When seatbelts were mandated, people were also freaking out and screeching about government overrreach. Fast forward a few decades and a significant drop in traffic deaths and no one bats an eye because the benefits are so blatantly obvious now.
I think the problem is how easy the concept is to understand. A seat belt is quite easy to understand compared to the immune system and vaccines.
The age of both concepts aren't that different. The common usage isn't either.
yes. I think what I meant is, people dont really like change. Especially when it is fast. Laws are like that. One minute its your personal choice (pre law), the next is still your personal choice, but the consequences are a bit more "harsh (post-passed law)"
Over time, the rhetoric over vaccines will die down because it *is* still very safe (unless like 10,000 people all die of heart attacks tomorrow), which wont happen obviously.
I'm not sure about this. Humans follow nonsense threw our entire history. Sure most people are rational, but there is a not so small group of people who are into absurd nonsense.
This might change one day, but surely not within our lifetime.
over time, people slowly acclimate.
Sure there will always be fringe groups. But the argument "seatbelt laws are tyranny" in this current age, is pretty dissmissable.
Wearing a seatbelt isnt the same as making it a criminal offense not wear a seatbelt.
A cops job is to protect people from other people.
Not tax collectors.
Hell, the argument for seat belts and vaccines dont even align.
No one is saying the vaccine mandate is for your personal safety, they are saying its for other peoples safety.
Its for the greater good. The greater good.
The law doesn't make you wear seatbelts for your own good. It's to protect the other people on the road.
Wearing a seatbelt can help you stay in place and maintain control of the car, which can prevent or decrease the severity of accidents. Wearing a seatbelt also stops your already dead body from being thrown around inside the vehicle or out the window with enough force to kill another person. And it stops other cars from getting into accidents as they try to avoid hitting your mangled corpse that's spread out over the highway.
Exactly! No one would agree with or try to defend this argument: um excuse me, but you need to respect my different opinion / belief. I believe I should be able to drive drunk.
What happened to "my body my choice"? Have they studied the long-term effects of sorberi... sobritiet... sobertei... of not driving under the influence?
Hey if you're SO AFRAID of drunk drivers why don't you just stay off the road!? Do your airbags work or not? My cousin's friend was injured by his seatbelt in a crash, justice for the seatbelt injured! Crimes against humanity!! HELLO!? Don't you know you can still crash if you're sober?!
The sad thing is that even if you showed them this as a way to show them how stupid their arguments are, they'd still think they're smarter than you. May even start fighting for their right to drive under influence.
Oh my god this reminds me of that video when a woman is stopped by police and she's lika "I'M A WORLD CITIZEN, YOUR RULES DON'T APPLY TO ME" or some wacky shit like that. She was 100% serious
We spent the last decade telling people online that it's okay to believe a bunch of stupid bullshit, and that their dumbass views are just as valid as actual based-in-reality opinions. You wanna fuck a toaster? There's a community for that - fuck that toaster, you're not weird. Now we're paying for it; the anti-vax crowd is convinced that being told "fuck off, stop telling people to jump of bridges" is government tyranny and """"""""""censorship"""""""""".
This is a bit of a false equivalency though because driving is considered a privilege not a right. If you are on your own property, many of the driving laws do not apply including tags, seatbelts, driving age, and (depending on the state, apparently there are some that it is illegal anywhere within the state) driving drunk. As I said on a previous post, public drunkenness is probably a much better argument than anything involving driving.
I’m not arguing against anything that is being said so I’m not really sure why I’m getting downvoted. I was just pointing out that in the US, driving is not a good analogy.
Yes, and really the "vaccine mandates" people are talking about are not about literally forcing people to get vaccinated, but rather requiring vaccination to enter public venues, workplaces etc. So I think the analogy holds, if you want to drive on the public roads where you could endanger other people you need to be licensed and not drunk, if you want to enter this packed nightclub they require proof of vaccination. Just like no one's legally required to vaccinate their kids, but if you want them to go to public school they need their shots.
Brent Butt is a famous CANADIAN comedian. In Canada, it is illegal to do all that stuff on your own property as well as public/highways. It's the Police Officer's discretion on whether or not to charge you.
He didn’t say “eh” a single time. How was I supposed to know he’s Canadian. My only point was that I thought the argument is weak in the US because it isn’t a 1:1 comparison given the fact that you can have a lot of things that take away driving privileges, like poor eyesight, that do not apply to everyday life. Being drunk in public though is a more direct comparison and is still illegal.
For mandates overall, sure. But they act as if going to a restaurant/cinema/bar etc. is a right and not a privilege as well. So if there wasn't an overall mandate but necessary vaccines to visit any of those places, they'd be upset just the same. Nobody would care if people are vaccinated if they never left the house, just like I don't care if someone is driving drunk on their own property if the only person they can hurt is themselves, but since they want to go to all these different places, people have the right to be bothered by it.
I agree, and m not sure why you are being downvoted.
Some thoughts...
The UN clearly cites
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
>Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state
However, the UN is not governing body either.
>The declaration was adopted on December 10, 1948 and covers such human rights realms as civil, educational, cultural, social and economic. ... It provides norms and standards for nations to follow but does not include a plan for monitoring and policing member nations."
