COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)

[jice]

1 minute ago, pawnman said:

But they are protecting themselves.  They have a lower mortality rate than elderly, but not zero. And the mortality rate from covid among the younger crowd is WAY higher than the mortality rate of the vaccines. 

Let’s not kid ourselves thinking that the government has EITHER the risk to individual or the risk to people outside the military in mind. (though! this is a fantastic PR line we should 100% adopt… “US Air Force, taking shots to keep you safe [clip of loading missiles, clip of AMRAAM leaving the rail, clip of drone spear, clip of 80% of some nonner’s work day getting a 15 second shot]…. 
The risk we’re avoiding by making vaccination mandatory is risk to the unit’s ability to operate world-wide outside a “break glass, COVID-positive superpower coming through” scenario. As long as COVID is the dominant issue in a region, our ability to operate is degraded for as long as we allow individual choice on the matter. 

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I don't have to convince the military anything. It's about to be mandatory. 

So what’s your argument for using government violence on our own people against their consent to force an injection (one that according to new research/CDC admissions, doesn’t work). Muh “It’s mandatory; the Crown said so!” isn’t an argument.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, jice said:

Let’s not kid ourselves thinking that the government has EITHER the risk to individual or the risk to people outside the military in mind. (though! this is a fantastic PR line we should 100% adopt… “US Air Force, taking shots to keep you safe [clip of loading missiles, clip of AMRAAM leaving the rail, clip of drone spear, clip of 80% of some nonner’s work day getting a 15 second shot]…. 
The risk we’re avoiding by making vaccination mandatory is risk to the unit’s ability to operate world-wide outside a “break glass, COVID-positive superpower coming through” scenario. As long as COVID is the dominant issue in a region, our ability to operate is degraded for as long as we allow individual choice on the matter. 

Destroy individual choice of one’s own body because of a virus 99.9% of people recover from? Where was the Federal government’s concern about unit readiness when the U.S. won the high score for childhood obesity, thus a major reason for poor recruitment?

[jice]

Just now, dogfish78 said:

Destroy individual choice of one’s own body because of a virus 99.9% of people recover from? Where was the Federal government’s concern about unit readiness when the U.S. won the high score for childhood obesity, thus a major reason for poor recruitment?

Well… if the people in the military were obese children, I imagine we’d have been giving them lawful orders to lose weight and age. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, jice said:

Well… if the people in the military were obese children, I imagine we’d have been giving them lawful orders to lose weight and age. 

You avoided my question and instead attacked my statement of the Federal government’s hypocrisy that has been displayed through its track record.

If the people in the military were actually at risk, there would’ve been massive death numbers over the past year, but there hasn’t been. It’s been a 99.9% survival rate and you know that. What other rights would you so easily give up if you’re willing to force other humans to be subjected to experimental science juice. Heads up, Pfizer expects $33,000,000,000 in profits this year from the injection.

[Prozac]

52 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:

So what’s your argument for using government violence on our own people against their consent to force an injection (one that according to new research/CDC admissions, doesn’t work). Muh “It’s mandatory; the Crown said so!” isn’t an argument.

Government violence? its a shot, not waterboarding. I know needles are big and scary and everything, but maybe if you're really good and don't throw a tantrum, the nice A1C will let you pick out a lollypop after she jabs you. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Government violence? its a shot, not waterboarding. I know needles are big and scary and everything, but maybe if you're really good and don't throw a tantrum, the nice A1C will let you pick out a lollypop after she jabs you. 

Non-consensual intrusion into a human being’s body. Yes that’s violence. Did you fall asleep during that part of training? Your ad hominem tells me you have no valid argument to counter what I wrote. Sad.

You think I have an issue with needles. I don’t. The issue is the experimental science juice which the lockstep institutions shill for people to be forced to take, yet those same institutions run and hide when asked about long-term effects or when confronted with data of acute affects such as death or permanent disability.

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

Yes but you are talking in such low probabilities right now its insignificant. Seriously, if you really cared about probabilities this low, you would be telling your Airman not to drive to work every day. Accidents still remains the #1 cause of death of young adults, pandemic or not. 

Furthermore, you are making an assertion that you know what is best for them and their lives. That's a very dangerous line of thinking. 

Yeah...only about 40,000 people die in car accidents a year. That's why I never wear a seatbelt... the odds I'll die in a car crash are so low, why risk seatbelt injuries?

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, dogfish78 said:

So what’s your argument for using government violence on our own people against their consent to force an injection (one that according to new research/CDC admissions, doesn’t work). Muh “It’s mandatory; the Crown said so!” isn’t an argument.

Same as the reason I think the government can mandate DUI laws, require airbags in vehicles, require drivers to wear seatbelts... the primary job of a government is to protect its citizens. 

[pawnman]

3 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:

Non-consensual intrusion into a human being’s body. Yes that’s violence. Did you fall asleep during that part of training? Your ad hominem tells me you have no valid argument to counter what I wrote. Sad.

