The Wuhan virus—how are we doing? - Page 151 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15194982
A pregnancy does not affect the potential health of people around you, so it is not comparable. Diseases do.

Are you going to compare pregnancies to car accidents, like the other guys who can't form a cogent argument, @Unthinking Majority ?
#15194984
Unthinking Majority wrote:Do women have body autonomy or not? Yes or no?

Obviously they are different situations, but they both involve the right of a woman to have control over her body and control what goes inside her body and who or what can be put inside and stay inside with her consent. Is this true or not?


Yes, both scenarios involve the body autonomy of people.

This is why vaccines are not mandated. If you are referring to the woman who died of blood clots that @Doug64 mentioned, she chose to be vaccinated.

So in both respects (i.e. not mandating vaccines and allowing abortion at any stage of the pregnancy), body autonomy is respected.

Now, since I am not arguing that vaccines should be mandatory for everyone, there seems to be no inconsistency in my positions.
#15194992
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, both scenarios involve the body autonomy of people.

This is why vaccines are not mandated. If you are referring to the woman who died of blood clots that @Doug64 mentioned, she chose to be vaccinated.

So in both respects (i.e. not mandating vaccines and allowing abortion at any stage of the pregnancy), body autonomy is respected.

Now, since I am not arguing that vaccines should be mandatory for everyone, there seems to be no inconsistency in my positions.

No i'm not referring to anything Doug said.

Ok, so when are vaccine mandates ok vs not ok?

This is why vaccines are not mandated.

In Canada they have all sorts of vaccine mandates. In fact the federal government has mandated all federal public servants be vaccinated for COVID or less they'll be forced on leave without pay, even if they work from home.
Last edited by Unthinking Majority on 20 Oct 2021 02:20, edited 2 times in total.
#15194996
Godstud wrote:A pregnancy does not affect the potential health of people around you, so it is not comparable. Diseases do.

Abortions affect the health of the unborn, but you argue people should still be able to have them performed, due to body autonomy.

You're willing to kill the unborn because of body autonomy, but not willing to potentially infect other people with COVID (or other diseases) by supporting vaccine mandates?

Do women, and people in general, have a right to body autonomy or not?

If you agree people have a right to body autonomy then we should allow abortions and ban vaccine mandates. If you don't think people have a right to body autonomy then we can allow vaccine mandates and throw away "body autonomy" as an argument for abortion rights.
#15194997
Unthinking Majority wrote:No i'm not referring to anything Doug said.

Ok, so when are vaccine mandates ok vs not ok?


It depends on what you mean by “vaccine mandate”.

If you mean that people are forced to get a vaccine by the government, then this would only be okay in very few and dire circumstances.

Did you mean that or something else?
#15194999
Pants-of-dog wrote:It depends on what you mean by “vaccine mandate”.

If you mean that people are forced to get a vaccine by the government, then this would only be okay in very few and dire circumstances.

Did you mean that or something else?


I edited the post you responded to, see above.

I suppose there's different mandates yes. Government-enforced mandates in general, government-enforced mandates to access certain places/services, and private sector mandates (employers, schools etc).
#15195005
@Unthinking Majority

Employers in Canada, like everywhere else in the Anglosphere, can fire anyone at any time for almost any reason.

If employers choose to fire people over vaccination status, that would be a double standard for existing labour law.

Are you saying that employers should not have the right to fire whomever they wish whenever they wish? If so, why?
#15195008
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Unthinking Majority

Employers in Canada, like everywhere else in the Anglosphere, can fire anyone at any time for almost any reason.

That's not really true.

If employers choose to fire people over vaccination status, that would be a double standard for existing labour law.

Are you saying that employers should not have the right to fire whomever they wish whenever they wish? If so, why?

I'm not an employment lawyer, and I'm not really making an argument about whether employers can have a right to install vaccine mandates, because I really don't know how the employment law works. But i'll say that I think it sounds fair for an employer to require any new prospective employee to have whatever vaccines the employer wants. The tricky thing is making new requirements once an employee is already hired and has signed a contract and terms of work (the employer is changing the terms of employment). I don't know how that contract law work.
#15195020
Pants-of-dog wrote:Employers in Canada, like everywhere else in the Anglosphere, can fire anyone at any time for almost any reason.

Britain has the rule of law and employment tribunals. Employers can't just sack people whenever they feel like it. Universities can't mandate vaccination for their students because that would violate the contracts that are respected and enforced by our legal system.

Check your privilege before using the term anglosphere again.
#15195025
Unthinking Majority wrote:Abortions affect the health of the unborn, but you argue people should still be able to have them performed, due to body autonomy.

You're willing to kill the unborn because of body autonomy, but not willing to potentially infect other people with COVID (or other diseases) by supporting vaccine mandates?
A unborn fetus is part of the woman. It's up to her, not up to assholes who simply want to control women, because of their idiotic religious beliefs, or because they want the patriarchy to continue.

