-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Austria first country to make Covid vaccine mandatory
- Thread starter subcon959
- Start date
- Views 56,689
- Replies 1,183
- Likes 9
- Status
If someone got vaccinated, and doesn't spread covid, it should have the same impact of someone not getting vaccinated and not spreading covid. Should, at least. Following suit of your prior argument, someone choosing not to get vaccinated doesn't remove someone else's choice to get vaccinated.
Hmpf, why are you focusing on the impact of others when it comes to personal healthcare decisions? Most important here is protecting an individuals medical records/history/decisions from a government entity. Abortion shall not be denied, since it denying it would involve legislators 'peering' into someone's medical profile. Vaccination mandate requires the same level of obstruction. Stay out of my medical records. Decisions I make with my doctor and for my own healthcare are a personal and private matter.
Furthermore this isn't an adequate argument for abortion rights, since a portion of the population believes you are certainly impacting someone else with your decision: the 'soul' that is taking residence inside a womb. Better argument is that medical decisions between patient/doctor should be kept private. Legislators have no business peering into medical records.
Last edited by 0x3000027E,
I only care about metrics that are actually measurable. The decision of my parents to not have an abortion, for example, affects you in no way that's deserving of moral consideration.
Unfortunately, a person who is unvaccinated is significantly more likely to become infected and spread disease. The more people who are unvaccinated, the more the disease spreads to vaccinated and unvaccinated people alike. The more the disease spreads, the higher the rate of mutation and the higher the likelihood of new variants emerging. The fact that there will be unvaccinated people who don't spread the disease is irrelevant.
Because these decisions have a significant effect on the health of others.
This is important, but so is taking every reasonable measure to reduce the spread of disease. Considering the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, as well as the clear and present danger that is COVID-19, certain privileges should require vaccination in the same way certain privileges require me to be clothed.
Abortion should not be denied because it would be a violation of a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
Vaccine mandates are the right thing to do, they're effective, there's legal precedent for them, and they aren't a violation of your rights. If you don't want to get vaccinated, don't get vaccinated. If you don't want to provide proof of your vaccination status, don't provide proof of your vaccination status. However, proof of vaccination should be required for certain privileges like entering a public school, getting on a train, etc. Don't like it? Don't do anything that requires proof of vaccination.
- Imaginary souls that only exist in one's religious beliefs are undeserving of consideration as far as the law is concerned.
- A woman has a right to bodily autonomy, and the right to end a pregnancy, regardless of what's in her womb.
I respectfully disagree. The primary consideration is the woman's right to bodily autonomy.
Very disturbing turn things are taking in the world. Anyone who is celebrating these developments of governments forcing a vaccine onto grown adults is very short sighted and does not know history.
I am saying this as a person who is double jabbed, wears a mask in public and encourages people to be jabbed by the way.
If it comes to the point where this is forced on people in the UK and peoples abilities to live their lives is restricted if they are not vaccinated I will protest on the streets.
It is funny, people would mock others who warned about these sort of thing potentially happening years ago as conspiracy theorists. Now, after a couple of years of hardcore scare mongering people are practically willing to shove their fellow citizen onto a train to Auschwitz for not conforming to the regimes rules.
I am saying this as a person who is double jabbed, wears a mask in public and encourages people to be jabbed by the way.
If it comes to the point where this is forced on people in the UK and peoples abilities to live their lives is restricted if they are not vaccinated I will protest on the streets.
It is funny, people would mock others who warned about these sort of thing potentially happening years ago as conspiracy theorists. Now, after a couple of years of hardcore scare mongering people are practically willing to shove their fellow citizen onto a train to Auschwitz for not conforming to the regimes rules.
I'm wondering if you will protest on the streets for my right to walk around in public naked without having my ability to live my life significantly restricted.
I know certain privileges requiring vaccination are more important than certain privileges requiring me to wear clothes, since my choice to not wear clothes doesn't affect anyone's physical health, but I would still appreciate it. Thank you.
This kind of tone-deaf hyperbole is as offensive as it is unhelpful.
