In a free country, you can usually pick which risks you want to partake in. There are limits to that though (for example in a work or die scenario).
You wrote something utterly stupid. Just think about it. The right to be healthy? Wtf.And we’re done.
I really don’t think I can stomach speaking to you selfish little children anymore.
Have fun everyone
I do agree. But me not taking the xeen doesn't mean someone doesn't have the right to live lmao.
Close enough, no?
I mean, if you don't agree, let's just make asbestos legal in construction again...
But still what?
What world do you people live in? lol
It's food for thought.
In a world where there is no right to be healthy. The concept alone is utterly stupid.
The Declaration of Independence mentions our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Of course not, but you don't think that you are endangering the rest of the population by going about your life ignoring the safety measures in place ?
You have any reason to believe his death had anything to do with the vaccine?
I would absolutely be willing to bet that you advocate for removing kids from unvaccinated parents and putting them in orphanages "for their protection".
A head-on car accident doesn't have a 99.96% survival rate.
His doctor and cardio specialist can't explain the death so far. It's under investigation, he had no health problems so far but exactly one week after his shot is suspicious so far. I still take it with a grain of salt, his brother is trying to get an explanation.
everytime you accelerate over the speed limit someone dies? i had no idea.
Did your friend drink water before dying? Did he perhaps eat a hamburger before dying? Did he exercise heavily? Did he perhaps cross paths with a black cat?
I know of 2 people who have passed post vax. I find the odds of me knowing 2 is low unless it's more common than we are being told. I just sent my know what to believe anymore.
That's cool, but you still have the death penalty and abortions. Right to life means you are not to be killed. Unless I have covid, coof at you on purpose, you get sick and then die of covid, I didn't kill you.
Oh come on, sure it's a coincidence when doctors can't explain it so far. Pure coincidence that a 30 years old men in perfect shape died one week after it
Can you answer the question that I asked you please?
I'm not denying anything. Of course there's a chance that the shot was directly or indirectly responsible for his death. But so was the hundreds of other things he did during that week.
Nobody can guarantee you health. The most you can get is healthcare, but that's quite different.
Anything that goes against the narrative must be erased.
Yeah, and they're not exactly running to us letting us know. There's also a sports car driver (f1600) who got heart problems 3 hours after his second Pfizer shot and had to withdraw from competition (Raphael kiopini)
Can you answer the question that I asked you please?
You're the most empathetic person in this forum. Really, truly!
Case closed.
I appreciate the sentiment, Mister Argle Bargle Fooferah
So the Declaration of Independence isn’t the law of the land. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights specifically lay out our rights. There is no right to be free from disease. However there is also precedent for mandating vaccinations. Now, that really was only a one time shot that gave lasting protection. It’s a bit different if we’re going to be mandating people get covid boosters every six months or every year.
Yes, I know, but that doesn't make those rights any less fundamental to the spirit on which this nation was founded. All three of those inalienable rights endowed by our Creator in general form the basis of our enumerated rights in specificity. Therefore, our enumerated rights should generally reflect the maximization of those three entities.
True, not literally.
Also true. But mandating not as a result of citizenship or personhood, but rather societal participation. I think you can appreciate the importance of that difference.
Is frequency of application truly a significant distinction? If we could make it one time shot, I'm sure we would all love that. However, until we get to that point, we're stuck with the best tools we have at the time we have them.
your friends brother died of a stroke after getting the vaccine? is that right?
I think it’s a significant distinction from the aspect of how much it impedes upon human liberty. If this were a one time shot that produced lasting protection, it would definitely be easier to mandate it or to actually enforce any restrictions you want to put on those who don’t vaccinate. But if it’s going to become like a car inspection (at least in my state) where I have to update it every year in order to legally drive my car? That’s going to be tough sell. There is a big difference between getting my car inspected every year and making sure my vaccine papers are up to date every year to be allowed to participate in society.
Then you are misguided if you truly believe that, and don't understand the basic principles of immunology, as well as the many many many historical documents that show that is a bad idea.
You have freedom to do whatever you want, up to a point. We do have laws for endangerment, of course.
Endangerment - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It is up to the voters and our lawmakers to decide how this should be dealt with legally, but for now that kind of an action is an ill-informed and dangerous one. Dangerous not only to you, but to the people around you as well.
The consequences of a car crash due to mechanical failure are very local, and not contagious.
This phrase demonstrates a lack of understanding of how our immune systems work. Our immune systems will be trained either way by a real virus or by an imitation. The difference is that the real virus has a much higher chance of killing you before your training is complete.
Human rights aren’t really subject to cost/benefit analysis, but if they were, I’d say the benefit of erring on the side of human freedom vastly outweighs the cost of covid. But that’s my personal feelings. I find the idea of mandating yearly shots to participate in society to be a fairly drastic reordering of the bargain between citizens and their government.
We already do that with the vaccines that are already mandatory. The military does that with even more vaccines for overseas deployment. We did that with the Patriot Act.
The military is not mandatory. No other vaccines are currently mandatory for participation in society generally. We did do this with the smallpox vaccine however, so there is a precedent. And we do it for things like public school participation. However, none of those require yearly boosters. We do not require adults to get the flu vaccine, for instance. It is certainly a new kind of imposition to require a yearly shot to go out for dinner, if that’s the direction we choose to go.
Let me get this straight - a guy that developed a general outline 30 years and is in no way related to its application in vaccine development is ‘concerned’ so we should not get vaccinated?
Yes, I know, which is why I'm saying that despite how unappealing it might be to think of it that way, this boils down to cost/benefit and precedence.
Yeah, one week exactly after getting his shot. Never had heart problems before in his life
It is a distinction certainly. On its face. Whether it’s an acceptable distinction will be up for people to decide. But to pretend it’s not relevant is simply ignoring reality. I’ll leave the legality up to lawyers. But in terms of what whether citizens find it acceptable will be up to them, as this is a democracy.
