Global Protests Against Social Distancing, Lockdown, Vaccine Mandate
- Thread starter Dotini
- 766 comments
- 41,818 views
- 3,908
- St.Pete, FL
- NotThePrez
- NotThePrez
- 9,944
- Denmark
The amount of people here (and elsewhere) who presumably grew up and lived most of their lives in Western countries and within the value systems they represent, but at the same time defend these so-called liberal governments taking away people’s individual freedom, is frankly disturbing and worrisome. I’m primarily referring to the latest developments in Austria and Germany.
For what? Some friggin microorganisms that actually happen to be a condition of life on earth. Always were, and always will be. The entire planet appears to have developed OCD over this COVID thing. This is not to say that some restrictions haven’t been justified, but it’s getting out of hand in some places.
As if corruption is completely foreign to the concepts of power and control?
For what? Some friggin microorganisms that actually happen to be a condition of life on earth. Always were, and always will be. The entire planet appears to have developed OCD over this COVID thing. This is not to say that some restrictions haven’t been justified, but it’s getting out of hand in some places.
As if corruption is completely foreign to the concepts of power and control?
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
I'm against COVID measures for the same reason I'm against state enforced vaccine mandates.
Don't really agree with that position. I mostly likely got it from my vaccinated colleages. Don't worry, I'm not angry at them. (I had to get tested before I was allowed to meet with them).
I don't believe everything has to be explained by facts and logic.
Not sure what can be left to be explained about my position. It's my body my choice. I don't believe the government should be the one deciding what gets put inside my body. None of the currently available information imo justify what the dutch regime has enforced on it's subject and what they are planning to enforce in the future.
EDIT: Is there away to include members you have on an ignore list to the "Like" function? They are on my ignore list for a reason..
Last edited:
- 29,950
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
These people think corruption only happens in countries like the DPRK or Russia. When corruption happens in western countries it's called a honest mistake.
Sorry to hear that. I will use the hospital since the state has made it mandatory for me to pay for health care insurance. I paid for it so I can use it.
- 87,341
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
It's not "explained away" but "explained". Once you have to resort to belief we're into the realms of the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, God (whichever one it is) and Russell's Teapot.
You should be able to rationally walk from your start point to your end point. Your end point is "it should be personal choice to get vaccinated or not". What rational steps did you take to get there?
Pretty much all of it.
That's... mild progress - you're at a first principle here which is "bodily autonomy" (or "right to self"; it's a very good start point) - but there's still a gulf between where you're starting and where you're ending, and no obvious rational steps.
A lot of people have been trying to explain to you the bits that go into that gulf, and the rational steps that should lead you to a slightly (but not greatly) different end point.
- 2,216
- Isle of Wight, UK
Wanton edginess is the real pandemic now. Absolute individualism in the face of logic and responsibility to one's fellow man, feigning a wider concern over the corruption of systems of government. It's pathetically misinformed. I'm glad I lack the patience to argue with these people, unlike the brave souls above.
I refuse to accept an anti-vaxx standpoint stemming from any logic other than "I just kind of think it's cool to be different/I am uncomfortable conforming/I based my whole outlook on disobedience up to now and don't want to lose face with myself by doing the right thing if it contravenes anarchist rants I previously wrote on the internet", because there really is no factually strong reasoning beyond the above.
Life is not an Orwell book. You are not alone in perceiving thru some great fog of misinformation that has 99% of people on the planet utterly hoodwinked. I cannot conceive of the arrogance it would take to believe such a gulf in intelligence and perception exists between oneself and the public. It's sickeningly self important.
I hope the vaccine sceptics above realise eventually how distant their narrative is from what the kind people in this thread are trying to inform them, because for all the talk of government wanting to bring us to their knees with their big fake virus plan (which would of course, be the greatest collaboration of human minds to any end, being in such scale of co-operation and so delicate in its apparatuses, it would surpass anything like a space program or wartime code cracking effort on audacity alone), it's actually the people so self important and contrary they feel the need to dig their heels over conspiratorial nonsense to the point of senselessly endangering their fellow man, to absolutely no gain, that are causing all the **** flinging here - purely because the very existence of your standpoint spits in the face of reasoned, informed discourse.
Frankly, you all disgust me - me, a man so contrary, I found left-wing based reasons to vote for Brexit, and happily operated in that sphere of total cognitive dissonance for well over a year. Think about that. You don't deserve the quality of discourse that people continue to provide you, particularly when you try to twist it into a narrative of you being under attack from the brainwashed masses.