It's measurable. And it doesn't even have to be on a moral level. Of course your parents not having an abortion has affected me. If you are here for "moral" reasons, then I fear you were mislead a long time ago, before coming here with your soapbox.
Unfortunately, not everyone who is vaccinated takes precautions and people who take precautions can be not vaccinated, so the idea that unvaccinated people are hurting people is based on a misapplied statistic. You kind of have to live your own life. Sucks, doesn't it?
You could say preventing people from having an abortion does affect society since likely a women wanting to get an abortion because she herself feels unfit to raise a child.
This could be financial reasons she can't afford, which means she'll need to resort to government programs. Tax dollars that could be be better used for something else now used to take care of a woman's child that she didn't want in the first place.
Or a women can't be there to raise the kid, which means the kid will be neglected which can lead to problem for the kid and maybe society at large if the kid becomes a criminal from neglect.
Wow what a highly ignorant analogy that does not apply to law there.
Firstly, as long as you are not committing a lewd or offensive act, are not harassing anyone or causing distress you can walk around naked if you want to. So yes you are utterly wrong on that one.
Here is some guidance as you are obviously lacking education in what you are talking about https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/nudity-public-guidance-handling-cases-naturism
Secondly, you are literally saying people should show proof of something to get on a bus or train and use public transport. In the 150 years public transport has existed we have never had any requirement to show anything to use the service as long as we are not crossing an international border. If you are actually for a vaccine passport to use a bus or train and this development does not ring alarm bells for you then there is no point talking to you. You obviously have no appreciation of basic freedoms and rights, you are not worth talking to.
You could not be more wrong.
Think about what you said in the context of the mothers of the ones who made the increasingly great scientific discoveries over the course of humanity.
That's not really a solid argument and honestly just put it up just random chance. There's a chance anyone born could be a doctor who makes amazing breakthroughs. There's the same amount of chances that they would also be a mass murder who eats people. But regardless, the person still isn't born and their hypothetical choices have zero effects on the world because they weren't born.
It's measurable now, albeit subjectively and qualitatively, but it wasn't measurable when my mother had the option of aborting me. Whether or not I've had an effect on your life, and whether or not that effect has been positive, are undeserving of moral considerations with regard to whether or not my mother should have had the right to terminate her pregnancy if she had wanted to. It's all in hindsight, and the nature of the effect I've had is a matter of opinion. I'd argue your life is substantially better with me in it, but I have a feeling you would disagree. Regardless, I'm apparently living rent-free in your head if you're saying I've had a significant effect on your life. This is probably going to increase my already inflated sense of self-importance.
The effect my existence has had on you in hindsight isn't analogous to the effect the unvaccinated population is having on everyone around them. We should take every reasonable measure to reduce the spread of infectious disease, but moral considerations don't go to those who have had their feelings hurt because some guy on the internet, who wasn't aborted, pointed out the mistakes in their posts.
It's generally illegal in most places to walk around naked in public. Where I live in the US, it's second degree sexual misconduct if someone can see certain parts of my body who didn't consent to seeing those parts of me, which is what would happen if I walked around naked in public.
It should also be noted that, per your link and your explanation, it's generally illegal to walk around naked in the UK if "members of the public were... caused harassment, alarm or distress." The point of the page you linked to, as I interpret it, is that the response to public nudity by law enforcement is extremely situation-based, not that it's generally legal. Given my point was about being naked in public spaces, I don't think you and I are in disagreement.
All that said, if a random person on the street objected to me being naked and had me arrested, forced to put on clothes, or forced to leave the public space, would you protest for my right to be able to walk around as nature intended? Please and thank you.
You made a tone-deaf comparison to the Holocaust, a situation in which millions of people were sent to literal death camps for immutable characteristics. Oppositely, you're complaining about people who are willfully unvaccinated (not an immutable characteristic) being unable to (*gasp*) get on a bus until after they are vaccinated, all in the interest of public health, just in the same way I would likely be denied access to a bus if I weren't wearing clothes until after I put on clothes (assuming I weren't arrested first).
