One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Conservative Washington Post Says It's Time To Stop Screwing Around With Unv******ted People
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
Jul 23, 2021 21:58:28   #
son of witless
 
Wolfman888 wrote:
Good one, less.

No, I got my shot early and am in the pink; thanks for caring !

Hope you and yours did as well and you aren't spending all your free time

at funerals.


My family and I are v******ted and well. I am at the age where I am going to a lot of friends funerals or viewings, but I am also trying to spend more time around much younger people. They don't die as fast and hopefully they will say a prayer or at least drink a toast to me when I leave this world. We are starting a tradition lately toasting departed loved ones at family outings.

Reply
Jul 23, 2021 22:17:26   #
3507
 
manning5 wrote:
Oho noo, the WAshington POst initials are of general use. WAPO! Bad try at controversy.


I thought the letter W had been copyrighted or patented or something. I use it anyway. Haven't been sued yet, but then I do lead a charmed life.

Reply
Jul 23, 2021 22:58:35   #
EmilyD
 
Wolfman888 wrote:
There is so much unt***h in this rant that no one should even respond to it.

You responded to it to say that you shouldn't respond to it? Ya, that makes sense.

Reply
 
 
Jul 23, 2021 23:20:07   #
FallenOak Loc: St George Utah
 
manning5 wrote:
Oho noo, the WAshington POst initials are of general use. WAPO! Bad try at controversy.


Don't read the washington post so I had no idea what the initials meant except that it is a derogatory term used against those of Italian ancestry.

Reply
Jul 23, 2021 23:42:59   #
3507
 
EmilyD wrote:
Your argument that personal choice does not matter because C***d can be spread to more than one person doesn't hold water. Both people who get the shot and those who don't have the ability to contract and spread C***d to others. There are many other reasons beside spreading the v***s to be considered for both sides of the issue that people should seriously research before making this very important decision. Therefore, personal choice DOES matter.

I am going to say this again because people who argue that the shot is the only way to go seem to (conveniently?) forget that C***d has a recovery rate of 98% - meaning most people (98% of them) who contract the v***s will recover from it. Something to note here: the argument that people who contract C***d could have long-term side effects that would impact their quality of life also holds true for people who have received the shot. BUT...long-term side effects are not known for the v*****e yet, so the consequences of the shot could be more OR less than the consequences of long-term C***d.

I highly recommend everyone thoroughly research the consequences of making the decision to get the injection or not get it. That is what is meant by personal choice.

Saying that you didn't bother to read the rest of my post beyond #2 tells me you think that only your opinion is the important one. You have posted much longer posts than mine, so I know that length of my post isn't the issue...or at least it shouldn't be.
Your argument that personal choice does not matter... (show quote)


This (in my opinion) is another good one. Thank you for writing it.

You wrote: "Both people who get the shot and those who don't have the ability to contract and spread C***d to others."

That is literally true; however, people who get the shot are _much_less_likely_ to contract and spread C***d to others, than people who don't get the shot. That it's "much less likely" is why most people should get the shot as a civic duty. Similarly, if a person gets drunk and goes out speeding on the freeway at night with his lights off, he _probably_ won't k**l anybody that night. But overall people who drink, drive too fast, and drive at night with their lights off _increase_the_chances_ that other people will get k**led or injured. So one can t***hfully say, "Both people who drive drunk, too fast, and with lights off in the dark, and those who don't do those things, might cause fatal accidents." And it's literally true. But the drunk, fast, and lights-off factors increase the risks to other people, and that's why it's a civic duty to not drive drunk, too fast, nor with lights off in the dark.

You wrote: "There are many other reasons beside spreading the v***s to be considered for both sides of the issue that people should seriously research before making this very important decision. Therefore, personal choice DOES matter."

Yes, I think that is a reasonable argument. So, there is an element of personal choice in whether or not to get v******ted for C***d. Meanwhile, there is also an element of civic duty in whether or not to get v******ted for C***d or take other precautions such as limiting contact with other people. Similarly, I had an element of personal choice, when I was 18, in deciding whether or not to register for the military draft. And I also had an element of civic duty, in it. We weigh the factors differently; I think civic duty is the main, or overriding, issue in getting the C***d shot.

I disagree with your assessment (whether original with you or gotten from somewhere else) of the "recovery rate" and its significance. I doubt that 98% of C***d infections result in complete recovery; but _even_ if 98% _did_ result in complete recovery, the remaining "2%" would still probably be a bad enough situation that getting the shot should be regarded as a civic duty for most people. Supposing only 2% of C***d infections don't result in a complete recovery. In a national population of 300 million, how many C***d infections are there: probably way more than 100 million total by the time the p******c is over. 2% of 100 million would be 2 million. How many of those 2 million would actually die from C***d: well, so far we've already had about 2/3 of a million deaths in the U.S. from (or at least attributed to) C***d (and they've also compared overall death rates (from any causes) before and after the p******c, so the attributions to C***d are overall corroborated statistically), and the p******c's still got a long way to go before it's over with. How many, not actually dying, would have long-term serious effects from C***d? How many bereaved people, and how many hospitals and morgues overrun? In NYC they had to use big refrigerator trucks on the street for dead bodies, which we were given to understand was unusual. Nurses are getting burnt out from all the tragedy of too many C***d patients. Some of their reports have been in the news.