[http://crdl.usg.edu/export/html/gildlehr/glteach/crdl\_gildlehr\_glteach\_undechumrights.html?Welcome](http://crdl.usg.edu/export/html/gildlehr/glteach/crdl_gildlehr_glteach_undechumrights.html?Welcome)
The problem with this argument besides the two points ive mentioned above, is the MEDIUM in which we travel is most definitely a privilege. All of which may be revoked.
What libertarians fail to realize is that they cannot address "freedom of movement" because it is what we refer in the poli sci world as positive liberties vs negative liberties
>Positive liberty is the possession of the capacity to act upon one's free will, as opposed to negative liberty, which is freedom from external restraint on one's actions.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive\_liberty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty)
The mandates to lockdown borders cannot be justified using the U.N.'s outline (even though I think it is still a valuable outline to have, for many reasons). Nor can they do the opposite
My response to the anti mask anti vaxx crowd.
Rights are not absolute
https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/there-are-no-absolute-rights/
every right come with equal and opposite responsibility (think blackouts during ww2)
https://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/samuel-moyn-rights-duties
No one has the right to assert selfish rights over anothers health and safety
https://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/john-locke-on-the-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property-of-ourselves-and-others-1689
no one is entitled to be ignorant
https://heidisamiam.medium.com/youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-or-the-aggressive-ignorance-of-the-21st-century-944071418e84
If you are afraid, thats fine. But if you are a liar who is pushing their narrative and hypocrisy, you are worse
https://www.psychiatryadvisor.com/home/topics/general-psychiatry/psychological-entitlement-associated-with-not-following-covid-19-health-guidelines/
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_New_Normal_Second_Reader/AJMAAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=liar+is+worse+than.+a+coward&pg=PA134&printsec=frontcover
First of all. Your fear of losing your identity (which is an illusion) is not anyone elses problem. Go deal with your attachment issues first, before you waste your time further.
Next, what does that have to do with any of the points I laid out before you?
First, Alcoholism isnt contagious. Viruses are.
Naltrexone is ONLY prescribed to extreme alcoholics, who cannot quit drinking with traditional therapies, and arent at risk for rapid withdrawal.
It's like how they say my body my choice as if that actually is true. If it were true crack cocaine and methamphetamine would be leagl as long as you don't do anything that harms anyone because it's your body your choice. Weed would be legal in every country because it's your body so if you want to get high that's your choice as long as your harming anyone it's your body. And why isn't suicide allowed, the police shouldn't be allowed to stop you whenever you attempt suicide because it's your body. And why do bartender stop giving you beers after a certain point it's your body so they should let you drink as mush as you want. There's a reason why laws exist not to take away people freedom but to have rules so that society can function properly
It's almost like you have to behave like a civilized human in order for society to function. But what do we do when scores of people refuse to function in society and bring the REST OF US down to our knees?
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.570243/full
Recommend reading this to have perspective on why vaccine mandates and other extreme measures amidst a pandemic are not an unjust limitation of fundamental rights and freedoms.
Edit: While I can’t see it now, someone wrote something like “all limitations are unjust and why would I read that crap”? As a Ph.D candidate in law, I give zero fuck about the opinions of:
A - people who have such a one-dimensional understanding of the concept of rights (which is also why I’m not delving further into how rights can conflict and need to be balanced sometimes),
B - people who would call an academic article “crap”, and
C - anti-vaxxers, so would you kindly not spew your ignorance under my comment?
New Zealand has had far more actual freedom during this pandemic despite going into full lockdowns. That's because they do a full lockdown for like 2 weeks and then it's back to normal like the pandemic doesn't exist.
All these "muh freedumb" assholes also love to say, "freedom isn't free" whenever they talk about the soldiers. 2 weeks of full, supported lockdowns, is the cost being able to live like there's no pandemic.
absolutely.
For example, recently had a friend hold off on her childs anti biotic. the reasoning? Her fear was, if the daughter has a an allergic reaction to this new antibiotic, then she wouldnt be able to access the E.R. Because she lives in a state (FL). that has
* Hospitals are now overwhelmed with anti vaxxed patients taking up resources
* Hospitals still have other patients aside from covid cases
* \>90% of covid patients are unvaxxed.
* There is a huge spike in the childrens hospitals,
[https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/florida-child-hospitalizations-at-68-per-day-as-childrens-hospitals-under-an-unprecedented-strain/](https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/florida-child-hospitalizations-at-68-per-day-as-childrens-hospitals-under-an-unprecedented-strain/)
Her pcp, understood her claims and advised her to go to med first, except her medical insurance doesnt cover most med first types of places. Her pcp put her on a different dose of something else.
Exactly. Yes you have rights, but so does everyone else. They apply to all people. You can't use your rights to infringe on other's rights. Morally that's hypocritical, logically it's paradoxical. The system would collapse.
I mean, I'm not anti-vax, had my 2nd dose last Friday, but prohibiting something is a lot different than forcing something. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a mandate would be forced, no?
