Covid-19 vaccine

[Foxi4]

I am not a Liberal, I am an ancom.

That's pretty liberal.

 

[gene0915]

I imagine theres going to be a bunch of pussy vaccinated libs fighting our wars for us now.

Ouch..... is that any way to talk about lacius? Cold blooded!

I'm sure the woke army of today/tomorrow is just as capable of the rough and tough GI's that got us through WW2 and Vietnam!!!! I mean sure, we had to lower some standards to pass enough hardy recruits but that's OK.

After watching these 2 ads, I know which country I'd be willing to have israel tell me which pile of sand to die in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111

 

[Lacius]

Ouch..... is that any way to talk about lacius? Cold blooded!

1. I'm not in the armed forces.
2. I think you missed the point of the statement.

 

[The Catboy]

That's pretty liberal.
View attachment 273828

I am going to disagree and not bring this topic into the semantics of where Liberalism lays on the political spectrum

 

[KingVamp]

I am 100% in support of the right of any business to refuse service to anyone based on whatever benchmark the business sets, I'm just surprised to see liberals advocating for the same thing. I'm pro freedom and anti coercion.

In practice, it is just coercion from businesses instead.

 

[Lacius]

I am 100% in support of the right of any business to refuse service to anyone based on whatever benchmark the business sets, I'm just surprised to see liberals advocating for the same thing. I'm pro freedom and anti coercion.

It's a bit unfair to say that people on the left are being somehow contradictory by suggesting that businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers, just as we've always been okay with businesses refusing services to people for other reasons like not wearing the proper attire, etc. We draw the line at businesses being able to refuse service to people on the basis of immutable characteristics like race and sexuality.

 

[Foxi4]

In practice, it is just coercion from businesses instead.

No, it's an individual exercising their right to not do business with you. They're not using force or leverage against you, they just don't want you on their property - you're the one trying to use the government to coerce them into letting you in and exchanging goods/services with you. They're not the party using force - you are. Of course this only applies to instances when you're not okay with that - it seems you've specified an instance when you are.

It's a bit unfair to say that people on the left are being somehow contradictory by suggesting that businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers, just as we've always been okay with businesses refusing services to people for other reasons like not wearing the proper attire, etc. We draw the line at businesses being able to refuse service to people on the basis of immutable characteristics like race and sexuality.

No, it's not. You're acknowledging the authority the business owner has in regards to which patrons they want to do business with and which ones they don't, you're just choosing to be selective about it. I'm not - I acknowledge that right in all instances because I respect the fact that it's their property, not mine. For the record, we're in agreement that discriminating against your customer base is stupid (and a bad business move), I'd just like to see some consistency.

I am going to disagree and not bring this topic into the semantics of where Liberalism lays on the political spectrum

That's fine, you don't have to acknowledge the fact that anarcho-communism is on the far liberal left. You don't have to acknowledge anything, including that the Earth orbits the sun, it has no bearing on the truth of the matter.

 

[Ibcap]

No, it's not. You're acknowledging the authority the business owner has in regards to which patrons they want to do business with and which ones they don't, you're just choosing to be selective about it. I'm not - I acknowledge that right in all instances because I respect the fact that it's their property, not mine. For the record, we're in agreement that discriminating against your customer is stupid, I'd just like to see some consistency.

But you're assuming here that these people were ever for the right of a business to no questions asked refuse service for any reason, which they might not be. The position 'I think business owners should be able to refuse service based on the attire of a customer/the customer putting my health at potential risk, but I dont think they should be able to refuse service based on characteristics they do not choose such as gender, race, sexuality, etc' is not contradictory or hypocritical. Note this doesnt necessarily reflect my personal views on the matter.

 

[Lacius]

you're just choosing to be selective about it.

It's about as selective as being against murder, but with self-defense exceptions. Technically true, but not especially problematic.

We agree businesses generally should have the right to be selective about with whom they do business, but those of us on the left believe that right ends where people's civil rights begin.

 

[Foxi4]

But you're assuming here that these people were ever for the right of a business to no questions asked refuse service for any reason, which they might not be. The position 'I think business owners should be able to refuse service based on the attire of a customer/the customer putting my health at potential risk, but I dont think they should be able to refuse service based on characteristics they do not choose such as gender, race, sexuality, etc' is not contradictory or hypocritical. Note this doesnt necessarily reflect my personal views on the matter.

Specificity is good. I'm just pointing out that we seem to be picking and choosing when the business is owned by the owner and when it's the government that runs it. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it depends on your point of view I suppose, but it is quite funny to hear the same crowd voice two ostensibly contradictory opinions.

It's about as selective as being against murder, but with self-defense exceptions. Technically true, but not especially problematic.

