Debates
16 Jun 21
The UK government has today announced that all care home workers have to be covid vaccinated, by law. I stand vehemently against this move, especially on what are still essentially experimental vaccines.
I’m not against vaccination, I’m against dictatorial use of Parliamentary power being leveraged to force people to have chemicals injected into them.
Thoughts?
@divegeester saidOk, Metal Brain.
The UK government has today announced that all care home workers have to be covid vaccinated, by law. I stand vehemently against this move, especially on what are still essentially experimental vaccines.
I’m not against vaccination, I’m against dictatorial use of Parliamentary power being leveraged to force people to have chemicals injected into them.
Thoughts?
16 Jun 21
@divegeester saidSuzianne?
Are you in approval of US citizens being required, by law, to take certain vaccinations?
@divegeester saidYes. Over 600,000 of us have died already at the hands of Covid-19. That's too damned many.
Are you in approval of US citizens being required, by law, to take certain vaccinations?
The US is charged with the safety of its citizens. See here in the US, we have a document called the Constitution.
The beginning of this document is this:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Oh, wait, you don't believe in such a thing, do you?
Carry on, then.
16 Jun 21
@divegeester saidYou need to ask your dictators this:
The UK government has today announced that all care home workers have to be covid vaccinated, by law. I stand vehemently against this move, especially on what are still essentially experimental vaccines.
I’m not against vaccination, I’m against dictatorial use of Parliamentary power being leveraged to force people to have chemicals injected into them.
Thoughts?
"Why do those 97 percent of population who are perfectly healthy with natural immunity need an artificial vaccine? And what evidence do you have that vaccine-induced antibodies are any better than their existing antibodies? And what damage insurance will you provide in case of nasty side-effects from artificial vaccine?"
16 Jun 21
@divegeester saidThese are people caring for those most at risk of death from COVID19.
The UK government has today announced that all care home workers have to be covid vaccinated, by law. I stand vehemently against this move, especially on what are still essentially experimental vaccines.
I’m not against vaccination, I’m against dictatorial use of Parliamentary power being leveraged to force people to have chemicals injected into them.
Thoughts?
Doesn't that make it quite a bit different from requiring everyone to get vaccinated?
16 Jun 21
@suzianne saidAnd I'm sure if Donald Trump had ordered everyone to inject hydroxychloroquine you'd have rolled your sleeve right up.
Yes. Over 600,000 of us have died already at the hands of Covid-19. That's too damned many.
The US is charged with the safety of its citizens. See here in the US, we have a document called the Constitution.
The beginning of this document is this:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tr ...[text shortened]... nited States of America."
Oh, wait, you don't believe in such a thing, do you?
Carry on, then.
please, suzie.
16 Jun 21
@divegeester saidNo.
Does your constitution talk about or refer in any way to “freedom” in terms of having the choice to have chemicals inserted into you by law?
Over 100 years ago the Supreme Court upheld a State law which " empowered the board of health of individual cities and towns to enforce mandatory, free vaccinations for adults over the age of 21 if the municipality determined it was necessary for the public health or safety of the community.[2]".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
A sentence from the Court's decision:
" "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."[2]
Do you find such reasoning objectionable?