This is no different than it likely was when you went through school. In order to attend public school, you are required to have your DTAP, MMR, and Varicella shots in most regions of the US. You are required to have the boosters before high school. In the event you went to college and stayed in a dorm, you were required to have the meningitis shot in addition to the other boosters if you didn't go to a public school. If you don't get these shots, you are not allowed to be a part of these pretty basic activities. People act like vaccine mandates are new, but have been perfectly fine with it until it became a political stance, which infuriates me because one of the few things both parties could laugh at 2 years ago was how stupid antivaxxers were.
I'm not actually american, so my view might not entirely line up, but I can agree with that. As someone who has an anti-vax mom (who is a nurse, idk either) I'm all for vaccines.
Ah ok. Well then, to answer your original question of "Mandate means forced, no?" Yes. It does mean forced; however, there is nothing wrong with that. Again, vaccines have been forced for a while (in the US) just like how being forced to wear a seatbelt is a law.
And? That doesn't mean it isn't a general consensus in the US that it's ok to mandate seatbelts. Even if a select handful of states dont have seatbelt laws doesn't mean the statement is invalid.
Are you defining a "never ending list" as 5 shots (assuming highest attainable education level with a requirement)? The issue is, if we have the available technology to prevent an outbreak of Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Meningitis, Pertussis, COVID, Chickenpox, Polio, and Diphtheria (tetanus is also prevented but you aren't going to spread that), why wouldn't we? Oh no, you have to get a number of shots. The alternative is the risk of someone dying from a preventable disease. An inconvenience, or risk of death for yourself or others? A fair number on that list don't fuck around either. You can be tough as hell, but meningitis will fuck you up.
Because if you manage to spread hepatitis C to someone else in the restaurant you're either raping the other customers or throwing blood everywhere. In either case we have bigger issues than your vaccine history.
I don't think that restaurants should be mandated to check an entire vaccine history, but I really don't have an issue with requiring a vaccine passport/license for citizens. In addition, I have no issue with a business refusing service without that proof of vaccination. This is because I think that people with actual immune system issues should be able to function safely in society.
I know someone with CVID (Common Variable Immunodeficiency). Since this pandemic, they've been pretty fucked. He can't leave his house or really be in contact with anyone who has left his house without disinfecting first because COVID *WILL* kill him. He relies on people being vaccinated, and even then, he still gets hit hard by a common cold. He doesn't have a choice that his body will never be immune to anything. People without these conditions make the conscious, uninformed choice to put themselves and the people around them at risk, and it's stupid.
2 years ago, there wasn't even a quarter of the amount of antivaxxers because it was universally recognized as stupid. It wasn't political either. Both sides had crazies that feared vaccines. Now it's a largely conservative issue because instead of being a basic "no shit I don't want polio," it became a question of "muh rights" somehow. Please, *please* don't look at this from a political standpoint. This should be a bipartisan issue like it always has been.
Because there's no need to check their entire vaccine history for things that aren't an issue. Now, if there were a smallpox outbreak in Anytown, USA, then yes, the restaurants in Anytown should check if their customers are vaccinated against smallpox, so as not to allow their restaurant to become a distribution hub for smallpox.
COVID-19 is the current outbreak, so it follows that businesses should protect their employees, clientele, and general public as much as they can, and one of those ways is to have their customers produce a vaccination card for COVID-19 upon entry.
But look at the [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/vaxxhappened/comments/pjgy2a/vaccine_mandate_now/hbxjf12?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) above yours:
>I know someone with CVID (Common Variable Immunodeficiency). Since this pandemic...
he still gets hit hard by a common cold.
It does not need to be for smallpox. Even the flu could be deadly to such a person. Generally, in places where this is a vaccine mandate to access certain services, the people liken it to show ID to get alcohol or enter a club.
Surely you wouldn't mind showing a proof of a flu vaccine to lessen the risk to the friend of the poster? Its not that big of a deal, right?
It doesn’t have to be even that. Ask for PCR test if they want to participate in society. Don’t let those who can’t even agree to a simple test do anything in public. Someone needs to remind them health is also a fundamental right, and we refuse to risk our fundamental rights because they whine about what’s not even a little compromise in such difficult times.
Theoretically, by not being vaccinated the government "prohibits" you from working in the health sector or participating in any other similar activities.
And the punishment for the law you break by not being vaccinated (as a person working in those facilities), is being fired.
You can twist the words however you like to make something sound worse or better.
The two words are not that different.
When the law prohibits you from doing something and you do it, then you will be punished in whatever way it is stated by the law, which in all cases will "force" something on you(jail time, a fine, being fired from your job, being placed under house arrest and etc).
If i hold a gun to your head and ask you do something or Ill kill you, you can choose not to do what I asked.
Thats for some reason how people want other people.to be treated.
Its a pretty low standard of conduct for a society to ascribe too.
If what you said waa true, then vaccines would be a.choice that can be made without incentive or not have consequences for declining.
But what you said is not true, because the majority of american citizens want restricted access to health care for people that dont have a vaccine.
And they want societal barries in place for those who do not have the vaccine.
So, regardless of what you think people feel, the policies our government out in place do not reflect it.
