If you refuse the vaccine, you don't matter. It's the people you infect that matter!

What is this, the tower of Babel? Of course I read your post. Apparently, you didn't read mine.

 

SIAP. Dude, do you understand the fallacy of your logic?? The unvaccinated are the only ones at risk form Covid infection. If you're vaccinated (and I assume you are) you needn't worry.

Even if you're unvaccinated, unless you're highly susceptible to Covid (elderly or possess multiple co-morbidities), a Covid infection won't hurt you either.

Don't worry, be happy (and be more learned).

 

Stop worrying about number of Covid cases so hospital systems won't be overloaded.

Only worry about chronic hospitalizations and deaths from Covid infection.

 

Since a bit of time has passed (I do have a life outside posting here) and the absurdity of your claim that people feel they 'have a right to infect others' versus a right to accept or not accept an injection, I'll leave you to stew in the remains of your own assumptive thread.

 

Which is illegal.

Just like any other law, any legislation targets law-abiding citizens. As for the rest, we do what we can. We make them pay. And we make their life as miserable as possible.


Not sure what the chart you submitted is supposed to demonstrate. Obviously anti-vaxxer disinformation targets the population under the poverty line because they are usually the less educated people. No surprise, in our institutionally racist society, that poor people are most often minorities.

Again: anti-vaxxers are not the people who refuse to take the vaccine. It's people who PROMOTE not taking the vaccine. The real anti-vaxxers are usually cowards who have probably taken more then one vaccine and probably booster shots too (despite the fact that this will likely not do them any good). See Texas Governor Abbott.

 

There is a "Comments" forum in which you can ask mods to explain to you how forums and thread subjects work. Not my job. So please stop trying to derail this thread.

 

Remedy or culpability or even legislation, would be a step up from what I'm discussing here. I'm starting with the very basics. There is no "right" to not disclose to a sexual partner that you have HIV. If there were, not even civil suits would be possible. Let alone criminal. Since there is no right to spread Covid by negligence, if is possible to enact legislation. Tucker Carlson argues that it isn't.

 

I’m not derailing your thread. I’ve destroyed it with empirical evidence just like most of your threads. If you want to cry to the mods about me destroying a thread that isn’t based on empirical evidence or logic knock yourself out!

 

I'm not talking about the vaccinated. I'm talking about those who choose to not get the vaccine. They put the life of others at risk through their negligence. There is no "right" to do that.

 

I'm not putting it as an example of an infectious disease. I'm putting it as an example of a non-right.

No. You claimed it exists. Demanding that I prove it doesn't instead of supporting your claim is a tried and true tactic by pseudoscience advocates. In any case, I provided support of my claim right there on the message you are responding to, and I repeat it here (below). We have yet to see support for yours.

Another tactic of pseudoscience advocates. "I already shown evidence". If you did, showing it is as easy as cut-n-paste. For example, you want me to repeat my arguments that support mine?

Gladly.... I can copy-paste a hundred times.... Here they are again.

ME: "There is a concept in Ethics and in common sense called "duty to rescue". Which is a moral concept. There is also the concept in tort law. But I'm not going there because the point is that if there is a moral obligation to not put others at risk by being negligent this, in and of itself, is enough to conclude that there is definitely no RIGHT to do so."
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?goto/post&id=1072951922#post-1072951922​

I guess that's the closest we will ever come to you showing any arguments whatsoever to support your statement. So I won't waste my time any further.

 

I didn't say it was legal. I said they got a jumpstart on forging them before the vaccines were available. All laws are calibrated for the law-abiding. Criminals don't care about the laws.

The graph I posted shows the percentages of people that want to "wait and see" and the ones "definitely won't get the vaccine".

So, if you want to have a discussion about *any* means necessary to get people vaccinated, we have to look at the information on who is not currently vaccinated.

Americans have the right to Freedom of Speech. You can't silence people just because you don't agree with them. That won't fly in any state.

I disagree. Anti-vaxxers are not cowards. They are brave enough to trust their own immune systems and educate themselves about vaccines and their ingredients and vaccine injuries.

I'm not sure I understand the comment about "one vaccine and probably booster shots too (despite the fact that this will likely not do them any good)."

Are you saying people are proclaiming to be anti-vaxxers while getting at least one dose of the vaccine or one type of vaccine (two doses) AND booster shots? It is my understanding the FDA did NOT approve the use of boosters for the general population. The last I read it was for a very limited targeted demographic (maybe 65+ or 70+).

Governor Abbott is a politician. They have been known to be liars and/or hypocrites. In fact, it's more likely that a long-term elected official is usually both.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

I'm one of those people you are describing as anti vaxer and nothing could be further from the truth. I have had the shots because I am old and thought they gave me the best protection possible, I still do. What I have come to question is the government position that to speak out against the vaccine is a criminal act or makes someone a killer. We are all thinking beings and we all have the right to communicate those thoughts to others. Others have the right to hear them and to accept or reject them, that's how Democracy and the freedoms that form of government bring us works. One thing I have absolute faith in is the fact that this President and his Administration will lie to us.

 

You are looking at this from the other end. It is NOT against the law to spread a contagious disease. The converse (one has the "right" to spread a contagious disease) is not true.

And, I'm not sure why you keep getting stuck on the legislation issue. In order for a law to work effectively, there has to be a method by which to determine it has actually been broken.

