3 ms·

> 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 c

> 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?
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  > It's not a tiny fraction, and their freedoms are lost otherwise. Why do you keep ignoring that, and them? Acknowledged numerous times. My question for you... What percentage of the population having a problem, makes it so the rest of society is responsible for them? When does it cross from an problem that a small group of people have like Aids or sickle cell to a problem that the entirety of society is responsible for? What percentage is fair for you? 5%? 10%? What percentage is fair to ask someone not to leave their house and to wear the equivalent of a face burka and to not have physical contact with people and to not have social activities? What percentage justifies this to you?
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  > The basic math behind that has already been explained to you. No it has not.

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?

edmcnulty101 5y ago
> It's not a tiny fraction, and their freedoms are lost otherwise. Why do you keep ignoring that, and them? Acknowledged numerous times. My question for you... What percentage of the population having a problem, makes it so the rest of society is responsible for them? When does it cross from an problem that a small group of people have like Aids or sickle cell to a problem that the entirety of society is responsible for? What percentage is fair for you? 5%? 10%? What percentage is fair to ask someone not to leave their house and to wear the equivalent of a face burka and to not have physical contact with people and to not have social activities? What percentage justifies this to you?
edmcnulty101 5y ago
> The basic math behind that has already been explained to you. No it has not.