Debates
16 Jun 21
@no1marauder saidDeeming a person a threat to society is one thing. The government determining the remedy is another.
No.
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 senten ...[text shortened]... dless of the injury that may be done to others.[/b]"[2]
Do you find such reasoning objectionable?
Vaccinations are very intrusive, something that I don't think the founding fathers would ever support.
Do you support forced sterilizations for unwed mothers on welfare? *intrusive*, but it works!
How about forced nicotine patches for smokers (2nd hand smoke)? And on and on...
@earl-of-trumps saidYour examples are fallacious; unwed mothers pose no danger to others like an infectious, deadly disease.
Deeming a person a threat to society is one thing. The government determining the remedy is another.
Vaccinations are very intrusive, something that I don't think the founding fathers would ever support.
Do you support forced sterilizations for unwed mothers on welfare? *intrusive*, but it works!
How about forced nicotine patches for smokers (2nd hand smoke)? And on and on...
There's a long history of mandatory measures in the US to control outbreaks of disease:
"The earliest recorded quarantines in the colonies were against smallpox, dating back at least to the 1620s. The first formal quarantine law enacted by one of the American colonies followed in 1647, in Massachusetts. By the early 18th century, Massachusetts added a law permitting local authorities to isolate ill people in separate houses.
After independence, coastal states commonly enacted quarantine laws requiring ships’ crews and passengers to remain aboard for a specified period before disembarking. In 1855, Louisiana authorized the Board of Health to establish a quarantine station 75 miles downriver from New Orleans, inspect incoming ships there and quarantine incoming passengers there as necessary."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/long-history-coercive-health-responses-american-law
17 Jun 21
@divegeester saidOh, a nice debate. I do love ethics.
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?
So, can a government enforce policies on individuals to create a safer or better environment for the masses?
Like traffic lights. School.
Seatbelts? That’s probably more down to insurance companies…
Speed limits.
Laws against theft, even if you’re starving?
Taxes?
Imprisonment?
Yeah. Let’s take that last one. Say person A rapes me. And I take revenge and murder A. I go to prison. Say in my revenge, I take out, accidentally, A’s whole family (burn down the house or something). Should I get a longer prison sentence?
Oh. I’m off-track. Uh, let’s see…
We know corona spreads faster with various mutations. Delta already influencing the easing of UK lockdown restrictions negatively.
So, bad for the economy, etc.
Does the economy weigh in heavily enough to impeach individual bodily privacy?
Personally… na.
The more corona spreads, the higher chance of mutations. The more mutations, the higher the chance of an increase in deadliness; an ability to circumvent vaccines.
The more people getting seriously ill, the more the healthcare is strained. The more people are going to die.
Can one argue that by not getting vaccinated you are personally helping to accidentally overload the system and accidentally kill people?
Yes. One probably can.
I don’t know if enforcement is the best method to achieve the needed goals, though.
This is about 1 group of workers. People who work with people who are must vulnerable to the disease.
Say it was a disease that targetted school kids. Do you think teachers should be forced to take the vaccine?
Aren’t there mandatory vaccines when travelling to certain countries?
God… where was I?
Oh. My answer to your question: yes. I think the government can make it mandatory for workers in various fields to take precautions; along the lines of health & safety. But, I think when it gets into personal bodily privacy (health falls under special category privacy laws in the GDPR), if the government wants to make it mandatory, they have the responsibility of offering an alternative job for workers who wish to refuse.
17 Jun 21
@divegeester saidFreedom should be resilient enough to allow freedom to everyone.
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?
Including the freedom to not have to pay for your trip to the grocer's with death from Covid.
17 Jun 21
@no1marauder saidHaving vaccinated persons in close contact with vaccinated elderly increases the latter's risk.
Vaccinations reduce risk, but they can't eliminate it. Having non-vaccinated persons in close contact with even vaccinated elderly increases the latter's risk.
Life is risk.
@no1marauder - quoted:
"' By the early 18th century, Massachusetts added a law permitting local authorities to isolate ill people in separate houses.'"
This is what I mean when I say that there are alternatives to actually injecting someone with an unsafe chemical.
And tell me, this law in your quote above surely was found unconstitutional, was it not? Because I Sure remember
when the not understood HI virus was first in America and killing all victims, there was sure talk about isolation
and there sure was talk as to why that was *unconstitutional*. Imagine that.
17 Jun 21
@no1marauder saidIt’s a precedent. Also there is (was) currently a law in place protecting citizens from being forced to have vaccinations. It’s an old statute.
These are people caring for those most at risk of death from COVID19.
Doesn't that make it quite a bit different from requiring everyone to get vaccinated?
I want to be clear, so I can avoid more of the Suzianne style random fist-swinging scorn, that I’m not anti-vaccination. I’m anti fascism. I see this move as facist in nature.
@no1marauder saidBefore I answer you, will you state unequivocally whether or not you support the mandatory injecting of citizens with [experimental] vaccines against their will. These vaccines are still regarded as experimental.
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?
If you object to the “experimental” you may answer the question excluding it. But I would like an unequivocal YES or NO for our RHP record, please.
Thanks.
17 Jun 21
@shavixmir saidI’m fine with all of these as they do not involve injecting a person with chemicals.
So, can a government enforce policies on individuals to create a safer or better environment for the masses?
Like traffic lights. School.
Seatbelts? That’s probably more down to insurance companies…
Speed limits.
Laws against theft, even if you’re starving?
Taxes?
Imprisonment?
Despite your love of ethics, I do hope your post improves in terms of the relativity of your examples because these are hardly relevant.
17 Jun 21
@shavixmir saidWell that’s a good idea and I support that…but.
Oh. My answer to your question: yes. I think the government can make it mandatory for workers in various fields to take precautions; along the lines of health & safety. But, I think when it gets into personal bodily privacy (health falls under special category privacy laws in the GDPR), if the government wants to make it mandatory, they have the responsibility of offering an alternative job for workers who wish to refuse.
The UK is making it LAW for all existing care-workers to be vaccinated …or they will lose their jobs! If people here cannot see the inherent dangers in a government being able to lever this use of power then we are indeed lost.
These vaccines are experimental. It is unknown if they will even have longevity of efficacy, so care workers could be forced by LAW to be injected with new [experimental] vaccines multiple times per year.
It’s horrendous!