Covid-19 vaccine

[Foxi4]

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?

1. The tax cuts benefitted every single level of the income ladder
2. Serving in the military is not a right
3. Boo-hoo
4. You'll just have to figure that one out yourself, this is not the subject of this thread

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

From internal and external threats, not from the consequences of people's own decisions in regards to their own health. I could protect you pretty well too - I can lock you up in a plexiglass cube, I guarantee that you will never fall ill, get assaulted or otherwise harmed. The cost is just your rights - great, based on your train of thought.

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

Requiring someone to wear a specific kind of garment does not infringe on their right to bodily integrity, does not force them to undergo a medical procedure against their consent (in violation of the 4th amendment which guarantees a citizen is "secure in their person" which extends beyond seizures and the 5th + 14th amendments which clearly state that no person can be deprived of their life, *liberty* or property without due process, these three being the basis for treatment refusal in the U.S.) and causes them no potential harm. Vaccines *can* cause harm, albeit unintentionally - the risk is infinitesimally small, vaccine injury is exceedingly rare, but all you can hope for is informed consent. There are pre-existing expectations in regards to dress code, there are no such expectations in regards to medical history, which is an entirely private matter.

 

[smf]

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

The exact point where something is or isn't self defense is pretty arbitrary. There will be times when the court does not agree with the defendant, it's just a wide range of opinions with an arbitrary cut off.

But then I don't expect you to understand the real world, your thinking is too rigidly black and white.

If it's only enough to have a reasonable belief that someone wishes you harm, then an unvaccinated/unmasked person who doesn't take any precautions to prevent themselves getting covid is about as dangerous as someone pointing a knife at you. So why can't we just shoot them? It's self defense. Or at least ban them from doing things that put other people at risk.

Is it really any different from banning drunk drivers from driving, or taking away gun licenses from people who have gone round shooting indiscriminately in public?

 

[Foxi4]

The exact point where something is or isn't self defense is pretty arbitrary. There will be times when the court does not agree with the defendant, it's just a wide range of opinions with an arbitrary cut off.

But then I don't expect you to understand the real world, your thinking is too rigidly black and white.

If it's only enough to have a reasonable belief that someone wishes you harm, then an unvaccinated/unmasked person who doesn't take any precautions to prevent themselves getting covid is about as dangerous as someone pointing a knife at you. So why can't we just shoot them? It's self defense. Or at least ban them from doing things that put other people at risk.

Is it really any different from banning drunk drivers from driving, or taking away gun licenses from people who have gone round shooting indiscriminately in public?

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

arbitrary /ˈɑːbɪt(rə)ri/
adjective

Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

The distinction is not arbitrary. The rest of your post is just waffling off-topic, as usual.

 

[smf]

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

arbitrary /ˈɑːbɪt(rə)ri/
adjective

Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

You realize that the people who make the decision whether it was with justification or valid excuse are arbitrarily deciding that?

Of course you don't. You have no idea about anything at all, I'm not sure why you're even here embarrassing yourself.

 

[Foxi4]

You realize that the people who make the decision whether it was with justification or valid excuse are arbitrarily deciding that?

Of course you don't. You have no idea about anything at all, I'm not sure why you're even here embarrassing yourself.

They make that decision based on the preponderance of evidence. The system is by definition not arbitrary because it's governed by a specific set of rules which are applied to each case in order to ascertain if a murder has in fact occurred. It's not my fault that you choose to use Scrabble words you don't understand, the only person getting thoroughly embarrassed here is you.

Your little thought experiment was equally stupid since you based it on a false premise. To respond briefly, if an individual walks down the street next to you with a gun in their holster, you are immediately aware that they have a device which can kill you instantly. You *might* feel discomfort, but that is not a justification to kill that person - you feeling threatened is your problem. You have justification when that gun is aimed at you and a reasonable person would assume that your life was in jeopardy - the reasonable person in the event of a court proceeding would be the judge and/or the jury. It's hardly "arbitrary", it's governed by law, and actually a fairly simple determination to make.

Nobody is responsible for your comfort level. You lack the ability to ascertain if a third-party is vaccinated or not, you don't know if they're infected or not, assuming they were, you have no idea if they're contagious or not, or even if you'd catch the virus at all given the fact that you cannot measure your own level of immunity. In other words, you think self-defense is justified in this scenario despite not knowing if there is even a gun at the scene, let alone one that is pointed at you. Your scenario is preposterous to the point of being absurd, but we do have a name for harboring those kinds of feelings - paranoia. That, and delusions of grandeur, given how sure you are that doubling down on stupid is a winning strategy.