How many people die in a war, or have damages from a war? So far the Civil War is the closest numerically, in the number of deaths, to the C***d p******c, only considering deaths of U.S. people. Other wars have had fewer deaths of U.S. people. (I left out all the deaths of non-U.S. people, not because they don't matter, but just as a convenience in the comparisons.)

Your comparison of possible long-term effects from the shot, compared with possible long-term effects of C***d, is similar to the earlier statement about "both" kinds of people "having the ability" to contract and spread C***d. Yes it is literally true that we don't know _all_ the complete t***h of what will happen to how many people of each kind. (That's because we'll never know all of the complete t***h, of anything.) But it is sensible to follow the strong indicators, which are that C***d's much worse than the shot (for the vast majority of people, at least). For example: how many people have died from C***d, and how many people have died from any of these shots? That's a strong indicator right there: _way_ more have _already_ died from C***d; and this is true even though a very large number of us have had the shots -- we just aren't dying much in comparison, and the vast majority of us don't notice any problem with the shots at all, even though it's been _months_ since we had them. Meanwhile there have been way more deaths from C***d, even within just _weeks_ of infection, and some more to come from the longer term effects of C***d.

In your previous post (which I believe started out worse than others you've written), I felt that you weren't getting the point anyway, so I didn't want to waste time on the further points (#3 etc.) I just focused on #1 and #2. I was actually somewhat disgusted and thought #1 and #2 should be enough to have to argue, that time, since if we couldn't come to any sense about the first two, then the rest would be futile. I feel much more confident about your more recent post (the one I'm responding to now), so this time I think maybe we will both see the same kind of sense, such that at least we'll understand each other.

And yes it's true that sometimes I write longer. Sometimes I write too long. People don't have to read it all.

Reply
Jul 24, 2021 01:05:40   #
EmilyD
 
3507 wrote:
This (in my opinion) is another good one. Thank you for writing it.

You wrote: "Both people who get the shot and those who don't have the ability to contract and spread C***d to others."

That is literally true; however, people who get the shot are _much_less_likely_ to contract and spread C***d to others, than people who don't get the shot. That it's "much less likely" is why most people should get the shot as a civic duty. Similarly, if a person gets drunk and goes out speeding on the freeway at night with his lights off, he _probably_ won't k**l anybody that night. But overall people who drink, drive too fast, and drive at night with their lights off _increase_the_chances_ that other people will get k**led or injured. So one can t***hfully say, "Both people who drive drunk, too fast, and with lights off in the dark, and those who don't do those things, might cause fatal accidents." And it's literally true. But the drunk, fast, and lights-off factors increase the risks to other people, and that's why it's a civic duty to not drive drunk, too fast, nor with lights off in the dark.

You wrote: "There are many other reasons beside spreading the v***s to be considered for both sides of the issue that people should seriously research before making this very important decision. Therefore, personal choice DOES matter."

Yes, I think that is a reasonable argument. So, there is an element of personal choice in whether or not to get v******ted for C***d. Meanwhile, there is also an element of civic duty in whether or not to get v******ted for C***d or take other precautions such as limiting contact with other people. Similarly, I had an element of personal choice, when I was 18, in deciding whether or not to register for the military draft. And I also had an element of civic duty, in it. We weigh the factors differently; I think civic duty is the main, or overriding, issue in getting the C***d shot.

I disagree with your assessment (whether original with you or gotten from somewhere else) of the "recovery rate" and its significance. I doubt that 98% of C***d infections result in complete recovery; but _even_ if 98% _did_ result in complete recovery, the remaining "2%" would still probably be a bad enough situation that getting the shot should be regarded as a civic duty for most people. Supposing only 2% of C***d infections don't result in a complete recovery. In a national population of 300 million, how many C***d infections are there: probably way more than 100 million total by the time the p******c is over. 2% of 100 million would be 2 million. How many of those 2 million would actually die from C***d: well, so far we've already had about 2/3 of a million deaths in the U.S. from (or at least attributed to) C***d (and they've also compared overall death rates (from any causes) before and after the p******c, so the attributions to C***d are overall corroborated statistically), and the p******c's still got a long way to go before it's over with. How many, not actually dying, would have long-term serious effects from C***d? How many bereaved people, and how many hospitals and morgues overrun? In NYC they had to use big refrigerator trucks on the street for dead bodies, which we were given to understand was unusual. Nurses are getting burnt out from all the tragedy of too many C***d patients. Some of their reports have been in the news.