A woman's unborn fetus cannot affect other people, and a pregnant woman cannot make other women pregnant. I shouldn't have to explain such simple things to you, but I can tell that your sense have left you.

A person who doesn't vaccinate is more likely to put other people at risk of catching a disease. This is simply fact.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If employers choose to fire people over vaccination status, that would be a double standard for existing labour law.
Employers, if they make vaccination as part of their company's safety policy, can in fact fire people for not being vaccinated, according to OSHA regulations.

I spent over 12 years as an Occupational Health & Safety Manager, at a plastics manufacturing plant and am well versed in it.

These same laws allow for people who refuse to wear safety equipment to be fired.
#15195049
AFAIK wrote:Britain has the rule of law and employment tribunals. Employers can't just sack people whenever they feel like it. Universities can't mandate vaccination for their students because that would violate the contracts that are respected and enforced by our legal system.

Check your privilege before using the term anglosphere again.


From what the law indicates, employers in the UK can fire any employee that does not comply with a reasonable request.

So, the employer could fire an employee and then the onus would be on the employee to take the employer to court and show that vaccination was not a reasonable request.
#15195116
Why are we having these off-topic discussions? The Virus has nothing to do with cars or fetuses or a chicken's motive for crossing a thoroughfare. Those so-called arguments are just childish.

Also laughable is the notion that laws governing society should offer some logical consistency. What a childish notion to consider. So what we have from the trolls is an offer of an irrelevancy and a call for logical consistency WRT laws. If we must have logical consistency then I call on Coleric and Igor to call for the abolishing of privately owned weapons on the basis that their ownership is logically inconsistent.

Now can we get back on topic and talk about a virus and what to do about it?

People dying today.
#15195164
And here's another example of why I've pretty much stopped listening to our government health "experts," this time from OSHA. In their FAQ section, there's this question: Are adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine recordable on the OSHA recordkeeping log? The answer is:

DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers' vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904's recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination at least through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.


To put this in simple English, "Yes, businesses are legally required to record workers' side effects from Wuhan virus inoculations" (I presume when the inoculations are required by the business) "but we aren't going to enforce that requirement because it might make the inoculations look bad." A clear case of "don't bother us with facts that might contradict our Truths."

@annatar1914, rather than go through every single response, let's settle for what seems to be the major sticking point:

annatar1914 wrote:What rotten and ghoulish calculus...

How many are you and others like you willing to kill for your notions of ''liberty'', of not taking a vaccine that already has saved a tremendous number of people's lives?

That's the question, but there's nothing "rotten and ghoulish" about the calculus, it's called thinking like an economist, and who gets to make the decision. For private ownership of cars, ~40,000 a year is clearly below the threshold. For the flu, ~50,000 is clearly below that threshold. In both cases we've regularly lost at least that many without anyone seriously calling for banning cars or so much as mask mandates, much less shutting down schools, etc.
#15195168
@Doug64 The comparison between cars and a disease is a dishonest one, used frequently by people who can't form any cogent argument.

Let's look at your sub-moronic comparison for a moment(to humour you):
1) Cars are used, by hundreds of millions of Americans, DAILY
2) About 25 million Americans, get the flu, every YEAR.


Americans do not get the flu daily. It's not nearly as prolific as car use, on an exponential scale.

If cars were as deadly as the flu, they would be banned. The death rates would be in the millions.

They are not.

Your argument is idiotic.

Stop the disingenuous bullshit, already. :roll:
#15195169
They are a disease on the planet and almost singlehandedly the proliferation of Automotive vehicles caused Climate Change through pollution and the consumption of natural resources.

Take petrol guzzling Cars out of the equation and the planet will be far better off.

If cars were as deadly as the flu, they would be banned.


They will be. One day petrol guzzlers will be deregistered (banned) in favour of electric vehicles. They are as deadly as the flu, or at least cigarettes, through the amount of pollution and related cancers they cause.

Latest update:
https://www.9news.com.au/national/victo ... 3949d33bb4
Last edited by colliric on 21 Oct 2021 04:35, edited 1 time in total.
#15195172
@Doug64 , you replied to me in such a manner that tells me that you are simply not willing to understand, rather than simply being ignorant. You say;


That's the question, but there's nothing "rotten and ghoulish" about the calculus, it's called thinking like an economist, and who gets to make the decision.


This tells me you know nothing of true economies in the real world (as Libertarians often are too ideological about it, prefer the Austrian school, etc...), nor of ''who gets to make the decision''

And on that last point, why is that so? To quote Carl Schmidt; ''Sovereign is he who decides 'the exception'''. In the Libertarian fantasy, the individual atomized man of society is Sovereign. This cannot be, or one would have no society to speak of at all, (and for the Christian, God Himself is Sovereign.) There's always someone above you or below you, to be responsible for, or responsible to.

Avoid that reality at your peril.



For private ownership of cars, ~40,000 a year is clearly below the threshold. For the flu, ~50,000 is clearly below that threshold. In both cases we've regularly lost at least that many without anyone seriously calling for banning cars or so much as mask mandates, much less shutting down schools, etc.