Ask who has an interest in brainwashing you - your government, who already runs your country, and would really like to have a working economy again, or whichever flap mouthed YouTuber or talking head would like to see their maximum controversial thumbnail trending all over the place - regardless how low they have to stoop to achieve that.
Willingly, complicitly hoodwinked into pseudo-scientific nonsense land, these people have the gall to call people who took a vaccine sheep. Laughable.
Carry on.
I refuse to accept an anti-vaxx standpoint stemming from any logic other than "I just kind of think it's cool to be different/I am uncomfortable conforming/I based my whole outlook on disobedience up to now and don't want to lose face with myself by doing the right thing if it contravenes anarchist rants I previously wrote on the internet", because there really is no factually strong reasoning beyond the above.
Life is not an Orwell book. You are not alone in perceiving thru some great fog of misinformation that has 99% of people on the planet utterly hoodwinked. I cannot conceive of the arrogance it would take to believe such a gulf in intelligence and perception exists between oneself and the public. It's sickeningly self important.
I hope the vaccine sceptics above realise eventually how distant their narrative is from what the kind people in this thread are trying to inform them, because for all the talk of government wanting to bring us to their knees with their big fake virus plan (which would of course, be the greatest collaboration of human minds to any end, being in such scale of co-operation and so delicate in its apparatuses, it would surpass anything like a space program or wartime code cracking effort on audacity alone), it's actually the people so self important and contrary they feel the need to dig their heels over conspiratorial nonsense to the point of senselessly endangering their fellow man, to absolutely no gain, that are causing all the **** flinging here - purely because the very existence of your standpoint spits in the face of reasoned, informed discourse.
Frankly, you all disgust me - me, a man so contrary, I found left-wing based reasons to vote for Brexit, and happily operated in that sphere of total cognitive dissonance for well over a year. Think about that. You don't deserve the quality of discourse that people continue to provide you, particularly when you try to twist it into a narrative of you being under attack from the brainwashed masses.
Ask who has an interest in brainwashing you - your government, who already runs your country, and would really like to have a working economy again, or whichever flap mouthed YouTuber or talking head would like to see their maximum controversial thumbnail trending all over the place - regardless how low they have to stoop to achieve that.
Willingly, complicitly hoodwinked into pseudo-scientific nonsense land, these people have the gall to call people who took a vaccine sheep. Laughable.
Carry on.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,659
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Now extend your logic to unvaccinated people in public spaces.
So you want the right to bodily autonomy with zero consequences. You want your rights upheld and you want to limit others rights to do that.
Data doesn't care if you don't agree with it.
And here we have the reason your position doesn't stack up.
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
Fixed it. Thank you.
This is something we are not going to agree on.
Im sorry for not doing a good enough job.
I'm not sure how to make my position rational. I now what is irrational in my opinion and that is state enforced vaccination in the name of safety. Not sure where this will end when we all start accepting this as normal. Whats the next thing to be enforced in the name of safety?
By people you mean you? You seem to be the only one trying (I mean this in a good way).
No, not at all what I said. Back to the circle again.
I generally agree with this statement.
Sorry.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
That's a principle, and it's one I have a lot of respect for. The immediate problem (and if you want to engage here, I can help you think through it), is that it runs directly into multiple counter-examples and practical issues.
The first, most obvious, problem is that what's in your body can attack and kill the people around you - which is not something you have bodily autonomy over (because of their own bodily autonomy).
Other, perhaps less significant issues:
- this requires that you disapprove of the eradication of smallpox, which was of enormous utility to the human species
- it also requires that you oppose any and all drug laws and drug restrictions (including laws for things like heroin and also antibiotics as well as the eradication of prescription requirements)
- you have to be for legalization of prostitution
- you have to be pro-choice
- you have to be for the right to suicide
- you have to be for the legalization of homosexuality
All of these positions, and more, flow from your bodily autonomy principles. Some of them might not give you any trouble at all, but some of them probably should. The primary problem is that your body is capable of hosting organisms that kill the people around you, and you don't have a right to kill the people around you.
So what if instead of a mandate, it was just explained to you that you cannot leave your own property without the expressed contractual consent of all other property owners (including public property) whose property you touch (because carrying deadly microorganisms onto other people's property is a violation of their rights), and that any infection of the people around you is punishable to the full extent of your legal code.