How many people die in a war, or have damages from a war? So far the Civil War is the closest numerically, in the number of deaths, to the C***d p******c, only considering deaths of U.S. people. Other wars have had fewer deaths of U.S. people. (I left out all the deaths of non-U.S. people, not because they don't matter, but just as a convenience in the comparisons.)

Your comparison of possible long-term effects from the shot, compared with possible long-term effects of C***d, is similar to the earlier statement about "both" kinds of people "having the ability" to contract and spread C***d. Yes it is literally true that we don't know _all_ the complete t***h of what will happen to how many people of each kind. (That's because we'll never know all of the complete t***h, of anything.) But it is sensible to follow the strong indicators, which are that C***d's much worse than the shot (for the vast majority of people, at least). For example: how many people have died from C***d, and how many people have died from any of these shots? That's a strong indicator right there: _way_ more have _already_ died from C***d; and this is true even though a very large number of us have had the shots -- we just aren't dying much in comparison, and the vast majority of us don't notice any problem with the shots at all, even though it's been _months_ since we had them. Meanwhile there have been way more deaths from C***d, even within just _weeks_ of infection, and some more to come from the longer term effects of C***d.

In your previous post (which I believe started out worse than others you've written), I felt that you weren't getting the point anyway, so I didn't want to waste time on the further points (#3 etc.) I just focused on #1 and #2. I was actually somewhat disgusted and thought #1 and #2 should be enough to have to argue, that time, since if we couldn't come to any sense about the first two, then the rest would be futile. I feel much more confident about your more recent post (the one I'm responding to now), so this time I think maybe we will both see the same kind of sense, such that at least we'll understand each other.

And yes it's true that sometimes I write longer. Sometimes I write too long. People don't have to read it all.
This (in my opinion) is another good one. Thank y... (show quote)


You say that it is my civic duty to get a v*****e. All US citizens have the freedoms, protections and legal rights that the Constitution promises. And citizens also have the responsibility, or "civic duty," to meet certain societal standards and guidelines, that's true. But civic responsibilities include both those that are voluntary as well as those required by law. An example of a voluntary civic duty would be v****g in e******ns. One can choose to either v**e or not v**e. There is no penalty for choosing either option. An example of a mandatory civic duty would be jury duty...or obeying the law. You cannot choose to disobey the law... if you do, you would pay a penalty.

Getting this v*****e is a voluntary civic duty. One where the citizen has a choice to either get inoculated or not. With v****g, you can fill out a b****t and v**e, or not...just like you can go get the inoculation or not. It is a personal choice. That some people believe that personal choice is "wrong" is a matter of opinion - hopefully an opinion that is based on studying the pro's and con's of both sides of an issue. Having an opinion is another example of personal choice - the choice to believe in something they agree with or not. Someone who disagrees with someone else's decision to refrain from v****g or getting a v*****e has the freedom to express their opinion about it, that is their right of free speech which is given to us by our Constitution. But it is not their right to try to coerce or shame another into doing something they have decided not to do because of information they obtained researching and studying the pro's and con's of the issue at hand. Decisions to get a medical procedure that involves medicines that one will be required to take should most definitely be based on the medical history of that person - something that a stranger who is harping on them to make a decision they do not want to make has no knowledge of.

People should not try to guilt or coerce others to do something they don't want to do - they just don't know everything there is to know about someone else's life....often times even people they are close to!

With regard to the rate of recovery from C***d being 98%, that's not something I pulled out of thin air, it is documented by a very reliable source: Worldometer. The information they record is updated about every five minutes. 2% deaths is bad, yes, and a lot of people are affected by those deaths. But 98% recovery cannot be ignored. A lot of people (multiple millions) are NOT dead who contracted C***d because of that extremely high recovery rate. Following Worldometer report is a factcheck rating of Worldometer, so you can see that it is an unbiased source of information:





Reply
Jul 24, 2021 05:34:02   #
3507
 
EmilyD wrote:
You say that it is my civic duty to get a v*****e. All US citizens have the freedoms, protections and legal rights that the Constitution promises. And citizens also have the responsibility, or "civic duty," to meet certain societal standards and guidelines, that's true. But civic responsibilities include both those that are voluntary as well as those required by law. An example of a voluntary civic duty would be v****g in e******ns. One can choose to either v**e or not v**e. There is no penalty for choosing either option. An example of a mandatory civic duty would be jury duty...or obeying the law. You cannot choose to disobey the law... if you do, you would pay a penalty.

Getting this v*****e is a voluntary civic duty. One where the citizen has a choice to either get inoculated or not. With v****g, you can fill out a b****t and v**e, or not...just like you can go get the inoculation or not. It is a personal choice. That some people believe that personal choice is "wrong" is a matter of opinion - hopefully an opinion that is based on studying the pro's and con's of both sides of an issue. Having an opinion is another example of personal choice - the choice to believe in something they agree with or not. Someone who disagrees with someone else's decision to refrain from v****g or getting a v*****e has the freedom to express their opinion about it, that is their right of free speech which is given to us by our Constitution. But it is not their right to try to coerce or shame another into doing something they have decided not to do because of information they obtained researching and studying the pro's and con's of the issue at hand. Decisions to get a medical procedure that involves medicines that one will be required to take should most definitely be based on the medical history of that person - something that a stranger who is harping on them to make a decision they do not want to make has no knowledge of.

