Covid-19 vaccine

[Deleted member 586536]

don't have a clue what are you replying to or talking about. Are you replying to yourself?

Perhaps maybe you should control f my quote. But since you didn't.

If had better genes you wouldn't have anything to worry about

Maybe next time read who my post was responding too.

You jumped in to argue. You didn't clarify or state your stance when you replied to me. So I presumed you are taking his stance.

Who ever talked about that, other than you?

Your buddy that you decided to jump in for. It's funny too since if you took the time to read you would of realized your "gotcha" is just cringe and likely going to get ratioed.

Just to summarize, I stated that you are intentionally mixing up Eugenics and Natural selection

Because of the tools we have created, which already tamper with a lot of human fates for better outcomes for each individual person. We don't exactly follow natural selection. As many of things we've done are not natural. We're not in a perhestoric age where the fittest wins.

And by deciding to suddenly go against the tools (vaccines, masks, distancing) that help keep us, and others safe. Your essentially turning on people who cannot as easily defend themselves. You deprive them of their ability to exist.

When we had already a long history of trying to protect those people who are more vulnerable, or not as fourtante.

And by arguing "well it's just natural selection that they died" is a thinly vailed argument to disguise eugenic like or straight up eugenic thinking.

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

You Antivaxxers earned this virtol

No. No one earned your insults or your flaming. Stick to the topic and stop abusing people on this forum. Personal attacks are not tolerated.

I thought you were a better person than that. Don't let me down. Maybe confront an argument, instead of calling everyone who disagrees with you stupid.

 

[supermist]

I just find it funny that these dimbulbs are getting buttmad when we won't debate their "logic" because in actuality, there's no logic behind their stance in the first place.

Post automatically merged: Sep 5, 2023

No. No one earned your insults or your flaming. Stick to the topic and stop abusing people on this forum. Personal attacks are not tolerated.

I thought you were a better person than that. Don't let me down. Maybe confront an argument, instead of calling everyone who disagrees with you stupid.

Fuck off antivaxxer. You helped make covid endemic so deal with the consequences of your actions cry baby.

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

I just find it funny that these dimbulbs are getting buttmad when we won't debate their "logic" because in actuality, there's no logic behind their stance in the first place.

There's plenty of logic behind pointing out humanity's negative impact on the world, especially after the Industrial Revolution.

Are you one of the folks who denies climate change? Are you going to deny that humans cause the extinction of thousands of unique species every year? Are you going to say that man has not completely driven trillions of living creatures out of their native environments? Do you REALLY think that humans aren't harmful to this planet?

 

[KingVamp]

Are you capable of having a disagreement with someone without personally attacking or insulting them?

To be fair, you insulted the whole human race.

 

[sarkwalvein]

Perhaps maybe you should control f my quote. But since you didn't.

Maybe next time read who my post was responding too.

You jumped in to argue. You didn't clarify or state your stance when you replied to me. So I presumed you are taking his stance.


Your buddy that you decided to jump in for. It's funny too since if you took the time to read you would of realized your "gotcha" is just cringe and likely going to get ratioed.



Because of the tools we have created, which already tamper with a lot of human fates for better outcomes for each individual person. We don't exactly follow natural selection. As many of things we've done are not natural. We're not in a perhestoric age where the fittest wins. Ju

And by deciding to suddenly go against the tools (vaccines, masks, distancing) that help keep us, and others safe. Your essentially turning on people who cannot as easily defend themselves. You deprive them of their ability to exist.

And by arguing "well it's just natural selection that they died" is a thinly vailed argument to disguise eugenic like or straight up eugenic thinking.

You are seriously a joke stating I didn't "Control F" your quote, when I went point by point to the detail.
And there is no "guy I jumped in for" (?); there is in the other hand one post I quoted before, and in that post there is no talk about Eugenics (you are the one bringing that up); the post is talking about natural selection. It never proposed an artificial selection of genes to bring forward, never talked about planned breeding or the like... you are the one that keeps so shamelessly bringing that up (and trying to confuse the discussion) to play the Hitler card.

Just re-read all what you wrote (you won't), it is really a shameless act of misdirection.