You think I have an issue with needles. I don’t. The issue is the experimental science juice which the lockstep institutions shill for people to be forced to take, yet those same institutions run and hide when asked about long-term effects or when confronted with data of acute affects such as death or permanent disability.

Did you pitch the same fit about the rest of the vaccines the DoD required you to have? 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Did you pitch the same fit about the rest of the vaccines the DoD required you to have? 

Cope.

Why do you still pretend these SARS-CoV-2 immunizations are anything like the immunizations which have been trialed and in use for decades? You classify my grievance of the DoD for doing something heinous (forcing injections) as a “fit”. I wonder what other criticisms of unjust violence upon humans you would classify as a “fit”.

The covid immunizations using mRNA technology, which are a genetic editing drug, killed all animals during trial. The human trials were rushed and not in accordance with standard FDA regulation. A chief scientist of Pfizer spoke out against the rushed administration of the drug with unknown long-term effects. The co-inventor of the mRNA technology spoke out against it as well.

Even in the Johnson&Johnson covid immunization which is an adenovirus immunization not using the mRNA technology, women are experiencing blood clotting and pain in their ovaries.

Irregardless of the unknown effects of these drugs (which we must assume is bad until proven otherwise, logically), the foundational issue is still personal choice if one wants an injection or not. Maybe you should re-read the oath you took.

[pawnman]

1 minute ago, dogfish78 said:

Cope.

Why do you still pretend these SARS-CoV-2 immunizations are anything like the immunizations which have been trialed and in use for decades? You classify my grievance of the DoD for doing something heinous (forcing injections) as a “fit”. I wonder what other criticisms of unjust violence upon humans you would classify as a “fit”.

The covid immunizations using mRNA technology, which are a genetic editing drug, killed all animals during trial. The human trials were rushed and not in accordance with standard FDA regulation. A chief scientist of Pfizer spoke out against the rushed administration of the drug with unknown long-term effects. The co-inventor of the mRNA technology spoke out against it as well.

Even in the Johnson&Johnson covid immunization which is an adenovirus immunization not using the mRNA technology, women are experiencing blood clotting and pain in their ovaries.

Irregardless of the unknown effects of these drugs (which we must assume is bad until proven otherwise, logically), the foundational issue is still personal choice if one wants an injection or not. Maybe you should re-read the oath you took.

Copy...no fit over the other vaccines.

[busdriver]

30 minutes ago, pawnman said:

 the primary job of a government is to protect its citizens. 

This is the fundamental disconnect.  Some agree with you.  Some think the primary purpose of government is protect its citizens rights.

[Scooter14]

This is the fundamental disconnect.  Some agree with you.  Some think the primary purpose of government is protect its citizens rights.

...and others think the government’s purpose is to protect its interests.

Which is why I think it’s interesting that people think that a government that’s looking out for its own best interests would knowingly risk the readiness of their standing army if they knew the vaccine was flawed or harmful in some way.

But...we did put people on boats to stare at nuclear explosions 70 years ago so what do I know.

BTW, I got both shots, I feel fine.

[DUNBAR]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

Government violence? its a shot, not waterboarding. I know needles are big and scary and everything, but maybe if you're really good and don't throw a tantrum, the nice A1C will let you pick out a lollypop after she jabs you. 

Good lord.  Currently the Australian military is patrolling the streets like some dystopian movie to ensure citizens don't leave their homes, and here you are making snarky remarks like that.

Millions of people have genuine doubts and concerns about this vaccination, as well as everything they've been told about this virus by the government.  My entire family has been vaccinated, but I fully understand why some people have elected to avoid the jab.  They have very valid concerns, and a government that changes the playbook every week is not helping.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Same as the reason I think the government can mandate DUI laws, require airbags in vehicles, require drivers to wear seatbelts... the primary job of a government is to protect its citizens. 

False equivalence. Those laws don’t intrude into a human being’s bloodstream through governmental violence. Notwithstanding the acute and long-term effects. In addition, those various laws you mentioned are state laws, which went through a legislative process in our republic form of government. Not issued through the decree of bureaucrats, such as the CDC. See: tyranny. Again, what are the long-term effects? Can I file a lawsuit against the manufacturers if I’m harmed (If not killed before then)? The answers is no, because the Federal government gave them legal immunity in 1986.

[viper154]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Same as the reason I think the government can mandate DUI laws, require airbags in vehicles, require drivers to wear seatbelts... the primary job of a government is to protect its citizens. 

I think revisiting the Constitution and Bill of Rights is worth a look. I’m no constitutional lawyer but it seems our government was founded on protecting citizens from the government. To your examples vs a vaccine, driving is a privilege not a right. (Or at least that is what the government aka the people have decided). To retain that privilege certain requirements must be met. As far as requiring the general public to get a experimental  vaccine (forcing someone to put a foreign substance in their body) that has no long term health data, and possible long term health side effects, I would say fundamentally goes against “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” which can be found in our Declaration of Independence. 
 