People should not try to guilt or coerce others to do something they don't want to do - they just don't know everything there is to know about someone else's life....often times even people they are close to!

With regard to the rate of recovery from C***d being 98%, that's not something I pulled out of thin air, it is documented by a very reliable source: Worldometer. The information they record is updated about every five minutes. 2% deaths is bad, yes, and a lot of people are affected by those deaths. But 98% recovery cannot be ignored. A lot of people (multiple millions) are NOT dead who contracted C***d because of that extremely high recovery rate. Following Worldometer report is a factcheck rating of Worldometer, so you can see that it is an unbiased source of information:
You say that it is my civic duty to get a v*****e.... (show quote)


Some v******tions for other diseases are already required by laws, for example for children entering public school. Are you against those laws? You said:

"An example of a mandatory civic duty would be jury duty...or obeying the law. You cannot choose to disobey the law... if you do, you would pay a penalty."

Regarding "mandatory civic duty" and "cannot choose":

In an earlier example, I wrote: "...having to register for the draft when I was 18. That was a mandate, or something as severe as a mandate. Did it interfere with my 'personal choice'?"

You didn't answer that.

My point about the draft is that there are similarities with v******tion. I'll explain more about that below (at length).

Regarding the draft, there was both an element of personal choice and an element of civic duty. I _could_ choose to disobey the law or try to get around it. As you've said, there could be a penalty.

I really did NOT want to go shoot at strangers and all the rest of it. I wasn't even old enough or experienced enough or educated enough to evaluate such a war and know which was the right side of it. (Just the fact that I was born in a country doesn't mean the country is always right.). But, I also knew there was a duty. I believed that at least _some_ times we might have to k**l to defend our country. A lot of boys and men have been and will be in this situation. The theory of the draft, I figure, is that if there's shooting and being shot at, that has to be done, then _somebody_ has to do it.

Instead of a reasoned approach, like to think "What is this war for? Why are we fighting it?" we were just ordered to suspend wh**ever our thought process was and just sign up for the war lottery -- to shoot at wh**ever people the government pointed us at. And be shot at, of course; it's all a two-way street; something was going on in Vietnam where young men over there were also having to shoot and be shot at. A lot of them probably understood it as much as I did, which was: not much at all; and they had to do what their government ordered them to do. I consider myself lucky that I was not one of the randomly "Selected" men for such Service.

Where was all the talk about "personal choice" back then?

In various stages, "we" were just treated as cannon fodder -- not so much me personally (I did have to register, but then didn't get Selected), but young men in general at that time. Randomly selected to go risk death and k**l others for some cause we/they didn't, and couldn't really, understand.

And our country's NOT always right. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. It's pretty much like most other countries in that way.

- + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +

Now we are considering whether to have a "mandate", or law, that says people have to be v******ted against C***d. If passed it would be a law intended to protect the public.

There are lots of laws intended to protect the public. Most, maybe all, of them have an element of personal choice and an element of civic duty. I'll number some examples #1 through #4:

There are:

(#1) some laws requiring v******tions against some diseases before attending public school.

There was when I was 18 (#2) a law that said I had to enter a lottery for whether I had to shoot and get shot at (the military draft in the U.S.-Vietnam war era); the idea being (if I understand it correctly) that we were protecting our nation from an enemy.

Now there might be (#3) a law that says people have to get v******ted against C***d (the enemy in that case is the C***d v***s).

All three (including #3 if it were passed) are laws intended, or at least ostensibly intended, to protect the public. And there are other such examples:

(#4) The law against drunk driving is to protect the public from the risks to them from drunk drivers.

If your arguments (about personal choice and civic duty) are good they should apply similarly, not just to the considered C***d law but also to other such examples. In each case there's an element of personal choice and also an element of civic duty.

- + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +

The C***d v***s in its multitudes is a hazard to us. It has already caused more U.S. deaths than any war we've ever had.

In the U.S.-Vietnam war, some people in government made a law that made men of a certain age subject to shooting strangers or being shot at by strangers -- not _all_ such men, but a lot of them, through a random se******n process: a lottery: the Selective Service, or Draft, and then assignments -- some were sent to the front lines, and some to other places, and a lot of them didn't call that a personal choice! And now:

Now, the C***d v***s is as much a hazard to us as (especially when we were living and working in the U.S.) any of the people in Vietnam were. But instead of a law that requires some of us to shoot strangers and be shot at by strangers, we might have a law that says we have to get v******ted. Bullets k**l people, v*****es k**l (or prevent, therefore k*****g by attrition) v***ses. Gunfighting is risky, being v******ted is much less risky.