That conforms to your principles, and it has effectively the exact same result as any mandate we're talking about. Does that work? Because if so, the only difference is that the mandate is actually do-able.
Last edited:
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
Are there other ways to prevent my body from killing someone? Are there other ways to prevent someone being killed by my body? Are state enforced vaccine mandates the only way to prevent my body killing another person?
I don't, I would urge any person to get a smallpox vaccine if there would ever be an outbreak of smallpox. I would cheer for my gevernment for making the vaccine available for any person who wants/needs it.
Yes, end the drug war.
I'm not a fan of it but yes. Make it legal.
You almost had me here. I don't like abortions and I really hope someone does everything in their power to avoid ever having to have an abortion. Ofcourse there are circumstances not in our control. What ever the reason given for somebody to have an abortion, at the end of the day it's their choice.
Not sure what way to feel about this one. I have personal expirience with the loss of life due to suicide (one was a very good friend the other a beloved family member). The pain for friends and family members is constant. No law can prevent someone from jumping in front of a train.
I'm not for or against legalization of homosexuality. The state should have no in a loving relationship between to consenting adults.
I refer to my earlier comment in this reply.
I'm not sure how this conforms my principles?? What your discribes sounds more like the next step after vaccine mandates. And why would anybody that accepted a vaccine mandate, be against what you described as a next step when a new variant comes out that has no working vaccine? You accepted state enforced vaccines for everyboydy in the name of safety so why be against state enforced house arrest for everybody in the name of safety?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
I'm going to afford you a lot of respect with this post, more than I would normally be inclined to given our history. But you should know that it's partly just because this is fun for me and it's what I feel like talking about.
In the absence of a mandate, you're left with no behavior which is defined as acceptable from a negligence or recklessness perspective a priori. It would be like there were no reckless driving laws. You might find yourself prosecuted for running a stop sign anyway, but instead of it being a crime in and of itself (reckless driving), it would be a factor in determining your culpability in the outcome. So the collision wasn't an accident, it was reckless driving, as evidenced by the fact that you ran a stop sign.
Hmmm... let me back up and try saying that a different way.
In the absence of a mandate requiring vaccination, you can still be tried for murder (or manslaughter etc. depending on the particulars) for infecting someone as a result of your negligent behavior, part of which would be lack of vaccination.
You do not have the right to carry covid onto public property, or onto anyone else's property. You don't have the right to breathe it onto them against their will, or to breathe it into public airspace against the will of the public. That can be enforced directly (at great expense and social re-organization), but it could also be avoided (to the extent the public requires) with a vaccine mandate.
The simple version is this - when you go into public, you have to take minimal precautions to make sure that the public is safe from your behavior - out of respect for their bodily autonomy. This is what vaccine mandates are aimed at ensuring. If your country imposes such a mandate, it's because the public has decided that you cannot reasonably act differently and still share public space.
Actually none of it prevents your body from killing another person. The state enforced vaccine mandate just tries to make sure that you've taken non-negligent, non-reckless steps to reasonably ensure the safety of the people around you. What the vaccine mandate is doing, from a perspective of principle, is rendering any infection an "accident" because it precludes recklessness and negligence upfront (by requiring vaccination). You can analogize it to a reckless driving statue. If you were not driving recklessly (and this encompasses a lot of otherwise accounted-for behavior, such as running stop signs, speeding, etc.), then any collision is an "accident" and not a crime punishable by law.
In the absence of a mandate, you're left with no behavior which is defined as acceptable from a negligence or recklessness perspective a priori. It would be like there were no reckless driving laws. You might find yourself prosecuted for running a stop sign anyway, but instead of it being a crime in and of itself (reckless driving), it would be a factor in determining your culpability in the outcome. So the collision wasn't an accident, it was reckless driving, as evidenced by the fact that you ran a stop sign.
Hmmm... let me back up and try saying that a different way.
In the absence of a mandate requiring vaccination, you can still be tried for murder (or manslaughter etc. depending on the particulars) for infecting someone as a result of your negligent behavior, part of which would be lack of vaccination.
And that would have resulted in smallpox not being eliminated.
Ok, well I was just checking for consistency there.
You misunderstood then. It's what would be needed to similarly protect against the crime of negligently or recklessly infecting others in the absence of vaccine mandates. It's what vaccine mandates prevent.