We agree businesses generally should have the right to be selective about with whom they do business, but those of us on the left believe that right ends where people's civil rights begin.

Murder is a bad example since killing someone in self-defense isn't classified as such. We don't make a special exception here - all murders are killings, but not all killings are murder. I get your point, though the word choice is not ideal. Murder is a very specific and distinct type of a killing.

 

[Ibcap]

Specificity is good. I'm just pointing out that we seem to be picking and choosing when the business is owned by the owner and when it's the government that runs it. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it depends on your point of view I suppose, but it is quite funny to hear the same crowd voice two ostensibly contradictory opinions.

I don't believe its contradictory because theres very large differences between these two situations. Again ill reiterate im not stating my own opinions here but rather outlining a thought process that someone could have. You could very easily argue that the government has a duty to protect people from being discriminated off of characteristics they are born with (which there is a precedent for, we have plenty of laws against refusing to serve black people for example) but also think that businesses can refuse service based on things the person does actively choose, such as attire. For example, a nice restaurant not serving someone who is in a tshirt. This is not just a logical thought process, but largely how the law works. There *are* laws against discriminating against many birth traits so this belief has historical and legal precedent.

 

[Lacius]

Specificity is good. I'm just pointing out that we seem to be picking and choosing when the business is owned by the owner and when it's the government that runs it. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it depends on your point of view I suppose, but it is quite funny to hear the same crowd voice two ostensibly contradictory opinions.
Murder is a bad example since killing someone in self-defense isn't classified as such. We don't make a special exception here - all murders are killings, but not all killings are murder. I get your point, though the word choice is not ideal. Murder is a very specific and distinct type of a killing.

Swap out the word "murder" for "killing," and my point stands, yes.

 

[KingVamp]

No, it's an individual exercising their right to not do business with you. They're not using force or leverage against you, they just don't want you on their property - you're the one trying to use the government to coerce them into letting you in and exchanging goods/services with you. They're not the party using force - you are. Of course this only applies to instances when you're not okay with that - it seems you've specified an instance when you are.

What happens when companies as a whole start to block out a specific group? Oh wait... We know what happens. Suddenly the "party of not using force" forces companies not to have mandates.


Also, since when is it right for anyone, let alone companies, to endanger anyone?

 

[smf]

Murder is a bad example since killing someone in self-defense isn't classified as such.

It's a good example because it is arbitrarily classified as such. Some peoples idea of self defense is that the attacker was running away and was scared they might return, so I should take advantage of killing him now. Some people would require an attacker to have a knife a their throat for it to be self defense.

If there is no guarantee that the person would actually go through with killing you, then you're just killing someone because in that moment you wanted to kill them. Which is basically the same as what you're accusing them of.

What happens if two people think the other is going to kill them? Who gets a free pass to kill the other and who is the murderer?

How do we even know the survivor is telling the truth? Maybe like all "good guys with a gun" they are just waiting for the opportunity of a government sanctioned killing.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

Ouch..... is that any way to talk about lacius? Cold blooded!

I'm sure the woke army of today/tomorrow is just as capable of the rough and tough GI's that got us through WW2 and Vietnam!!!! I mean sure, we had to lower some standards to pass enough hardy recruits but that's OK.

After watching these 2 ads, I know which country I'd be willing to have israel tell me which pile of sand to die in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111

Please see Lacius reply to this. Specifically point #2. Thanks.

 

[Foxi4]

Swap out the word "murder" for "killing," and my point stands, yes.

Perhaps. We'd have to have a whole different discussion about what constitutes civil rights. I would argue that the right to self-determine, which encompasses the choice to undertake or not undertake medical procedures, is included in that list.

It's a good example because it is arbitrarily classified as such. Some peoples idea of self defense is that the attacker was running away and was scared they might return, so I should take advantage of killing him now. Some people would require an attacker to have a knife a their throat for it to be self defense.

If there is no guarantee that the person would actually go through with killing you, then you're just killing someone because in that moment you wanted to kill them. Which is basically the same as what you're accusing them of.

What happens if two people think the other is going to kill them? Who gets a free pass to kill the other and who is the murderer?

How do we even know the survivor is telling the truth? Maybe like all "good guys with a gun" they are just waiting for the opportunity of a government sanctioned killing.

The distinction is not arbitrary. Bad math and bad logic.

What happens when companies as a whole start to block out a specific group? Oh wait... We know what happens. Suddenly the "party of not using force" forces companies not to have mandates.


Also, since when is it right for anyone, let alone companies, to endanger anyone?

Oh, I'm not aligned with either side of the uniparty - Democrats are liberal when it suits them, Republicans are conservative when it suits them. Neither party actually represents the ideals they espouse.