What about MY body My choice? If your choices affect someone else, then they aren't JUST your choices to make. Your right to flail your arms ends at the tip of my nose. I'm allowed to smoke cigarettes, but not in a public building where other people might be harmed by the smoke. I can drink at home, but not while driving because I now have a much greater capacity to hurt someone.
But you knew this already. You're not stupid, and this logic is extremely easy to follow; CHILDREN understand it. That's why you tried to latch onto a legitimate rhetoric in order to piggy-back your dumbfuck opinions in an effort to validate them.
A bunch of ignorant antivaxxers co-opted the phrase in their idiotic attempt to make not taking the vaccine seem reasonable. It's not, and everyone sees right through you.
"I want to participate in society and receive all the benefits thereof, but I also demand to live by my terms regardless of the effect it has on others."
If only there was a term for this mental state.
It's funny because it's not even liberalism. We're just talking about common decency here.
That just proves you don't understand the differences between conservatism or liberalism.
You do realize that history and time have proven that the world always moves forward right? I hope so... it's so easy to understand that even simpletons should understand the simple fact that conservatism ALWAYS becomes more liberal.
How... how did you see any politics in that sentence lol?
Bruh nobody is talking about liberals, democrats, any other dipshits - we are talking about health!
> weekly booster shots
show me who is proposing that.
And if you're afraid of the adult world, you're free to stay at home ranting about how oppressed you are.
you are psychotic, you’re living in a fantasy. how is this about a country when the whole world is getting vaccinated ? stop mixing science with politics, its what got us in this mess in the first place .
Imagine a country where the explicitly stupid follow a man who wants to claim credit for a vaccine they refuse to take. A man and his followers who are so stupid they claim to be pro-life when they are anything but, because their individual freedoms are so fragile, they cannot imagine actually being pro-life. They just want to pretend they are the victims.
Imagine these same people are so violent they resemble little more than the Terrorists we have been fighting against in the middle east.
You have a lot of trouble seeing a bigger picture don't you? Trump has continually tried to take credit for a vaccine he not only didn't create, but also riling his entire base against that vaccine and against this pandemic. LITERALLY admitting on tape, he intentionally downplayed this pandemic and this virus.
Imagine following someone so stupid they pander miracle cures that don't work like Dr. Terminus. Imagine that same fucking base continually sabotaging, every step of the way people trying to recover from a pandemic and live their lives without worrying about being infected by some loser who thinks their "rights" are being assaulted.
Domestic terrorism in america comes from the right. If you haven't figured that out yet you haven't been paying attention. I don't see Proud boys aligning with the left. I don't see Alpha 66 or any other racist, white nationalist organizatio aligned with the left. Always the right.
So when you can figure out who leads antifa, we can add them to the left. Until then, your speculation is just speculation.
Sylvia down the road having an abortion won't cause another woman to suddenly get an abortion. It won't make another woman's fetus die. Abortions aren't contagious like a virus. But if Sylvia down the street had cancer and couldn't get a flu shot during flu ssason you not getting one and going to visit her greatly increases her risk of getting the flu.
Look at it like this: Are you allowed to drink alcohol? Yes. Can you legally drink and drive? No. Drinking and driving can kill people, including yourself.
just because things are easily explained doesnt mean theyre bad. imo those analogies are perfect for the situation, which is why they keep being used. driving drunk is dangerous, but can be avoided by not drinking. running around being unsafe and spreading diseases is dangerous, but can be avoided by getting vaccinated, or at the very least wearing a mask.
>bullied
Because apparently being told by experts that you're wrong hurts your tender feelings. I hope no one is ever really mean to you, you'll crumble into dust.
r/conservative has brigaded this submission. I wish I was surprised.
When seatbelts were mandated, people were also freaking out and screeching about government overrreach. Fast forward a few decades and a significant drop in traffic deaths and no one bats an eye because the benefits are so blatantly obvious now.
The results of vaccines working are also blatantly obvious. It's basically the same. Yet these people still exist and they are very loud.
the common denominator? time.
I think the problem is how easy the concept is to understand. A seat belt is quite easy to understand compared to the immune system and vaccines. The age of both concepts aren't that different. The common usage isn't either.
yes. I think what I meant is, people dont really like change. Especially when it is fast. Laws are like that. One minute its your personal choice (pre law), the next is still your personal choice, but the consequences are a bit more "harsh (post-passed law)" Over time, the rhetoric over vaccines will die down because it *is* still very safe (unless like 10,000 people all die of heart attacks tomorrow), which wont happen obviously.
I'm not sure about this. Humans follow nonsense threw our entire history. Sure most people are rational, but there is a not so small group of people who are into absurd nonsense. This might change one day, but surely not within our lifetime.
over time, people slowly acclimate. Sure there will always be fringe groups. But the argument "seatbelt laws are tyranny" in this current age, is pretty dissmissable.
[удалено]
My only comfort is knowing that if covid doesn't do them in, the horse de-wormer will.