You do not have the right to carry covid onto public property, or onto anyone else's property. You don't have the right to breathe it onto them against their will, or to breathe it into public airspace against the will of the public. That can be enforced directly (at great expense and social re-organization), but it could also be avoided (to the extent the public requires) with a vaccine mandate.
The simple version is this - when you go into public, you have to take minimal precautions to make sure that the public is safe from your behavior - out of respect for their bodily autonomy. This is what vaccine mandates are aimed at ensuring. If your country imposes such a mandate, it's because the public has decided that you cannot reasonably act differently and still share public space.
Last edited:
- 87,341
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Aside from wholly subjective positions - like "I like blue" and "I hate wasps" - any position you hold should be able to be explained to another person rationally. If you cannot it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and it can be treated in exactly the same way as the belief in Santa - and Russell's Teapot.
Of course the first person you need to explain it to rationally is... yourself.
You walk from principle to principle, by staging questions to challenge each principle and either defeating the challenge and moving to the next question or defeating the principle and modifying it (or walking back) to defeat the challenge.
All the questions other people have been asking you are challenging intermediate principles. That includes @Danoff's entire previous post, which you say comes as a next step, but in fact doesn't. It covers intermediate steps with challenges like "do you have rights to other people's bodies" (no).
A lot of Libertarians and libertarians see government mandates and explode (which is a smidge embarrassing for the rest of us) because big government evil overarching great reset new world order illuminati. But they're wrong to do so because they're not appreciating the other half of the freedom coin. Although really it's the same half.
Freedom is not the ability to do whatever you want entirely unfettered. It's the ability to do whatever you want while not impacting the ability of others to do what they want. You don't get to kill someone because freedom, and they don't get to kill you because freedom. You each get to do whatever you want up to the point at which you're impacting the other person.
The right to decide what you do with your own body is really a crucial right, and it's crucial to other people as well. That means you can do whatever you want with your body until it impacts theirs. Spit on the floor, that's fine; spit in someone's face, that's not. Shoot a gun at a target, that's fine; shoot a human, that's not*. Put your penis into someone who wants it, that's fine; put your penis into someone who doesn't (or is not judged capable of deciding that they do), that's not.
Which leads us to... walk around your house riddled with infectious diseases, that's fine. Go to the shops and wipe your plague hands across every surface while sneezing on the fresh produce, that's not.
Now, that doesn't directly lead to "government vaccine mandates" - there's a few more steps - and really I don't like it any more than you do, but ultimately you will reach a point where the challenge is "Can it be okay for someone who has, but doesn't know that they have, an infectious disease which they can transmit to other people at roughly the rate of 6:1 and which is lethal in 2% of cases (thus killing one person every second generation of infection), to mingle with the general population without any preventative measures, given that they do not have the right to infect other people with deadly diseases?", and the obvious answer to that is "no".
With that in mind, you then have to ask what the best way of preventing that is - the way that causes the least inconvenience to the most people and offers the most effective prevention - and you can only really reach one conclusion.
It's vaccination and masking, or the condom and pill of aerosol viral transmission*, and in order for it be as effective as it can be there's no other way to achieve that than legislation. Even then, you'll have dip**** holdouts who think masks are slavery and vaccines are poison (lol, why), but they'll at least be in small enough numbers that the sensible and the reluctant but coerced will make up for their dip****tery and protect them by proxy.
*Unless they're trying to end you; self-defence is a right emerging from the right to self
**To extend the metaphor, lockdown was a halfway house between pulling out and abstinence, which we had to have because we didn't have a pill yet. Let's call it "soaking".
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,659
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Yes it is. That's exactly what you are saying.
If you oppose vaccine mandates and also opposite other Covid prevention controls, which is exactly what you are saying here:
"I'm against COVID measures for the same reason I'm against state enforced vaccine mandates."
You are literally proposing a position in which your right to bodily autonomy takes precedence over other people rights.
As is clearly explained here
Last edited:
Joey D
Premium
- 47,449
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Well, I'll be damned, I didn't know soaking was even a thing outside Utah. We modify it here though with "jump-humping".
sips on an organically sourced craft vaccine with strong hop notes before putting on my vintage face mask I bought at the upscale resale shop in the village
I hated COVID before it was cool.
sips on an organically sourced craft vaccine with strong hop notes before putting on my vintage face mask I bought at the upscale resale shop in the village
Similar threads