As for the "right of companies to endanger people", that's another logical leap on your part. You are not required to shop in establishments that do not have a mask or vaccine mandate - you choose your shopping destinations yourself. You entering the building is elective, so if anyone is endangering you, that'd be yourself. I don't know about you, but I don't shop in stores I don't like, or ones with policies that I dislike.

I don't believe its contradictory because theres very large differences between these two situations. Again ill reiterate im not stating my own opinions here but rather outlining a thought process that someone could have. You could very easily argue that the government has a duty to protect people from being discriminated off of characteristics they are born with (which there is a precedent for, we have plenty of laws against refusing to serve black people for example) but also think that businesses can refuse service based on things the person does actively choose, such as attire. For example, a nice restaurant not serving someone who is in a tshirt. This is not just a logical thought process, but largely how the law works. There *are* laws against discriminating against many birth traits so this belief has historical and legal precedent.

There is a sizeable contingent of people who would call that segregation. What if somebody cannot afford a suit, but can afford a meal once in a blue moon? Are you not discriminating against the poor? Or minorities? Is it not a "nice" restaurant anymore if the patrons have t-shirts on? What's not "nice" about it anymore? What if someone cannot wear a suit for religious reasons? It's all discrimination, it's just a form of discrimination we're broadly okay with.

 

[KingVamp]

Oh, I'm not aligned with either side of the uniparty

Aligned enough to support Trump.

As for the "right of companies to endanger people", that's another logical leap on your part. You are not required to shop in establishments that do not have a mask or vaccine mandate - you choose your shopping destinations yourself. You entering the building is elective, so if anyone is endangering you, that'd be yourself. I don't know about you, but I don't shop in stores I don't like, or ones with policies that I dislike.

Except they increase the chance that the virus spreads, even if others decided not to go to that shop.

 

[silien3]

I know my examples are exaggerated but given the perverse logic here as much to go there frankly the prohibition of a company this increases the risk of accident if the store is far away additionally that we use more money since its more it removes more money for gasoline and or transport and therefore less for food equal bad nutrition there are so many other examples as attempted murder if a madman passes and targets those without the passes who will be seen because refusal open in front of everyone

to be vaxinator or not does not look at the company its illegal to force the request and deprive a person of his life deprive these like asking do you have a penis between the legs its does not concern the strangers only those who have a certain intimacy relationel exept doctor and during a police investigation which must be deprived and only concerns the parties concerned it remains deprived in short if not as much to say that the rapists are in their right because the person in front is asleep/drug it is nonsense

so hypocritical xenophobic and segregationist his crazy

now for

Swap out the word "murder" for "killing," and my point stands, yes.

No, self-defense does not mean killing the advairsaire but preventing him from harming us we know how to do it without killing if the advairsaire is unable to continue the fight we tie him up and lock him up somewhere without a weapon and call the police in another case we defent the advairsaire dies after the cost it remains an accident and therefore is not at all an act wanting to kill and is not at all a voluntary act in revenge put out of state the advairsaire and continue after is not self-defense that remains a murder its simple and you pervert self defense yes shoot if you have a gun like the bad guy shoot you to defend yourself if the bad guy also has a gun we can put him in the accident if your life was threatened and so you could not think but if the advairsaire had a blunt weapon shoot in the arm or the leg and call the police and the ambulance anything else is murder unless you know how to target his remains an accident if you ou aim precisely the arms and legs a murder remains a murder an accident an accident kill to kill its a murder host a life unwittingly its an accident to kill because there is a threat and we want to remove it remains a murder the murder is entirely intolerable self-defense is totally tolerable when there is an intention to host life and there is no longer self-defense

there is no point of view here to have everything is well defined accident or murder

 

[Foxi4]

Aligned enough to support Trump.

Ah yes, Trump - textbook republican. I can understand stupid people falling for it, but it's always disappointing when the "smart ones" don't pick up on what the play is.

Except they increase the chance that the virus spreads, even if others decided not to go to that shop.

So what? You're not on charge of that, nobody is - it's a virus.

 

[KingVamp]

Ah yes, Trump - textbook republican. I can understand stupid people falling for it, but it's always disappointing when the "smart ones" don't pick up on what the play is.

Make the rich richer. (Ex: Tax cuts.)
Roll back rights. (Ex: Trans from military.)
Deregulation, not caring who is or what is hurt in the process. (Ex. Climate protection roll backs.)

He is different how?

So what? You're not on charge of that, nobody is - it's a virus.

Well, even you admitted that the job of the government is to protect people, so clearly at least someone is in charge.

I'm not against mask mandates, it's a piece of cloth - grow up.

What happened to liberty? I thought no one was in charge.