 

[Foxi4]

I don't want to enter your property. The problem is you're part of a minority (business owners) who have a monopoly on all the essential goods and services, and you are withholding them from certain groups of people based on arbitrary and capricous reasoning (or simply no reason at all, as you've said). I doubt you'd accept it if society withheld essential goods and services from you (you seem to acknowledge this by stating you're against passports).

Utter nonsense. Retail is the least monopolised sector of business there is, the selection of retailers that carry groceries goes from the dollar store all the way up to expensive boutique. You can buy in person, you can order delivery, you can do anything you want. The idea that people in the developed world have trouble acquiring groceries in the 21st century is asinine.

Your position may entail that Weinstein-like bosses could threaten their employees with job loss for not performing sexual acts on them, but I guess you'll just make another arbitrary exception here, as you've done with religion, race and gender.

Argument ad absurdum. A contract which features demands that are illegal is automatically unenforceable and thus null and void. One cannot give consent to be raped, that’s an oxymoron. You’re really trying hard, aren’t you?

What's the point in protecting these groups if at the end of the day you still allow discrimination based on any or no reasoning at all?

People discriminate all the time for a variety of reasons, anti-discrimination laws exist so that unfair discrimination does not take place. You making a specific decision has consequences - this “society” you mentioned might not want to have anything to do with you based on some of those. I am not required to associate with you by law. I am only required to treat you in the same way as I treat everybody else regardless of their inherent characteristics. If I require all of my employees to have up-to-date vaccinations because I run a business in the food sector and I cannot afford to have my merchandise involved in a disease-related scandal, I probably included that in our contract and, by law, I am allowed to enforce it. If I want to avoid a protracted civil suit in regards to potential wrongful dismissal (which I’ll win, by the way, but it will cost us money and time) I can give you an alternative such as regular testing in lieu of taking the jab, but I don’t have to if you previously agreed that you’ll take all the recommended vaccinations over the course of your employment.

EDIT: This is precisely what happened in the case of Tyson Foods which *required* their entire workforce to vaccinate, only offering exceptions for medical and religious reasons, and the company went out of their way to facilitate this process by way of hiring on-site nurses and providing monetary incentives. They’re in the food business, they can’t afford to have their merchandise potentially contaminated or their entire workforce sick and out of commission, so they took reasonable steps to avoid that. That’s not “unfair discrimination”, it’s pure business.

https://www.tysonfoods.com/news/new...equire-covid-19-vaccinations-its-us-workforce

I'm all for less regulation and more liberty, but there is a limit where you're allowing people to harm others in the name of liberty, that's where I draw the line.

Me not letting you in is not doing you harm. Our species has existed for around 200,000 years, and it didn’t develop upon contact with the first grocery store. I am not forcing you to do anything, you’re trying to force me to ignore my requirements, which I have plainly stated to you in no uncertain terms, because you say so. What you say is not relevant to my calculus - I have a duty of care to my other customers and my workforce. If I made exceptions all along the way, having any kind of policy would be pointless. You are no more or less entitled to enter my store than you are to enter my home - I may have announced that my doors are open to the public and that I am open for business, but that doesn’t invalidate my rights as the owner of the property. Those rights include being selective about who gets to enter and who doesn’t. Ever met a bouncer at a club? You might not be permitted entry because you’re wearing the wrong kind of shoes, you think they’d be shy turning you away based on a lack of a vaccine passport? I think not.

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

To be fair, you insulted the whole human race.

But... we ARE the most harmful species in world history. No one can reasonably deny that.

The planet and ALL of its life would be better with fewer than one billion humans on this Earth.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Are you one of the folks who denies climate change? Are you going to deny that humans cause the extinction of thousands of unique species every year? Are you going to say that man has not completely driven trillions of living creatures out of their native environments? Do you REALLY think that humans aren't harmful to this planet?

Great. Now how do we fix the problem?
Because it was the Republican party who pushed your anti vaccine rehetroic. The same party who just in their debates. None of them raised their hands to say "climate change is a human made problem"
Not a single one.

So to be frank if your finding climate change to a be a real issue. And them (republican party) denying vaccines. Do you think that maybe they are also lying about vaccine information?

 

[supermist]

There's plenty of logic behind pointing out humanity's negative impact on the world, especially after the Industrial Revolution.