I am so lucky; not only did I get a high draft number and didn't have to go shoot strangers and be shot at by strangers, but this time around (not having to register for a Draft this time) all I had to do was get a couple of v*****e shots, plus boosters to come, I think. Like almost everybody else who got v******ted, I had no adverse effects at all. If there are any future, delayed adverse effects from it, they'll probably be a lot easier to take than Agent Orange or PTSD from a gun-fighting war. I'm happy to trade in the risk of getting long C***d, and instead take the risk of the v*****e.

I suppose some people (who are they -- maybe mostly Republicans?) will say they'd prefer shooting at (in 1971) Vietnamese people rather than (in 2021) accepting a v*****e that k**ls v***ses or prevents them from invading their bodies. Do they think, "nicer v***s, more evil Vietnamese"? Do they think "CIVIC DUTY to shoot strangers and be shot at by strangers; PERSONAL CHOICE whether to harbor, and aid and abet, the enemy v***s"? Do they think, "Invade a country and get shot at by bullets, shucks that's okay, it's a civic duty; v******ted, not on your life, that's _dangerous_!"?

And so on.

- + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +

Also, I want to set the record straight. In an earlier post, you said "Saying that you didn't bother to read the rest of my post beyond #2 ...". But what I had actually said was: "That's as far as I read; I didn't look at your #3, etc.
". I was letting you know as a courtesy. There's a difference between "didn't look at" and "saying" that I "didn't bother". I could have been short on time.

When you took offense and rephrased it as you did, then I did admit I had been somewhat disgusted.

- + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +

I'm looking back now, to reply to #8 (social contract): You asked "A 'social contract'?? Where is that found?" I was referring to the philosophy of government (or of society, or of civilization), not a specific legal document. The phrase "social contract" is in fairly common usage:

https://iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live.

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.

Even if you don't call it a "social contract", there is nonetheless some form of common understanding and some form of cooperation. "Social contract" is just a name that some people like to call that.

I notice those two sources differ in the detail: "the Age of Enlightenment" is not "nearly as old as philosophy itself". But old, anyway. When I said "social contract" I meant the idea that there's enough common understanding and cooperation to have a working society; and I meant that, for a nation, that usually involves a government, as opposed to chaos.

Reply
 
 
Jul 24, 2021 07:34:58   #
Old Thinker
 
FallenOak wrote:
Is WAPO a derogative term aimed at those of Italian descent? I take exception for my wife's side of our family. You have even pretended it is Italian by adding the O to the end of the word as do those who make fun of Italians.


WOP was considered derogatory... it meant "Without papers"

Reply
Jul 24, 2021 08:15:14   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
EmilyD wrote:
You say that it is my civic duty to get a v*****e. All US citizens have the freedoms, protections and legal rights that the Constitution promises. And citizens also have the responsibility, or "civic duty," to meet certain societal standards and guidelines, that's true. But civic responsibilities include both those that are voluntary as well as those required by law. An example of a voluntary civic duty would be v****g in e******ns. One can choose to either v**e or not v**e. There is no penalty for choosing either option. An example of a mandatory civic duty would be jury duty...or obeying the law. You cannot choose to disobey the law... if you do, you would pay a penalty.

Getting this v*****e is a voluntary civic duty. One where the citizen has a choice to either get inoculated or not. With v****g, you can fill out a b****t and v**e, or not...just like you can go get the inoculation or not. It is a personal choice. That some people believe that personal choice is "wrong" is a matter of opinion - hopefully an opinion that is based on studying the pro's and con's of both sides of an issue. Having an opinion is another example of personal choice - the choice to believe in something they agree with or not. Someone who disagrees with someone else's decision to refrain from v****g or getting a v*****e has the freedom to express their opinion about it, that is their right of free speech which is given to us by our Constitution. But it is not their right to try to coerce or shame another into doing something they have decided not to do because of information they obtained researching and studying the pro's and con's of the issue at hand. Decisions to get a medical procedure that involves medicines that one will be required to take should most definitely be based on the medical history of that person - something that a stranger who is harping on them to make a decision they do not want to make has no knowledge of.

People should not try to guilt or coerce others to do something they don't want to do - they just don't know everything there is to know about someone else's life....often times even people they are close to!

With regard to the rate of recovery from C***d being 98%, that's not something I pulled out of thin air, it is documented by a very reliable source: Worldometer. The information they record is updated about every five minutes. 2% deaths is bad, yes, and a lot of people are affected by those deaths. But 98% recovery cannot be ignored. A lot of people (multiple millions) are NOT dead who contracted C***d because of that extremely high recovery rate. Following Worldometer report is a factcheck rating of Worldometer, so you can see that it is an unbiased source of information:
You say that it is my civic duty to get a v*****e.... (show quote)


Only 626,658 deaths?

Reply
Jul 24, 2021 09:33:47   #
FallenOak Loc: St George Utah
 
Old Thinker wrote:
WOP was considered derogatory... it meant "Without papers"


I knew that.