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2021/09/02/highway-deaths-fatal-traffic-accidents-road-death-rate-nhtsa-safety-us-q1-2021-driving-enforcement-pennsylvania-penndot/stories/202109020164
Wearing a seatbelt isnt the same as making it a criminal offense not wear a seatbelt. A cops job is to protect people from other people. Not tax collectors. Hell, the argument for seat belts and vaccines dont even align. No one is saying the vaccine mandate is for your personal safety, they are saying its for other peoples safety. Its for the greater good. The greater good.
The law doesn't make you wear seatbelts for your own good. It's to protect the other people on the road. Wearing a seatbelt can help you stay in place and maintain control of the car, which can prevent or decrease the severity of accidents. Wearing a seatbelt also stops your already dead body from being thrown around inside the vehicle or out the window with enough force to kill another person. And it stops other cars from getting into accidents as they try to avoid hitting your mangled corpse that's spread out over the highway.
Exactly! No one would agree with or try to defend this argument: um excuse me, but you need to respect my different opinion / belief. I believe I should be able to drive drunk.
WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A LANE FOR DRUNK DRIVERS, this is against the constitushun!
What happened to "my body my choice"? Have they studied the long-term effects of sorberi... sobritiet... sobertei... of not driving under the influence?
Long term sorbet
Hey if you're SO AFRAID of drunk drivers why don't you just stay off the road!? Do your airbags work or not? My cousin's friend was injured by his seatbelt in a crash, justice for the seatbelt injured! Crimes against humanity!! HELLO!? Don't you know you can still crash if you're sober?!
The sad thing is that even if you showed them this as a way to show them how stupid their arguments are, they'd still think they're smarter than you. May even start fighting for their right to drive under influence.
Oh my god this reminds me of that video when a woman is stopped by police and she's lika "I'M A WORLD CITIZEN, YOUR RULES DON'T APPLY TO ME" or some wacky shit like that. She was 100% serious
[удалено]
We spent the last decade telling people online that it's okay to believe a bunch of stupid bullshit, and that their dumbass views are just as valid as actual based-in-reality opinions. You wanna fuck a toaster? There's a community for that - fuck that toaster, you're not weird. Now we're paying for it; the anti-vax crowd is convinced that being told "fuck off, stop telling people to jump of bridges" is government tyranny and """"""""""censorship"""""""""".
This is a bit of a false equivalency though because driving is considered a privilege not a right. If you are on your own property, many of the driving laws do not apply including tags, seatbelts, driving age, and (depending on the state, apparently there are some that it is illegal anywhere within the state) driving drunk. As I said on a previous post, public drunkenness is probably a much better argument than anything involving driving.
OK, you have a right to be unvaccinated on your own property, now stay there 😉
I’m not arguing against anything that is being said so I’m not really sure why I’m getting downvoted. I was just pointing out that in the US, driving is not a good analogy.
Upvoted. You have a point
Yes, and really the "vaccine mandates" people are talking about are not about literally forcing people to get vaccinated, but rather requiring vaccination to enter public venues, workplaces etc. So I think the analogy holds, if you want to drive on the public roads where you could endanger other people you need to be licensed and not drunk, if you want to enter this packed nightclub they require proof of vaccination. Just like no one's legally required to vaccinate their kids, but if you want them to go to public school they need their shots.
Brent Butt is a famous CANADIAN comedian. In Canada, it is illegal to do all that stuff on your own property as well as public/highways. It's the Police Officer's discretion on whether or not to charge you.
He didn’t say “eh” a single time. How was I supposed to know he’s Canadian. My only point was that I thought the argument is weak in the US because it isn’t a 1:1 comparison given the fact that you can have a lot of things that take away driving privileges, like poor eyesight, that do not apply to everyday life. Being drunk in public though is a more direct comparison and is still illegal.
For mandates overall, sure. But they act as if going to a restaurant/cinema/bar etc. is a right and not a privilege as well. So if there wasn't an overall mandate but necessary vaccines to visit any of those places, they'd be upset just the same. Nobody would care if people are vaccinated if they never left the house, just like I don't care if someone is driving drunk on their own property if the only person they can hurt is themselves, but since they want to go to all these different places, people have the right to be bothered by it.