Try again, maybe next time you'll get a W, or maybe your sizeable collection of L's will just keep growing.

 

[smf]

They make that decision based on the preponderance of evidence.

You're waffling on again to try to prove a point & failing, when you are in front of a jury the preponderance of evidence is just an arbitrary decision based on prejudice and bad reasoning.

Which is why 375 guilty verdicts in the US have been later overturned by dna evidence, 69% of which included positive eye witness identification of the person who later turned out to be innocent.

I don't know the figures for people who were given not guilty verdicts but later dna evidence was used to prove them guilty, there was someone in the news here recently.

And for the people with guilty/not guilty verdicts where dna evidence hasn't come along to right the wrong, the decision of the court was largely arbitrary.

 

[Foxi4]

You're waffling on again to try to prove a point & failing, when you are in front of a jury the preponderance of evidence is just an arbitrary decision based on prejudice and bad reasoning.

Which is why 375 guilty verdicts in the US have been later overturned by dna evidence, 69% of which included positive eye witness identification of the person who later turned out to be innocent.

I don't know the figures for people who were given not guilty verdicts but later dna evidence was used to prove them guilty, there was someone in the news here recently.

And for the people with guilty/not guilty verdicts where dna evidence hasn't come along to right the wrong, the decision of the court was largely arbitrary.

I never said that every conviction is 100% correct. If witness accounts are inaccurate or evidence is incomplete, it can lead to a wrongful conviction, which is rare, but does happen, and can be overturned based on the same system. What I said, specifically, is that the system is not arbitrary, and it's not, as illustrated by the overturned convictions based on newfound evidence you just mentioned. If you need help understanding what the word "arbitrary" means, I did post a dictionary definition earlier. If you need a shovel to dig yourself a deeper hole, try Home Depot, or in your case, B&Q.

 

[Foxi4]

I barely saw your response right now. Sometimes Temp doesn't notify me.

I think I agree that some people think things are for the greater good and force them onto people when in reality they are not. So in that case forcing something like the vaccine while most people agree is good will lead to a slippery slope of other bad things to happen.

In this case right to bodily autonomy is a right that shouldn't be managed by gov and it should be one's individual choice. So covid vaccine shouldn't be forced by gov since we have the right to our own bodily autonomy in the same way women have the right to theirs when it comes abortion. Abortion or not abortion shouldn't enforced by gov.

But doesn't gov already do what they want anyway, regardless of our rights. Aren't they really just temporary privlages. Look at Japanese-American internment camps in 1942. No right to a lawyer and no right to a fair trial.

You can say I have this right or that right and put it in the bill of rights but that paper means nothing when the Gov still does what they want regardless of what that document says.

"My rights get trampled over all the time, so what's the big deal, really?" is an argument in favour of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. I'm not going to argue that because it goes beyond the scope of the thread, I just want you to realise that.

 

[smf]

What I said, specifically, is that the system is not arbitrary, and it's not, as illustrated by the overturned convictions based on newfound evidence you just mentioned. If you need help understanding what the word "arbitrary" means, I did post a dictionary definition earlier. If you need a shovel to dig yourself a deeper hole, try Home Depot, or in your case, B&Q.

As it's impossible to identify and overcome all jury bias, there will be cases where the decision is arbitrary. If it weren't then appeals/retrials would not come to another decision.

The idea of innocent until proven is guilty is an ideal that isn't met in practice, some trials end up as a popularity contest.

If the jurors can ignore testimony and evidence on a whim then the system is still arbitrary.

But yeah, keep digging. How does it feel to not understand the point when it's right there in your face?

And even if you pick the perfect jury, then human nature slips in.

https://voxeu.org/article/path-dependency-jury-decision-making

Simple tabulations indicate that a defendant had a 10 percentage point higher chance of being convicted if their case followed a defendant who was convicted (69% conviction rate) versus one who was acquitted (59% conviction rate).


Based on that, a more formal regression analysis finds that the raw positive autocorrelation in the data is, in fact, causal in nature. This analysis studies within-jury decisions, and controls for all observable case characteristics (including more than 30 offence categories). A previous guilty verdict significantly increases the chance of a subsequent guilty verdict by between 6.7% and 14.1%. This positive autocorrelation is robust to multiple estimation strategies, independent of the extent of juror experience, and driven by the most recent cases as well as pairs of similar cases.