Reply
Jul 24, 2021 10:40:11   #
EmilyD
 
3507 wrote:
Some v******tions for other diseases are already required by laws, for example for children entering public school. Are you against those laws? You said:

"An example of a mandatory civic duty would be jury duty...or obeying the law. You cannot choose to disobey the law... if you do, you would pay a penalty."

Regarding "mandatory civic duty" and "cannot choose":

In an earlier example, I wrote: "...having to register for the draft when I was 18. That was a mandate, or something as severe as a mandate. Did it interfere with my 'personal choice'?"

You didn't answer that.

My point about the draft is that there are similarities with v******tion. I'll explain more about that below (at length).

Regarding the draft, there was both an element of personal choice and an element of civic duty. I _could_ choose to disobey the law or try to get around it. As you've said, there could be a penalty.

I really did NOT want to go shoot at strangers and all the rest of it. I wasn't even old enough or experienced enough or educated enough to evaluate such a war and know which was the right side of it. (Just the fact that I was born in a country doesn't mean the country is always right.). But, I also knew there was a duty. I believed that at least _some_ times we might have to k**l to defend our country. A lot of boys and men have been and will be in this situation. The theory of the draft, I figure, is that if there's shooting and being shot at, that has to be done, then _somebody_ has to do it.

Instead of a reasoned approach, like to think "What is this war for? Why are we fighting it?" we were just ordered to suspend wh**ever our thought process was and just sign up for the war lottery -- to shoot at wh**ever people the government pointed us at. And be shot at, of course; it's all a two-way street; something was going on in Vietnam where young men over there were also having to shoot and be shot at. A lot of them probably understood it as much as I did, which was: not much at all; and they had to do what their government ordered them to do. I consider myself lucky that I was not one of the randomly "Selected" men for such Service.

Where was all the talk about "personal choice" back then?

In various stages, "we" were just treated as cannon fodder -- not so much me personally (I did have to register, but then didn't get Selected), but young men in general at that time. Randomly selected to go risk death and k**l others for some cause we/they didn't, and couldn't really, understand.

And our country's NOT always right. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. It's pretty much like most other countries in that way.

- + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +

Now we are considering whether to have a "mandate", or law, that says people have to be v******ted against C***d. If passed it would be a law intended to protect the public.

There are lots of laws intended to protect the public. Most, maybe all, of them have an element of personal choice and an element of civic duty. I'll number some examples #1 through #4:

There are:

(#1) some laws requiring v******tions against some diseases before attending public school.

There was when I was 18 (#2) a law that said I had to enter a lottery for whether I had to shoot and get shot at (the military draft in the U.S.-Vietnam war era); the idea being (if I understand it correctly) that we were protecting our nation from an enemy.

Now there might be (#3) a law that says people have to get v******ted against C***d (the enemy in that case is the C***d v***s).

All three (including #3 if it were passed) are laws intended, or at least ostensibly intended, to protect the public. And there are other such examples:

(#4) The law against drunk driving is to protect the public from the risks to them from drunk drivers.

If your arguments (about personal choice and civic duty) are good they should apply similarly, not just to the considered C***d law but also to other such examples. In each case there's an element of personal choice and also an element of civic duty.

- + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +

The C***d v***s in its multitudes is a hazard to us. It has already caused more U.S. deaths than any war we've ever had.

In the U.S.-Vietnam war, some people in government made a law that made men of a certain age subject to shooting strangers or being shot at by strangers -- not _all_ such men, but a lot of them, through a random se******n process: a lottery: the Selective Service, or Draft, and then assignments -- some were sent to the front lines, and some to other places, and a lot of them didn't call that a personal choice! And now:

Now, the C***d v***s is as much a hazard to us as (especially when we were living and working in the U.S.) any of the people in Vietnam were. But instead of a law that requires some of us to shoot strangers and be shot at by strangers, we might have a law that says we have to get v******ted. Bullets k**l people, v*****es k**l (or prevent, therefore k*****g by attrition) v***ses. Gunfighting is risky, being v******ted is much less risky.

I am so lucky; not only did I get a high draft number and didn't have to go shoot strangers and be shot at by strangers, but this time around (not having to register for a Draft this time) all I had to do was get a couple of v*****e shots, plus boosters to come, I think. Like almost everybody else who got v******ted, I had no adverse effects at all. If there are any future, delayed adverse effects from it, they'll probably be a lot easier to take than Agent Orange or PTSD from a gun-fighting war. I'm happy to trade in the risk of getting long C***d, and instead take the risk of the v*****e.

I suppose some people (who are they -- maybe mostly Republicans?) will say they'd prefer shooting at (in 1971) Vietnamese people rather than (in 2021) accepting a v*****e that k**ls v***ses or prevents them from invading their bodies. Do they think, "nicer v***s, more evil Vietnamese"? Do they think "CIVIC DUTY to shoot strangers and be shot at by strangers; PERSONAL CHOICE whether to harbor, and aid and abet, the enemy v***s"? Do they think, "Invade a country and get shot at by bullets, shucks that's okay, it's a civic duty; v******ted, not on your life, that's _dangerous_!"?