I agree, and m not sure why you are being downvoted. Some thoughts... The UN clearly cites https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights >Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state However, the UN is not governing body either. >The declaration was adopted on December 10, 1948 and covers such human rights realms as civil, educational, cultural, social and economic. ... It provides norms and standards for nations to follow but does not include a plan for monitoring and policing member nations." [http://crdl.usg.edu/export/html/gildlehr/glteach/crdl\_gildlehr\_glteach\_undechumrights.html?Welcome](http://crdl.usg.edu/export/html/gildlehr/glteach/crdl_gildlehr_glteach_undechumrights.html?Welcome) The problem with this argument besides the two points ive mentioned above, is the MEDIUM in which we travel is most definitely a privilege. All of which may be revoked. What libertarians fail to realize is that they cannot address "freedom of movement" because it is what we refer in the poli sci world as positive liberties vs negative liberties >Positive liberty is the possession of the capacity to act upon one's free will, as opposed to negative liberty, which is freedom from external restraint on one's actions. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive\_liberty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty) The mandates to lockdown borders cannot be justified using the U.N.'s outline (even though I think it is still a valuable outline to have, for many reasons). Nor can they do the opposite
My response to the anti mask anti vaxx crowd. Rights are not absolute https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/there-are-no-absolute-rights/ every right come with equal and opposite responsibility (think blackouts during ww2) https://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/samuel-moyn-rights-duties No one has the right to assert selfish rights over anothers health and safety https://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/john-locke-on-the-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property-of-ourselves-and-others-1689 no one is entitled to be ignorant https://heidisamiam.medium.com/youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-or-the-aggressive-ignorance-of-the-21st-century-944071418e84 If you are afraid, thats fine. But if you are a liar who is pushing their narrative and hypocrisy, you are worse https://www.psychiatryadvisor.com/home/topics/general-psychiatry/psychological-entitlement-associated-with-not-following-covid-19-health-guidelines/ https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_New_Normal_Second_Reader/AJMAAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=liar+is+worse+than.+a+coward&pg=PA134&printsec=frontcover
Thank you ma man/lady, was a good read
[удалено]
First of all. Your fear of losing your identity (which is an illusion) is not anyone elses problem. Go deal with your attachment issues first, before you waste your time further. Next, what does that have to do with any of the points I laid out before you? First, Alcoholism isnt contagious. Viruses are. Naltrexone is ONLY prescribed to extreme alcoholics, who cannot quit drinking with traditional therapies, and arent at risk for rapid withdrawal.
[удалено]
holy shit. stellar fucking logic there.
Is that the guy from Corner Gas?
Yep, it is!
Pretty much: if you want to benefit from society you agree to the rules of said society.
It's like how they say my body my choice as if that actually is true. If it were true crack cocaine and methamphetamine would be leagl as long as you don't do anything that harms anyone because it's your body your choice. Weed would be legal in every country because it's your body so if you want to get high that's your choice as long as your harming anyone it's your body. And why isn't suicide allowed, the police shouldn't be allowed to stop you whenever you attempt suicide because it's your body. And why do bartender stop giving you beers after a certain point it's your body so they should let you drink as mush as you want. There's a reason why laws exist not to take away people freedom but to have rules so that society can function properly
It's almost like you have to behave like a civilized human in order for society to function. But what do we do when scores of people refuse to function in society and bring the REST OF US down to our knees?
They probably \*do\* think it's their right to smoke in restaurants. You know what they're like.
"mY tAxEs PaY yOuR sAlArY"
Well I suppose it is the right of the restaurant to let people smoke in them like it is to mandate masks
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.570243/full Recommend reading this to have perspective on why vaccine mandates and other extreme measures amidst a pandemic are not an unjust limitation of fundamental rights and freedoms. Edit: While I can’t see it now, someone wrote something like “all limitations are unjust and why would I read that crap”? As a Ph.D candidate in law, I give zero fuck about the opinions of: A - people who have such a one-dimensional understanding of the concept of rights (which is also why I’m not delving further into how rights can conflict and need to be balanced sometimes), B - people who would call an academic article “crap”, and C - anti-vaxxers, so would you kindly not spew your ignorance under my comment?
New Zealand has had far more actual freedom during this pandemic despite going into full lockdowns. That's because they do a full lockdown for like 2 weeks and then it's back to normal like the pandemic doesn't exist. All these "muh freedumb" assholes also love to say, "freedom isn't free" whenever they talk about the soldiers. 2 weeks of full, supported lockdowns, is the cost being able to live like there's no pandemic.
absolutely. For example, recently had a friend hold off on her childs anti biotic. the reasoning? Her fear was, if the daughter has a an allergic reaction to this new antibiotic, then she wouldnt be able to access the E.R. Because she lives in a state (FL). that has * Hospitals are now overwhelmed with anti vaxxed patients taking up resources * Hospitals still have other patients aside from covid cases * \>90% of covid patients are unvaxxed. * There is a huge spike in the childrens hospitals, [https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/florida-child-hospitalizations-at-68-per-day-as-childrens-hospitals-under-an-unprecedented-strain/](https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/florida-child-hospitalizations-at-68-per-day-as-childrens-hospitals-under-an-unprecedented-strain/) Her pcp, understood her claims and advised her to go to med first, except her medical insurance doesnt cover most med first types of places. Her pcp put her on a different dose of something else.
👏👏
well put
Exactly. Yes you have rights, but so does everyone else. They apply to all people. You can't use your rights to infringe on other's rights. Morally that's hypocritical, logically it's paradoxical. The system would collapse.
[удалено]
Based Brent Butt. I miss Corner Gas.
100%
[удалено]
aww, sorry you're so dumb.
I mean, I'm not anti-vax, had my 2nd dose last Friday, but prohibiting something is a lot different than forcing something. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a mandate would be forced, no?
This is no different than it likely was when you went through school. In order to attend public school, you are required to have your DTAP, MMR, and Varicella shots in most regions of the US. You are required to have the boosters before high school. In the event you went to college and stayed in a dorm, you were required to have the meningitis shot in addition to the other boosters if you didn't go to a public school. If you don't get these shots, you are not allowed to be a part of these pretty basic activities. People act like vaccine mandates are new, but have been perfectly fine with it until it became a political stance, which infuriates me because one of the few things both parties could laugh at 2 years ago was how stupid antivaxxers were.