Are you one of the folks who denies climate change? Are you going to deny that humans cause the extinction of thousands of unique species every year? Are you going to say that man has not completely driven trillions of living creatures out of their native environments? Do you REALLY think that humans aren't harmful to this planet?

No, there's logic in being an antivaxxer just like there's no logic to being a flat earther (a group I find to be more intelligent actually)

The verified data is there and it's simple, and you aren't willing to prove your claim.

But yes I'll continue to tell you to fuck off and call you stupid, because your collective stupidity is why covid is here to stay.

Imagine if you morons were around during polio. Christ.

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

No, there's logic in being an antivaxxer just like there's no logic to being a flat earther (a group I find to be more intelligent actually)

The verified data is there and it's simple, and you aren't willing to prove your claim.

But yes I'll continue to tell you to fuck off and call you stupid, because your collective stupidity is why covid is here to stay.

Imagine if you morons were around during polio. Christ.

I never said I was an anti-vaxxer. I expressed my reasoning behind ME not getting the jab. I will reiterate for you, without personally attacking you. Just to show you that it's possible to discuss something with someone you don't like and do not respect, without personal insults.

1/ Humans are harmful
2/ I don't care if most humans die, from ANYTHING or ANY cause
3/ My life has no more value than anyone else's and I am not special
4/ I believe the COVID vaccine is responsible for people literally dropping dead from heart attacks, and refuse to get the jab

I have every other vaccine. Just not THIS one, for the reasons I have described. Do you need further clarification?

Great. Now how do we fix the problem?
Because it was the Republican party who pushed your anti vaccine rehetroic. The same party who just in their debates. None of them raised their hands to say "climate change is a human made problem"
Not a single one.

So to be frank if your finding climate change to a be a real issue. And them (republican party) denying vaccines. Do you think that maybe they are also lying about vaccine information?

Since when am I a Republican? Why should I defend I a political party, when the discussion isn't about politics?

 

[supermist]

I never said I was an anti-vaxxer. I expressed my reasoning behind ME not getting the jab. I will reiterate for you, without personally attacking you. Just to show you that it's possible to discuss something with someone you don't like and do not respect, without personal insults.

1/ Humans are harmful
2/ I don't care if most humans die, from ANYTHING or ANY cause
3/ My life has no more value than anyone else's and I am not special
4/ I believe the COVID vaccine is responsible for people literally dropping dead from heart attacks, and refuse to get the jab

I have every other vaccine. Just not THIS one, for the reasons I have described. Do you need further clarification?

Post automatically merged: Sep 5, 2023

Since when am I a Republican? Why should I defend I a political party, when the discussion isn't about politics?

Well, okay then I guess

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

So to be frank if your finding climate change to a be a real issue. And them (republican party) denying vaccines. Do you think that maybe they are also lying about vaccine information?

If you trust ANYONE in the government, that's your first issue. This isn't partisan. You'd have to be pretty stupid not to recognize the impact that mass production and the military industrial complex have had on this world. Not that I am saying that YOU are, but you're presuming that I am.

And, again, not a Republican. Gotta stop trying to slap labels on people so you feel more comfortable talking down to them. You aren't better than anyone, and you shouldn't act like you are. People are allowed to have different opinions, and no one is required to give a blue shit how you feel.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

You are seriously a joke stating I didn't "Control F" your quote, when I went point by point to the detail.

Your getting old.

You see this?
Okay let's look where I first responded, and to who

you following?

You responded to this post saying

Considering Eugenics is related to the artificial (and immoral) selection of "some desired genes", I don't know how that would have anything to do with natural selection
[there is more to this post]

Is it or is it not an attempt at refuting my argument? And not jumping in for him?

And when I said

How do you have " better genes" as someone already born?

Does that mean the immuno compromised just gets to die? What about the people who have heart issues? Breathing problems?
See, by deliberately choosing to not use the tools we have (vaccines, masks distancing) and all that knowlage.
[there's more beyond this post]

And then you said

Nothreed: "How do you have " better genes" as someone already born?"

Who ever talked about that, other than you?

Which I gave a factual response, in pointing out that @stanna said that.