As far as the military is concerned, once you sign the paperwork  you are kind of fucked. They can order you to die in combat, they can order you to get a vaccine. 

[pawnman]

21 minutes ago, viper154 said:

I think revisiting the Constitution and Bill of Rights is worth a look. I’m no constitutional lawyer but it seems our government was founded on protecting citizens from the government. To your examples vs a vaccine, driving is a privilege not a right. (Or at least that is what the government aka the people have decided). To retain that privilege certain requirements must be met. As far as requiring the general public to get a experimental  vaccine (forcing someone to put a foreign substance in their body) that has no long term health data, and possible long term health side effects, I would say fundamentally goes against “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” which can be found in our Declaration of Independence. 
 

As far as the military is concerned, once you sign the paperwork  you are kind of fucked. They can order you to die in combat, they can order you to get a vaccine. 

So reaching into things that are rights...do you support background checks on gun sales? ID laws for voting? Selective service?  Restricting immigration? 

[pawnman]

32 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:

False equivalence. Those laws don’t intrude into a human being’s bloodstream through governmental violence. Notwithstanding the acute and long-term effects. In addition, those various laws you mentioned are state laws, which went through a legislative process in our republic form of government. Not issued through the decree of bureaucrats, such as the CDC. See: tyranny. Again, what are the long-term effects? Can I file a lawsuit against the manufacturers if I’m harmed (If not killed before then)? The answers is no, because the Federal government gave them legal immunity in 1986.

There are already laws for mandatory vaccination. 

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, DUNBAR said:

Good lord.  Currently the Australian military is patrolling the streets like some dystopian movie to ensure citizens don't leave their homes, and here you are making snarky remarks like that.

Millions of people have genuine doubts and concerns about this vaccination, as well as everything they've been told about this virus by the government.  My entire family has been vaccinated, but I fully understand why some people have elected to avoid the jab.  They have very valid concerns, and a government that changes the playbook every week is not helping.

 

I’m sure the Australian citizens regret selling their firearms to the government in the 1990s buybacks now. It’s almost as if an armed citizenry keeps tyrants in check. I don’t know. I might need a totally non-biased fact check ™️  on that to tell me I’m wrong.

[Guardian]

“What are things that are already laws, Alex?”

Get it? It’s jeopardy.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, pawnman said:

There are already laws for mandatory vaccination. 

You haven’t given me any valid argument of your own on anything you’ve attempted to argue. This one is no exception. You not only move the goalposts, you revert to the approved establishment talking points for why the government should use violence on it’s own citizens to force a drug.

You’ve got one of the highest burdens of proof to meet to prove to millions of us why our government should shred its Constitution and begin using violence to forcibly inject its people. The only problem for you is, there’s no way for you to ever meet that burden while still maintaining an allegiance to this nation. No not an allegiance to the federal government, an allegiance to this nation.

Because something is “law” does not make it just. The courts are not infallible.

[Prozac]

2 hours ago, dogfish78 said:

 

The covid immunizations using mRNA technology, which are a genetic editing drug,

Nope:

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210719/covid-19-vaccines-not-gene-therapy

https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/why-mrna-vaccines-arent-gene-therapies/
 

Also, your statement that MRNA vaccines “killed all animals during a trial” is patently false as well:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-mice/fact-check-a-2012-study-did-not-use-mrna-vaccines-or-result-in-animals-dying-from-disease-idUSKBN2A22UW

Finally, as others have stated, your decision to join the military means you have effectively given up your right to decide what vaccinations you get. 

[Prozac]

29 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:

You haven’t given me any valid argument of your own on anything you’ve attempted to argue. This one is no exception. You not only move the goalposts, you revert to the approved establishment talking points for why the government should use violence on it’s own citizens to force a drug.

 

Can you please elaborate on how the government is using “violence on its own citizens” to force a drug? As far as I’m aware, the government has stated that federal employees can either get the vaccine or agree to be tested regularly. If they don’t like those terms, they are free to look for another job. No violence necessary. 

[viper154]

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

So reaching into things that are rights...do you support background checks on gun sales? ID laws for voting? Selective service?  Restricting immigration? 

Completely irrelevant to any point. Nice attempt at deflection though. If you would like to have a productive conversation about vaccines, in particular the covid vaccine, and the governments role in that, I am happy to have a healthy debate. If you want to deflect any productive conversation into a keyboard warrior pissing match, I’m not interested.

Based on all your previous responses to other people, I’m guessing you will be choosing the later route. I encourage you to take a step back and attempt constructive conversation instead of deflecting any post that differs from your opinion.  

 

Edit to add-Immigration isn’t a right btw, Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to make immigration law. 

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by viper154