Again, a confusion of ideas, with things being an extension of one's individual will via ''Private Property'', an extension of one's alleged ''self-ownership'' Automobiles, when used properly, will attain the objective of taking one where one needs to go. A Pandemic goes where it will, and cannot ever be made an extension of one's will. For the Hyper-Individualist/Libertarian, it's always about total control over one's immediate surroundings, and disease throws a monkey wrench into that idea, doesn't it?
#15195174
Doug64 wrote:And here's another example of why I've pretty much stopped listening to our government health "experts," this time from OSHA. In their FAQ section, there's this question: Are adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine recordable on the OSHA recordkeeping log? The answer is:



To put this in simple English, "Yes, businesses are legally required to record workers' side effects from Wuhan virus inoculations" (I presume when the inoculations are required by the business) "but we aren't going to enforce that requirement because it might make the inoculations look bad." A clear case of "don't bother us with facts that might contradict our Truths."


This is a useless regulation that does nothing except burden businesses with more red tape.

It does not protect the consumer in any way. Nor does it protect workers.It does not even protect the employer.

Finally, all this information is already being kept by the doctor, the insurance company, and by whatever agency keeps track of this.

That's the question, but there's nothing "rotten and ghoulish" about the calculus, it's called thinking like an economist, and who gets to make the decision. For private ownership of cars, ~40,000 a year is clearly below the threshold. For the flu, ~50,000 is clearly below that threshold. In both cases we've regularly lost at least that many without anyone seriously calling for banning cars or so much as mask mandates, much less shutting down schools, etc.


All this means is that we have poor approaches to flu and cars. It does not mean we should continue making these sorts of errors for a much deadlier problem.
#15195175
annatar1914 wrote:Again, a confusion of ideas, with things being an extension of one's individual will via ''Private Property'', an extension of one's alleged ''self-ownership'' Automobiles, when used properly, will attain the objective of taking one where one needs to go. A Pandemic goes where it will, and cannot ever be made an extension of one's will. For the Hyper-Individualist/Libertarian, it's always about total control over one's immediate surroundings, and disease throws a monkey wrench into that idea, doesn't it?

This is the crux of what I think is the problem with the people who think Covid-19 is a hoax, or that vaccines are a conspiracy, or that having to wear a mask in public is an intolerable violation of their personal rights. The entire pandemic challenges their sense of themselves as sovereign individuals existing in splendid isolation who are in complete control of their immediate surroundings. This creates such cognitive dissonance within them that in order to maintain that sense of self, they must deny reality. The pandemic must be a hoax, the vaccines must be a conspiracy. They just want the whole pandemic, and the necessary response to it, to just go away. But, of course, it won't. In fact, by behaving in this way, they are actually ensuring that it won't go away, by making it more likely that they and others will catch the disease, more likely that they will spread it, and more likely that they will die of it. In other words, they've lost their fucking minds.
#15195176
Potemkin wrote:This is the crux of what I think is the problem with the people who think Covid-19 is a hoax, or that vaccines are a conspiracy, or that having to wear a mask in public is an intolerable violation of their personal rights. The entire pandemic challenges their sense of themselves as sovereign individuals existing in splendid isolation who are in complete control of their immediate surroundings. This creates such cognitive dissonance within them that in order to maintain that sense of self, they must deny reality. The pandemic must be a hoax, the vaccines must be a conspiracy. They just want the whole pandemic, and the necessary response to it, to just go away. But, of course, it won't. In fact, by behaving in this way, they are actually ensuring that it won't go away, by making it more likely that they and others will catch the disease, more likely that they will spread it, and more likely that they will die of it. In other words, they've lost their fucking minds.

Very deep and philosiphical. I have an alternative explanation. Idiot is president, idiot wants to pretend everything is well because idiot is concerned about elections, idiot downplays seriousness and his followers follow the old saying "monkey see, monkey do". Sometimes a potato, is just a potato.
#15195178
XogGyux wrote:Very deep and philosiphical. I have an alternative explanation. Idiot is president, idiot wants to pretend everything is well because idiot is concerned about elections, idiot downplays seriousness and his followers follow the old saying "monkey see, monkey do". Sometimes a potato, is just a potato.

It would be comforting to believe that these people are all just a basket of cognitively challenged deplorables, @XogGyux. But they're not. And underestimating one's opponents is the first step towards defeat. There is a certain ideology at work in these people's minds, and that ideology is potentially incredibly destructive. Their response to the pandemic, and to the measures taken to combat it, is a direct consequence of that ideology. So long as they hold to those beliefs about themselves and about the world, they will continue to say what they say and do what they do.
  • 1
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152
  • 153
  • 161
Did You Get Vaccinated?

I don't think he is a sociopath. He is just cravi[…]

That article is a bunch of Woke shit. Rape Cultu[…]

It's the introduction of a more Public internet co[…]

"Whether we like it or not"

You didn't make a point. Sure it is. That's act[…]