IF your not willing to honestly check the chronological order of our statements, then I don't have anything to talk to you if we can't even agree on what was factually said. This is pretty basic shit.

 

[sarkwalvein]

Your getting old.
View attachment 392207
You see this?
Okay let's look where I first responded, and to who

View attachment 392209

you following?

You responded to this post saying


Is it or is it not an attempt at refuting my argument? And not jumping in for him?

And when I said


And then you said

Which I gave a factual response, in pointing out that @stanna said that.

IF your not willing to honestly check the chronological order of our statements, then I don't have anything to talk to you if we can't even agree on what was factually said

I am sure getting old, aren't we all?
But that's not the point here.

You are just again showing proof of the precise point I am talking about:

You are seriously a joke stating I didn't "Control F" your quote, when I went point by point to the detail.
And there is no "guy I jumped in for" (?); there is in the other hand one post I quoted before, and in that post there is no talk about Eugenics (you are the one bringing that up); the post is talking about natural selection. It never proposed an artificial selection of genes to bring forward, never talked about planned breeding or the like... you are the one that keeps so shamelessly bringing that up (and trying to confuse the discussion) to play the Hitler card.

In case you didn't notice in the quote: in that post there is no talk about Eugenics (you are the one bringing that up: you are the one that replies to the post with a false allegation of Eugenics, intentionally misinterpreting it's content and shamelessly misdirecting to play the Hitler card)

Do you follow now?

 

[Deleted member 586536]

In case you didn't notice in the quote: in that post there is no talk about Eugenics (you are the one bringing that up: you are the one that reply to the post with a false allegation of Eugenics, intentionally misinterpreting it's content and shamelessly misdirecting to play the Hitler card)

Do you follow now?

do you seriously think someone who is in favor of eugenics is going to speak about it honestly?
Because I refuted you on that

Because of the tools we have created, which already tamper with a lot of human fates for better outcomes for each individual person. We don't exactly follow natural selection. As many of things we've done are not natural. We're not in a perhestoric age where the fittest wins.

And by deciding to suddenly go against the tools (vaccines, masks, distancing) that help keep us, and others safe. Your essentially turning on people who cannot as easily defend themselves. You deprive them of their ability to exist.

When we had already a long history of trying to protect those people who are more vulnerable, or not as fourtante.

And by arguing "well it's just natural selection that they died" is a thinly veiled argument to disguise eugenic like or straight up eugenic thinking.

In other words
My argument can be summed up like this:
It's effectively eugenics to suddenly decide that tools we've progressed with, which protect vulnerable people. And just one day decide not to use them. Or have members of society irresponsibly compromise those people through not doing what they can. Since in essence, being anti vax is a threat to the people who are immunodeficient.

And excusing that behavior through saying "it's natural selection" isn't a valid argument because we already know how to try to prevent the worst outcome. It's an excuse to be a shit person. I'm not saying you are or the original person are, but that's the argument that's being made.

It's as I put it, a extremely thinly veiled argument.

 

[sarkwalvein]

do you seriously think someone who is in favor of eugenics is going to speak about it honestly?
Because I refuted you on that



In other words
My argument can be summed up like this:
It's effectively eugenics to suddenly decide that tools we've progressed with, which protect vulnerable people. And just one day decide not to use them. Or have members of society irresponsibly compromise those people through not doing what they can.

And excusing that behavior through saying "it's natural selection" isn't a valid argument because we already know how to try to prevent the worst outcome. It's an excuse to be a shit person. I'm not saying you are or the original person are, but that's the argument that's being made.

It's as I put it, a extremely thinly veiled argument.

<all the extra gibberish that you added to the edited previous post afterwards>

It is more proof of my point, you intentionally misinterpret the "better genes" in the first post as in "better genes/selected by people", instead as "better genes/those more apt to survive on their own". And you keep making this intentional misinterpretation shamelessly. I replied to you that nobody talked about "better genes" in the context of Eugenics, and you know it. But you are still trying to bend the meaning of that post to misdirect.

And also you keep talking about "me jumping in for someone" like if I am defending a boyfriend or something... What are you, a fanfic author? Can't you realize I am criticizing your absurd misdirection, if anything I am obsessed with your posts not with <who knows the name of the person that wrote that one post I quoted>.