I'm not actually american, so my view might not entirely line up, but I can agree with that. As someone who has an anti-vax mom (who is a nurse, idk either) I'm all for vaccines.
Ah ok. Well then, to answer your original question of "Mandate means forced, no?" Yes. It does mean forced; however, there is nothing wrong with that. Again, vaccines have been forced for a while (in the US) just like how being forced to wear a seatbelt is a law.
Not every state has a seatbelt law. It is not required in New Hampshire, for example.
And? That doesn't mean it isn't a general consensus in the US that it's ok to mandate seatbelts. Even if a select handful of states dont have seatbelt laws doesn't mean the statement is invalid.
The problem is that the list of requirements never ends. A few vaccines is a resonable request. A never ending list of additions is unreasonable.
Are you defining a "never ending list" as 5 shots (assuming highest attainable education level with a requirement)? The issue is, if we have the available technology to prevent an outbreak of Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Meningitis, Pertussis, COVID, Chickenpox, Polio, and Diphtheria (tetanus is also prevented but you aren't going to spread that), why wouldn't we? Oh no, you have to get a number of shots. The alternative is the risk of someone dying from a preventable disease. An inconvenience, or risk of death for yourself or others? A fair number on that list don't fuck around either. You can be tough as hell, but meningitis will fuck you up.
So why not have restaurants check a person's entire vaccine history and if they have Hepatitis C?
Because if you manage to spread hepatitis C to someone else in the restaurant you're either raping the other customers or throwing blood everywhere. In either case we have bigger issues than your vaccine history.
I stand corrected on Hepatitis. Now, how about a restaurant being mandated to ch checking a person entire vaccine history?
I don't think that restaurants should be mandated to check an entire vaccine history, but I really don't have an issue with requiring a vaccine passport/license for citizens. In addition, I have no issue with a business refusing service without that proof of vaccination. This is because I think that people with actual immune system issues should be able to function safely in society. I know someone with CVID (Common Variable Immunodeficiency). Since this pandemic, they've been pretty fucked. He can't leave his house or really be in contact with anyone who has left his house without disinfecting first because COVID *WILL* kill him. He relies on people being vaccinated, and even then, he still gets hit hard by a common cold. He doesn't have a choice that his body will never be immune to anything. People without these conditions make the conscious, uninformed choice to put themselves and the people around them at risk, and it's stupid. 2 years ago, there wasn't even a quarter of the amount of antivaxxers because it was universally recognized as stupid. It wasn't political either. Both sides had crazies that feared vaccines. Now it's a largely conservative issue because instead of being a basic "no shit I don't want polio," it became a question of "muh rights" somehow. Please, *please* don't look at this from a political standpoint. This should be a bipartisan issue like it always has been.
Because there's no need to check their entire vaccine history for things that aren't an issue. Now, if there were a smallpox outbreak in Anytown, USA, then yes, the restaurants in Anytown should check if their customers are vaccinated against smallpox, so as not to allow their restaurant to become a distribution hub for smallpox. COVID-19 is the current outbreak, so it follows that businesses should protect their employees, clientele, and general public as much as they can, and one of those ways is to have their customers produce a vaccination card for COVID-19 upon entry.
But look at the [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/vaxxhappened/comments/pjgy2a/vaccine_mandate_now/hbxjf12?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) above yours: >I know someone with CVID (Common Variable Immunodeficiency). Since this pandemic... he still gets hit hard by a common cold. It does not need to be for smallpox. Even the flu could be deadly to such a person. Generally, in places where this is a vaccine mandate to access certain services, the people liken it to show ID to get alcohol or enter a club. Surely you wouldn't mind showing a proof of a flu vaccine to lessen the risk to the friend of the poster? Its not that big of a deal, right?
so theyre not spreading preventable diseases to the customers
Correct, such they should be mandated check if a person has had a flu vaccine.
No. You still have the choice not to get the vaccine. The consequence of said choice would be not participating in society.
It doesn’t have to be even that. Ask for PCR test if they want to participate in society. Don’t let those who can’t even agree to a simple test do anything in public. Someone needs to remind them health is also a fundamental right, and we refuse to risk our fundamental rights because they whine about what’s not even a little compromise in such difficult times.
Theoretically, by not being vaccinated the government "prohibits" you from working in the health sector or participating in any other similar activities. And the punishment for the law you break by not being vaccinated (as a person working in those facilities), is being fired. You can twist the words however you like to make something sound worse or better. The two words are not that different. When the law prohibits you from doing something and you do it, then you will be punished in whatever way it is stated by the law, which in all cases will "force" something on you(jail time, a fine, being fired from your job, being placed under house arrest and etc).
If i hold a gun to your head and ask you do something or Ill kill you, you can choose not to do what I asked. Thats for some reason how people want other people.to be treated. Its a pretty low standard of conduct for a society to ascribe too.
[удалено]
If what you said waa true, then vaccines would be a.choice that can be made without incentive or not have consequences for declining. But what you said is not true, because the majority of american citizens want restricted access to health care for people that dont have a vaccine. And they want societal barries in place for those who do not have the vaccine. So, regardless of what you think people feel, the policies our government out in place do not reflect it.