And so on.

- + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +

Also, I want to set the record straight. In an earlier post, you said "Saying that you didn't bother to read the rest of my post beyond #2 ...". But what I had actually said was: "That's as far as I read; I didn't look at your #3, etc.
". I was letting you know as a courtesy. There's a difference between "didn't look at" and "saying" that I "didn't bother". I could have been short on time.

When you took offense and rephrased it as you did, then I did admit I had been somewhat disgusted.

- + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +

I'm looking back now, to reply to #8 (social contract): You asked "A 'social contract'?? Where is that found?" I was referring to the philosophy of government (or of society, or of civilization), not a specific legal document. The phrase "social contract" is in fairly common usage:

https://iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live.

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.

Even if you don't call it a "social contract", there is nonetheless some form of common understanding and some form of cooperation. "Social contract" is just a name that some people like to call that.

I notice those two sources differ in the detail: "the Age of Enlightenment" is not "nearly as old as philosophy itself". But old, anyway. When I said "social contract" I meant the idea that there's enough common understanding and cooperation to have a working society; and I meant that, for a nation, that usually involves a government, as opposed to chaos.
Some v******tions for other diseases are already r... (show quote)


~~Your second paragraph, which is quoting me, is the answer to the question in your first paragraph. I don't understand why you would ask if I am against any laws, including the ones involving children's' v*****es?? I am a law-abiding citizen!

~~Then you ask me if joining the military via the draft interfered with your personal choice - you said: "You didn't answer that." The draft was a mandatory civic duty law. How could I possibly know what your personal choice would have been of whether to obey that law or not? How can I answer that? As I pointed out, there are guidelines for voluntary civic duties and laws for mandatory civic duties. There's no way I could know, either now or then, what your choice would have been.

~~Then you explain how you felt about the draft and how you struggled with whether to obey that law or not. That was a "personal choice" of yours, but you were thinking about choosing to disobey a law, which would have resulted in a penalty. I disagree that there was no talk about "personal choice" back then. Most draftees obeyed the law and joined the military, but some made the "personal choice" to become conscientious objectors and go to Canada (or elsewhere) to avoid paying the US penalty. There were 171,000 Consciensious Objectors in the Viet Nam war...not an insignificant number.

Legally mandating the C***d "v*****e" would force everyone to have to decide to either obey that law or not (or find a way to get around it like the CO's did back in the days of the draft). People would be forced to undergo a medical procedure where they would be required to inject medicine into their bodies that could possibly affect their health , either short-term or long-term, when they don't know what that effect could be because testing of it is incomplete....and won't be complete for several years! When you say the risk for long-term C***d side-effects are better than the risks of long-term v*****e side-effects, you are stating a falsehood because of that unknown factor. It is also debatable whether that law is protecting the people or hurting them because of that unknown factor. A pretty big factor, IMO!

You say more people die of C***d than in any other war. You can choose that comparison. I choose the comparison of heart disease. A similar amount of people who die from C***d (~600,000) die of heart disease.... every year. The number of C***d deaths (and its variants) will continue to significantly decrease, while the number of heart disease deaths will not. At least for the time being. (That number may go down as our technology gets better.) Therefore, heart disease is much more of a hazard to us than the C***d v***s. So is cancer. The number of cancer deaths per year is around 600,000, too, but it remains close to that number every year, like heart disease. An estimated 15 percent of all human cancers worldwide may be attributed to v***ses. Why haven't v*****es been developed for those cancers? You see, people can come up with statistics for and against receiving the C***d v*****e. You chose one that supported your views and I chose one that supports mine. I'm not sure about deaths from war per year these days. I don't know the stats from how many people died per year for wars in the past compared to deaths in today's wars, but I would guess it is much less on a per-year basis.

You cite 4 examples of mandated laws in your post. In number 1 - children's v*****es - those v*****es were researched, developed and tested for years before the laws were enacted. And they were approved by the FDA. Number 2 - the draft was for protecting the people at home from the war. It was not in place to protect the soldiers fighting the war. There were 2,700,000 US soldiers who fought in the Viet Nam war. 58,220 of them died. So you could say the "recovery rate" of the Vietnam War was 98%. (Coincidentally, the same recovery rate of C***d survivals.) Number 3 - mandatory force of the C***d v*****e - might or might not protect people from harm. We don't know that yet. And Number 4 - drunk driving laws are mandated for obvious reasons. People choosing to drive drunk is not comparable to people choosing to get a v*****e. One decision is made while the person is impaired. The other, to refuse the v*****e, is made mostly by people who are aware of what they are doing. IMO, that's a moot comparison.

162,174,165 people or 49% are fully v******ted in the US as of today. The reasons the rest of us are not v******ted are varied and many. For the governmet to try to force the rest of us to get the v*****e, when some of us are very strongly against it, WILL result in a myriad of law suits. I know I would gat a lawyer. And if he or she couldn't successfully defend me, I would actually consider moving somewhere else that does not mandate v*****es. It is that important to me. And I have a feeling I am not, by far, the only American who feels that way.

