a mask and ideally quarantine as much as possible forever to minimize risk to others.
- notacoward 5y ago
  > Not sure you want to go down that road. You were the one who brought up the supreme court - a constitutional body - as though they're the ultimate authority. You went down that road. Since that failed spectacularly, I guess it's no surprise that you're trying to abandon it and poison the well behind you. > Does protecting the tiny fraction of those vulnerable to Covid warrant the vast majority of society giving up their freedoms. It's not a tiny fraction, and their freedoms are lost otherwise. Why do you keep ignoring that, and them? This isn't just a unilateral loss of freedom; it's a tradeoff. There's even precedent from prior vaccine mandates, suggesting that the amount of freedom gained vs. the amount of freedom lost allows them. You've still failed to provide any basis by which such long standing and universally accepted (hardly any challenges) precedent should be overturned now. > If two thirds of the population is vaccinated and case counts haven't decreased The basic math behind that has already been explained to you. Why would you expect anyone to engage further or take you seriously when you just repeat ridiculous claims instead of addressing prior refutations?