An argument could be made that a person is not worth talking to after making these sorts of antisemitic comparisons, telling me there's no point talking to me despite the civility with which I've responded to your posts, and saying to me that I "have no appreciation of basic freedoms and rights" because I disagree with you. However, I think you're very much worth talking to. No one is forcing you to respond to me though.
The problem is these sorts of considerations are purely hypothetical when the woman is pregnant, since a fetus could just as easily grow up to be a serial killer. Hypothetical people do not get moral considerations since they don't actually exist. if this is the argument against abortion, then the same argument could be made to force strangers to have sex with each other, all in the interest of the hypothetical person who would be born from their copulation. It's a fair comparison, since denying access to abortion is a violation of bodily autonomy, as is forcing two strangers to have sex.
Even in a magical world where we can scan a pregnant woman and tell her that her baby will likely cure cancer, that doesn't mean she shouldn't have the right to terminate that pregnancy. She has a right to bodily autonomy regardless of who or what is in her womb.
Off topic, since it is neither an argument for or against legal abortion, but it should be noted that there's an argument that legalized abortion is correlated with a significant drop in crime. This could be because, in part, fetuses that are aborted are more likely to be from families with fewer resources and have the ingredients for a higher likelihood of criminality. In other words, the aborted scientist appears less likely than the aborted serial killer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
Last edited by Lacius,
Bitch got schooled hard and comes back with a wall of text nobody will ever read LOL ;O;
I disagree. It gives me physical gratification to reread my own posts.
LOL yeah that is hilarious
just like all those retarded big pharma drug ads
in the disclaimers at the end they always say some bullshit like
if you are allergic to this drug then do not take this drug"
how are you supposed to know if you are "allergic" to it until you actually take at which point it is already too late
Rather unbecoming of a member the staff to give such a dickish reply to a member.
Last edited by The Catboy,
Think of the mothers of Stalin, Hitler, and Musk! Seriously, this kind of argument is parodied so often specifically because it appeals only to the emotions of the squeamish. It doesn't even really belong in this thread, but...
1. Abortion isn't the first line of birth control, it is often the last resort. Going down to the basest use, it is to protect a woman from parenthood when they aren't ready. I know the right complains that "the baby could just get donated at a fire station!" but that ignores the months of intense physical toll it takes on the mother in the best of circumstances and how underfunded and understaffed orphanages are... just about everywhere, really. Bad outcome for all parties. Folks on the right love to think of it as "irresponsible birth control", but nobody sane thinks "I'll just get an abortion in a few weeks!" when things happen.
2. In the US, the mortality rate of mothers is stunningly off. There is a literal chance for death for mothers (and, to loop it back to this thread, its higher than the chance for serious vaccine side effects OMG CONNECTIONS MADE!)
3. Sometimes, bad things happen. Alcohol mixed with bad scenarios, men mixed with a lack of empathy and an immunity to the word "no", the full moon mixed with a family member who takes advantage of a minor... in these circumstances, this shouldn't even be a debate. Impregnation wasn't even considered by a mentally sound woman, and shouldn't be forced upon them.
I'm going to go back to being dead with my work schedule now. <3 at my fellow feline and Lacius and others for fighting the good fight!
Last edited by Dakitten,
That isn't what I said, you thought I said a stupid thing because that is your default stance.
No, it's racist when you attack another country and blame them when it was a natural event.
Back in the beginning the racists were saying along the lines of "those dirty chinese, it was those awful wet markets fault, they should ban them". when the evidence isn't strong that it jumped to humans at the wet market.
But I guess that is too nuanced for you to understand.
As for climate change, yes china do produce a lot of the pollution. However we need to accept some of that blame as we've all outsourced most of our manufacturing to there, so singling them out is like a game of "stop hitting yourself".
Last edited by smf,
I would say, there's no any other act that bring so massive negative effect to everyone around as murdering innocent people. You want to stop real illnes, just don't support dr. Mengele and genocide.
- Status
Similar threads
-
@ HiradeGirl:
Any TV with your PC connected with Citra and any smartphone to use as a screen using a free play store app.+1 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
NinStar:
quite ironic that brawlhalla has a far superior netcode compared to smash bros ultimate while offering free online play with crossplay support -