Reply
 
 
Jul 24, 2021 10:46:45   #
Rose42
 
Wolfman888 wrote:
Very simple;

1. If you get the shot, you may have c***d symptoms or be hospitalized; but you won't die.

2. If you don't get the shot and get c***d, you, or someone you infect, will probably die.

How hard is that to understand ?


You might not die either way. The s**t is not foolproof and it is still experimental.

How hard is that to understand?

Reply
Jul 24, 2021 11:07:31   #
Squiddiddler Loc: Phoenix
 
EmilyD wrote:
~~Your second paragraph, which is quoting me, is the answer to the question in your first paragraph. I don't understand why you would ask if I am against any laws, including the ones involving children's' v*****es?? I am a law-abiding citizen!

~~Then you ask me if joining the military via the draft interfered with your personal choice - you said: "You didn't answer that." The draft was a mandatory civic duty law. How could I possibly know what your personal choice would have been of whether to obey that law or not? How can I answer that? As I pointed out, there are guidelines for voluntary civic duties and laws for mandatory civic duties. There's no way I could know, either now or then, what your choice would have been.

~~Then you explain how you felt about the draft and how you struggled with whether to obey that law or not. That was a "personal choice" of yours, but you were thinking about choosing to disobey a law, which would have resulted in a penalty. I disagree that there was no talk about "personal choice" back then. Most draftees obeyed the law and joined the military, but some made the "personal choice" to become conscientious objectors and go to Canada (or elsewhere) to avoid paying the US penalty. There were 171,000 Consciensious Objectors in the Viet Nam war...not an insignificant number.

Legally mandating the C***d "v*****e" would force everyone to have to decide to either obey that law or not (or find a way to get around it like the CO's did back in the days of the draft). People would be forced to undergo a medical procedure where they would be required to inject medicine into their bodies that could possibly affect their health , either short-term or long-term, when they don't know what that effect could be because testing of it is incomplete....and won't be complete for several years! When you say the risk for long-term C***d side-effects are better than the risks of long-term v*****e side-effects, you are stating a falsehood because of that unknown factor. It is also debatable whether that law is protecting the people or hurting them because of that unknown factor. A pretty big factor, IMO!

You say more people die of C***d than in any other war. You can choose that comparison. I choose the comparison of heart disease. A similar amount of people who die from C***d (~600,000) die of heart disease.... every year. The number of C***d deaths (and its variants) will continue to significantly decrease, while the number of heart disease deaths will not. At least for the time being. (That number may go down as our technology gets better.) Therefore, heart disease is much more of a hazard to us than the C***d v***s. So is cancer. The number of cancer deaths per year is around 600,000, too, but it remains close to that number every year, like heart disease. An estimated 15 percent of all human cancers worldwide may be attributed to v***ses. Why haven't v*****es been developed for those cancers? You see, people can come up with statistics for and against receiving the C***d v*****e. You chose one that supported your views and I chose one that supports mine. I'm not sure about deaths from war per year these days. I don't know the stats from how many people died per year for wars in the past compared to deaths in today's wars, but I would guess it is much less on a per-year basis.

You cite 4 examples of mandated laws in your post. In number 1 - children's v*****es - those v*****es were researched, developed and tested for years before the laws were enacted. And they were approved by the FDA. Number 2 - the draft was for protecting the people at home from the war. It was not in place to protect the soldiers fighting the war. There were 2,700,000 US soldiers who fought in the Viet Nam war. 58,220 of them died. So you could say the "recovery rate" of the Vietnam War was 98%. (Coincidentally, the same recovery rate of C***d survivals.) Number 3 - mandatory force of the C***d v*****e - might or might not protect people from harm. We don't know that yet. And Number 4 - drunk driving laws are mandated for obvious reasons. People choosing to drive drunk is not comparable to people choosing to get a v*****e. One decision is made while the person is impaired. The other, to refuse the v*****e, is made mostly by people who are aware of what they are doing. IMO, that's a moot comparison.

162,174,165 people or 49% are fully v******ted in the US as of today. The reasons the rest of us are not v******ted are varied and many. For the governmet to try to force the rest of us to get the v*****e, when some of us are very strongly against it, WILL result in a myriad of law suits. I know I would gat a lawyer. And if he or she couldn't successfully defend me, I would actually consider moving somewhere else that does not mandate v*****es. It is that important to me. And I have a feeling I am not, by far, the only American who feels that way.
~~Your second paragraph, which is quoting me, is t... (show quote)


Very good and true reply in answering 3507.

Reply
Jul 24, 2021 11:48:35   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
Squiddiddler wrote:
Very good and true reply in answering 3507.



Reply
Jul 24, 2021 11:54:38   #
EmilyD
 
Squiddiddler wrote:
Very good and true reply in answering 3507.


Thank you kindly! 😊

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.