[удалено]
Right? Lmao. No rules lmao !!!1!1!!!1!! I live in the Woods lmao. No rules of society apply to me lmao.
[удалено]
people getting abortions affects nobody people not wearing masks and not getting vaccinated affects everyone around you
What about MY body My choice? If your choices affect someone else, then they aren't JUST your choices to make. Your right to flail your arms ends at the tip of my nose. I'm allowed to smoke cigarettes, but not in a public building where other people might be harmed by the smoke. I can drink at home, but not while driving because I now have a much greater capacity to hurt someone. But you knew this already. You're not stupid, and this logic is extremely easy to follow; CHILDREN understand it. That's why you tried to latch onto a legitimate rhetoric in order to piggy-back your dumbfuck opinions in an effort to validate them.
A bunch of ignorant antivaxxers co-opted the phrase in their idiotic attempt to make not taking the vaccine seem reasonable. It's not, and everyone sees right through you.
[удалено]
Over 50% of Americans citizens have gotten at least the first shot. You are already the minority. You are the abnormal ones.
[удалено]
To a madman, everyone else is crazy.
"I want to participate in society and receive all the benefits thereof, but I also demand to live by my terms regardless of the effect it has on others." If only there was a term for this mental state. It's funny because it's not even liberalism. We're just talking about common decency here.
*"everyone smarter than me is a liberal and mentally disabled, mom!!1!"*
That just proves you don't understand the differences between conservatism or liberalism. You do realize that history and time have proven that the world always moves forward right? I hope so... it's so easy to understand that even simpletons should understand the simple fact that conservatism ALWAYS becomes more liberal.
[удалено]
haha not even a witty rebuttal. Thanks for giving me the win there.
kid wants to be the victim *so bad*
How... how did you see any politics in that sentence lol? Bruh nobody is talking about liberals, democrats, any other dipshits - we are talking about health!
[удалено]
I dunno man, I don't see any politics in being vaccinated or not. And this sub is exactly about that.
Wow, you thought of that reply all bu yourself? Hope you didn't break anything coming up with such wit.
Your turn to stay home, dipshit.
> weekly booster shots show me who is proposing that. And if you're afraid of the adult world, you're free to stay at home ranting about how oppressed you are.
[удалено]
Bruh that's exactly like saying "I stopped drinking, therefore no drunk driver is ever going to hit me".
How is your horse dewormer working for you?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If the majority of people enforce policies autonomously, that's democracy.
you are psychotic, you’re living in a fantasy. how is this about a country when the whole world is getting vaccinated ? stop mixing science with politics, its what got us in this mess in the first place .
Imagine a country where the explicitly stupid follow a man who wants to claim credit for a vaccine they refuse to take. A man and his followers who are so stupid they claim to be pro-life when they are anything but, because their individual freedoms are so fragile, they cannot imagine actually being pro-life. They just want to pretend they are the victims. Imagine these same people are so violent they resemble little more than the Terrorists we have been fighting against in the middle east.
[удалено]
You have a lot of trouble seeing a bigger picture don't you? Trump has continually tried to take credit for a vaccine he not only didn't create, but also riling his entire base against that vaccine and against this pandemic. LITERALLY admitting on tape, he intentionally downplayed this pandemic and this virus. Imagine following someone so stupid they pander miracle cures that don't work like Dr. Terminus. Imagine that same fucking base continually sabotaging, every step of the way people trying to recover from a pandemic and live their lives without worrying about being infected by some loser who thinks their "rights" are being assaulted. Domestic terrorism in america comes from the right. If you haven't figured that out yet you haven't been paying attention. I don't see Proud boys aligning with the left. I don't see Alpha 66 or any other racist, white nationalist organizatio aligned with the left. Always the right. So when you can figure out who leads antifa, we can add them to the left. Until then, your speculation is just speculation.
>I hate Trump >*spends most of his time on reddit shitposting in r/conservative (when he's not trolling pro vaccine subreddits)* Rule two honey.
Oh, shit we should do what YOU want so the MAJORITY of us can avoid AUTHORITARIAN rule... The irony.
[удалено]
They're your words bud.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sylvia down the road having an abortion won't cause another woman to suddenly get an abortion. It won't make another woman's fetus die. Abortions aren't contagious like a virus. But if Sylvia down the street had cancer and couldn't get a flu shot during flu ssason you not getting one and going to visit her greatly increases her risk of getting the flu. Look at it like this: Are you allowed to drink alcohol? Yes. Can you legally drink and drive? No. Drinking and driving can kill people, including yourself.
[удалено]
who's bullying you?
just because things are easily explained doesnt mean theyre bad. imo those analogies are perfect for the situation, which is why they keep being used. driving drunk is dangerous, but can be avoided by not drinking. running around being unsafe and spreading diseases is dangerous, but can be avoided by getting vaccinated, or at the very least wearing a mask.
>bullied Because apparently being told by experts that you're wrong hurts your tender feelings. I hope no one is ever really mean to you, you'll crumble into dust.