 

[Foxi4]

As it's impossible to identify and overcome all jury bias, there will be cases where the decision is arbitrary. If it weren't then appeals/retrials would not come to another decision.

The idea of innocent until proven is guilty is an ideal that isn't met in practice, some trials end up as a popularity contest.

If the jurors can ignore testimony and evidence on a whim then the system is still arbitrary.

But yeah, keep digging. How does it feel to not understand the point when it's right there in your face?

And even if you pick the perfect jury, then human nature slips in.

https://voxeu.org/article/path-dependency-jury-decision-making

Simple tabulations indicate that a defendant had a 10 percentage point higher chance of being convicted if their case followed a defendant who was convicted (69% conviction rate) versus one who was acquitted (59% conviction rate).


Based on that, a more formal regression analysis finds that the raw positive autocorrelation in the data is, in fact, causal in nature. This analysis studies within-jury decisions, and controls for all observable case characteristics (including more than 30 offence categories). A previous guilty verdict significantly increases the chance of a subsequent guilty verdict by between 6.7% and 14.1%. This positive autocorrelation is robust to multiple estimation strategies, independent of the extent of juror experience, and driven by the most recent cases as well as pairs of similar cases.

It's still not an arbitrary system, rather it's human nature that prevents a jury from making a perfectly unbiased judgement. All systems are subject to occasional anomalous behaviours or outcomes - that doesn't make them arbitrary. I'm not going to waste any more time on this, it has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

 

[linuxares]

I got nr2 yesterday. Today I feel like a wreck... someone please take my joints

 

[KingVamp]

1. The tax cuts benefitted every single level of the income ladder
2. Serving in the military is not a right
3. Boo-hoo
4. You'll just have to figure that one out yourself, this is not the subject of this thread

1) This has been discussed to death and you are right, this is not the subject of this thread.
2) Rather you think it is a right or not, it still shows once again that they discriminate against this group.
3) Pollution is disrupting people's liberty at a large scale.

From internal and external threats, not from the consequences of people's own decisions in regards to their own health.

This virus is a threat, their decision to not take precautions doesn't just effect themselves.

From internal and external threats, not from the consequences of people's own decisions in regards to their own health. I could protect you pretty well too - I can lock you up in a plexiglass cube, I guarantee that you will never fall ill, get assaulted or otherwise harmed. The cost is just your rights - great, based on your train of thought.

I could give you full liberty too. Let's just throw out all government rules. In fact, let's throw all the rules out. I'm sure that wouldn't cause complete chaos and death, but maybe that's worth it, based on your train of thought.

I can exaggerate too.

Requiring someone to wear a specific kind of garment does not infringe on their right to bodily integrity, does not force them to undergo a medical procedure against their consent (in violation of the 4th amendment which guarantees a citizen is "secure in their person" which extends beyond seizures and the 5th + 14th amendments which clearly state that no person can be deprived of their life, *liberty* or property without due process, these three being the basis for treatment refusal in the U.S.) and causes them no potential harm. Vaccines *can* cause harm, albeit unintentionally - the risk is infinitesimally small, vaccine injury is exceedingly rare, but all you can hope for is informed consent. There are pre-existing expectations in regards to dress code, there are no such expectations in regards to medical history, which is an entirely private matter.

I see. You have nuance when it comes to liberty, but when people were doing the same for what businesses shouldn't or should be able to do, you claim that they were contradicting themselves.

causes them no potential harm.

Not seeing this anywhere. Not to mention, this is so vague, the government wouldn't be able to protect anyone unless it was 100% safe. Pre-existing expectations like Jacobson v. Massachusetts and kids going to school?

 

[Foxi4]

The ease with which you guys are getting trolled on low tier bait is remarkable. Perhaps the section would've been much cleaner if you didn't respond to trolls and reported their posts instead. Last page detonated. If someone's breaking the rules of the board, it's in your best interest not to play their game - they'll beat you, they have more practice.

1) This has been discussed to death and you are right, this is not the subject of this thread.

Yes, I am.

2) Rather you think it is a right or not, it still shows once again that they discriminate against this group.

The military is under no obligation to hire anyone and is entitled to have specific standards in regards to servicemen and servicewomen. It's one of the only organisations in the country which *can* discriminate on the basis of physical capabilities, and they set the bar of what is and is not acceptable.

3) Pollution is disrupting people's liberty at a large scale.