If some COVID carriers are

- asymptomatic and/or
- diligent about socially distancing and/or
- mask wearing 100% of the time except at home and/or
- avoiding crowds,

How does the *harmed* party know who gave them COVID? And, if they can pinpoint the person through some crystal ball magic, how do they prove actual *negligence*? (I explained this in another thread but you didn't reply to it. The tort (the legal term) for personal injury HAS to include (1) negligence (some type of harm), and (2) malicious intent and that harm is expected to not be temporary.

A car hits you and you break a leg is not a permanent injury.
A car hits you and you break your back and are paralyzed for the rest of your life is a permanent injury.

Following that through COVID

Someone gives you COVID and you are asymptomatic or have a mild case that doesn't require hospitalization.
Someone gives you COVID and you are hospitalized for several weeks.
Someone gives you COVID and you die (you can't sue from the grave - so that would be up to your next of kin).
Someone gives you COVID and you develop long-term organ damage (ie. heart, liver, etc.).

This means if somebody sneezes or coughs on you, they are negligent of covering their nose and mouth and for not moving away or turning away from you, but it is NOT "malicious".

Golem, are you seriously suggesting that police officers start arresting everybody with some kind of upper respiratory *happenings* in public? Seriously?

 

Yeah that's... shocking. It should not only move others to get the vaccine, but it should also send a message to those who promote disinformation and anti-science. At least those with scruples.

 

Ok. So why your objection to my example of obesity? You objected because you said it was not an infectious disease. Of course I corrected your error showing it is infectious and that we all have the right to be obese and spread the infectious disease of obesity. Now you claim I haven’t presented evidence?

Pay close attention Golem. You posted the original post. It contains these words.

So we see YOU made the claim, not me. I showed your claim is incorrect by providing multiple deadly diseases everyone has the right to spread. You have offered nothing but opinions and now want me to refute YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM. You have now called YOURSELF a pseudoscientist because you have done yourself what you falsely claim I’ve done.

My original post in this thread is my evidence plus all the studies and other empirical evidence I provided on diseases and how they affect others. You have provided an unsubstantiated OPINION and think repeating an UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION is meaningful. It isn’t.

I’ve shown paragraphs of empirical evidence for my statements. You have offered unsubstantiated opinions. And a plethora of fallacious arguments including labeling which you have yet to substantiate. Just for the logical among us I’ll quote myself unequivocally destroying the premise of your thread.

 

I apologize if I missed something to do with the topic. There are just so many off-topic posts that start with something similar to "there are still people who get the shot and get infected". Which has nothing to do with this thread. Did you agree or disagree with the claim being debunked by the OP that there is some "right" to infect others with a deadly disease?

 

Golem, that's not a fair statement. People that are anti-vax or specifically anti-COVID-vaccines absolutely believe in their position just as much as you believe in yours. Therefore, it's not a question of scruples at all. Like you, they just have a different opinion of the cost v. benefits.

 

That is false. And, besides that, your statement indicates that you didn't read the OP.

But this thread assumes that those who participate understand the most fundamental basic science behind Covid. Your statement does not become less uninformed if you post it in bigger letters.

There are other threads that might help you understand the basics better.

 

How is that NOT relevant to this thread? Your position is that there should be legislation enacted so that people that spread the virus to others are criminally negligent and/or found responsible in a civil suit. Since vaccinated people can contract the virus and spread the virus, it's very relevant that demographic is included in your argument.

 

People don't actually "feel" that. It's spoon-fed to them by extreme-right pundits like Tucker Carlson so they can use it as an excuse to spew anti-vaxxer propaganda. And for anti-science governors and lawmakers to enact legislation that will ultimately end up killing more people, and prolonging the pandemic.

What some people do feel is a need to get their scientific facts disinformation from uneducated slobs like Carlson or Alex Jones, because it's "easy", rather than actual science from sources that require a bit more effort like... science....

BTW... "a life"? Sounds interesting! Do you know where I can download one?

 

yup… A hider

 

https://www.amazon.com/Get-Life-Complete-Chris-Elliot/dp/B0089BSNVK

 

DUPLICATE

 

I didn't say you said it was illegal. I said that this thread is not about the legality. It's about the "right". Of course, the legality is the next step in the discussion. But not where this thread is intended for.

Yes. That is what this thread is about. The disinformation being spread by the right. But only the one about there being some "right" to spread the disease.

Yes. Americans have a "right" to lie. But that doesn't remove the fact that it's a lie. And besides, we can silence people who yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Now... whether we should or not... that's a different topic. Not this one.

I have yet to see an educated anti-vaxxer. Or rather, let's put it this way: maybe they ARE educated, and they spew anti-science because they are... evil, or something... But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are just not informed.

As for this "immune system", why "trust" the immune system when there is no need? Not getting the vaccine because you "trust" your immune system might not be a sign of cowardice, but it's most definitely a sign of ignorance.

Exactly. They haven't approved it because the science is not clear yet one way or the other. And the booster did definitely not help Abbott. This demonstrates that anti-vaxxers like Abbott are, not only cowards, but uninformed cowards.

I disagree... but not the topic of this thread.

 

PHDs are not educated or they are just evil. Maybe they are so simply smarter than you.