To be honest, you keep the same old dumb misdirection strategy, and I got tired of wasting my time. Good life to you.

 

[Foxi4]

<all the extra gibberish that you added to the edited previous post afterwards>

It is more proof of my point, you intentionally misinterpret the "better genes" in the first post as in "better genes/selected by people", instead as "better genes/those more apt to survive on their own". And you keep making this intentional misinterpretation shamelessly. I replied to you that nobody talked about "better genes" in the context of Eugenics, and you know it. But you are still trying to bend the meaning of that post to misdirect.

And also you keep talking about "me jumping in for someone" like if I am defending a boyfriend or something... What are you, a fanfic author? Can't you realize I am criticizing your absurd misdirection, if anything I am obsessed with your posts not with <who knows the name of the person that wrote that one post I quoted>.

To be honest, you keep the same old dumb misdirection strategy, and I got tired of wasting my time. Good life to you.

Saying that someone has “better genes” than another person is pretty spicy and could be phrased better, but it is an inevitable biological reality. Some people have better immune systems than others, some people are genetically more likely to suffer from certain medical conditions than others. There’s no hate in it, it’s just the truth. “It runs in my family” is a saying for a reason - some things simply do. To say that this is in any way associated with eugenics is absurd. I’ll be “your boyfriend” in this case and step in. @Nothereed, you have a tendency to jump to conclusions and read into things a little too deep, to the point that you misinterpret them completely.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

t is more proof of my point, you intentionally misinterpret the "better genes" in the first post as in "better genes/selected by people", instead as "better genes/those more apt to survive on their own"

Last response since clearly for fuck sake you can't see the point I am making here so I'll spell it out for you.

1. Humans already tampered with "natural selection" through enabling and helping vulnerable people.
2. As a result, in effect the definition of natural selection for human beings have changed. We choose who we get to marry. It's not "who's the fittest"
3. we don't live "alone" we're not lone predators we're a social species.
4. By allowing anti maskers and anti vaxxers to say, and enable their behavior through saying "well it's just a natural selection"
might as well be in effect, eugenics. Why? Because anti vaxxers are CHOOSING yes you heard me right. CHOOSING to make it more likely for those people to die. That's in effect egenics. Since it's two parts, who gets to have better genes for the "next generation", and who doesn't get into the gene pool or have kids

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

Last response since clearly for fuck sake you can't see the point I am making here so I'll spell it out for you.

1. Humans already tampered with "natural selection" through enabling and helping vulnerable people.
2. As a result, in effect the definition of natural selection for human beings have changed. We choose who we get to marry. It's not "who's the fittest"
3. we don't live "alone" we're not lone predators we're a social species.
4. By allowing anti maskers and anti vaxxers to say, and enable their behavior through saying "well it's just a natural selection"
might as well be in effect, eugenics. Why? Because anti vaxxers are CHOOSING yes you heard me right. CHOOSING to make it more likely for those people to die. That's in effect egenics. Since it's two parts, who gets to have better genes for the "next generation", and who doesn't get into the gene pool or have kids

Many of us who refuse to get the COVID jab already suffered COVID, got over it in under two weeks, and went back to work.

It's LITERALLY a form of SARS. When I had it in November of 2020, I was down for 18 days. Lost my voice and everything. I treated my condition with the South Park remedy. Ginger ale, chicken soup and NyQuil. I made it through my SARS just like most people did, who didn't already have a compromised immune system, or were very young or very elderly.

Which... is better odds than the flu, every year.

Me refusing to get a vaccine that causes more harm than good isn't me choosing to make it more likely that other people die.

The pure logic of that assumption is kind of silly, you know. If the vaccine is SOOOO effective, then ME refusing to get it won't affect YOU in the slightest. You're triple vacc'ed and boosted. You should feel 100% fine even if I cough in your face, because your vaccine TOTALLY works and TOTALLY won't cause you the potential for heart failure later on.

It's either that you believe the vaccine works or you don't. So, if you DO believe, then stop worrying about others. Your vaccine will definitely, absolutely, 100% save you and protect you. You don't have a dog in this fight; you have five jabs to keep you safe.