The environment is not your property.

This virus is a threat, their decision to not take precautions doesn't just effect themselves.

This factor only matters when there are externalities. The existence of a readily available vaccine nullifies said externalities - people who are worried about the virus can and should get vaccinated, which is well-within their agency. Those who like to live dangerously don't have to do that, often at their own peril.

I could give you full liberty too. Let's just throw out all government rules. In fact, let's throw all the rules out. I'm sure that wouldn't cause complete chaos and death, but maybe that's worth it, based on your train of thought.

Threatening me with a good time will not be effective.

I can exaggerate too.

I noticed.

I see. You have nuance when it comes to liberty, but when people were doing the same for what businesses shouldn't or should be able to do, you claim that they were contradicting themselves.

I claimed that because they were contradicting themselves, yes.

Not seeing this anywhere. Not to mention, this is so vague, the government wouldn't be able to protect anyone unless it was 100% safe. Pre-existing expectations like Jacobson v. Massachusetts and kids going to school?

If you have no means of proving that they do cause harm then they de facto don't until proven otherwise. There are zero people who have died due to wearing a face mask - that's a pretty good track record.

 

[smf]

It's still not an arbitrary system, rather it's human nature that prevents a jury from making a perfectly unbiased judgement.

So if you ignore the arbitrariness in the system then it's no longer arbitrary. Got it, perfect sense. Gold star.

Isn't that the same for everything though?

The best thing is you can gloss over the imperfections because if the jury thought the person was guilty then the wider public probably too. Until they are the ones facing the jury of course.

I don't think trying to make something not arbitrary counts, if you don't actually achieve it.

 

[Foxi4]

So if you ignore the arbitrariness in the system then it's no longer arbitrary. Got it, perfect sense. Gold star.

Isn't that the same for everything though?

I don't know why you have such a huge hate boner for me, but following me around the politics section and injecting yourself into conversations I'm having with other people completely unprompted isn't very productive - you're just collecting L's each time. I already explained what the word "arbitrary" means, it is not my job to supplement your education. Don't waste my time, if you have nothing to add to the COVID discussion then you have no reason to post here.

 

[ut2k4master]

I got nr2 yesterday. Today I feel like a wreck... someone please take my joints

i got lucky i guess. i got biontech twice and didnt really have any side effects apart from a very minor pain in the arm for a few hours

 

[smf]

I don't know why you have such a huge hate boner for me, but following me around the politics section and injecting yourself into conversations I'm having with other people completely unprompted isn't very productive - you're just collecting L's each time.

My L score is 0, you're getting close to a numeric overflow. We'll have to go to 64 bit.

I don't have a hate boner for you, just your warped attitude to everything. Which is clear when I made a point and then you derailed with your pedantic and incorrect meltdown.

You seem unable to have conversations with people who disagree, you have to derail them and then throw in insults because your points are so weak.

You don't get to decide who takes part in conversations.

I already explained what the word "arbitrary" means, it is not my job to supplement your education. Don't waste my time, if you have nothing to add to the COVID discussion then you have no reason to post here.

You explained what you thought it meant and because you're arrogant, you thought that would win.

If you think I'm being a dick to you, it's probably because you're being a dick to everyone.

Hopefully you're stop wasting everyone's time and go somewhere else. Or grow up, but I doubt that will happen.

 

[Foxi4]

My L score is 0, you're getting close to a numeric overflow. We'll have to go to 64 bit.

I don't have a hate boner for you, just your warped attitude to everything. Which is clear when I made a point and then you derailed with your pedantic and incorrect meltdown.

You seem unable to have conversations with people who disagree, you have to derail them and then throw in insults because your points are so weak.

You don't get to decide who takes part in conversations.

You explained what you thought it meant and because you're arrogant, you thought that would win.

If you think I'm being a dick to you, it's probably because you're being a dick to everyone.

Hopefully you're stop wasting everyone's time and go somewhere else. Or grow up, but I doubt that will happen.

You'll have to argue that one with the dictionary, since that's literally where the definition was copied from. Further attempts to derail the thread will be deleted.

 

[ghjfdtg]

I got nr2 yesterday. Today I feel like a wreck... someone please take my joints

Been there. It will get better in 1-2 days usually. It's well worth it considering the risks from the virus.

 

[linuxares]

Been there. It will get better in 1-2 days usually. It's well worth it considering the risks from the virus.

For sure! I rather feel shit now than being in hospital for a preventable disease.