Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not a single person has responded to this statement the numerous times people (including myself) have posted it. I even add a red color but they still don't read it.
In a pandemic with a CONTAGIOUS virus, your choices are not just about yourself. The "individual rights" model works well with things like cancer and diabetes, that do not spread to others.
Yes it is. I don't care if COVID has a 90% death rate and is wiping out entire cities, my position stands. You have no obligation to put yourself at what you deem is an unacceptable risk to protect others. End of Discussion. That is by definition an unreasonable accommodation. I say this as a vaxxed person. Last I checked, you are allowed to put your own health and safety first, and your health and well being is your own responsibility. Why are you so insistent on a vaccine mandate when the data materially shows it is ineffective against spread?
When a manufacturer seeks the government's permission to not stand behind its own product, and the government lets them, that is material evidence that something's up. Forgive me for casting doubt on the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer product on this basis. This is not like buying a car with a warranty, this is like buying a car with no warranty. A warranty is a cost to manufacturers if there are defects. They believe, based on data, that they will not suffer a material loss from defect resolution for the first X miles and that's the duration of the warranty they choose to offer. Sometimes they might decide to offer a longer duration as a strategic decision. I would absolutely think twice about a car with no warranty because that's an indication the car has a material chance of catastrophic failure before it leaves the dealer's lot.
Yes it is. I don't care if COVID has a 90% death rate and is wiping out entire cities, my position stands. You have no obligation to put yourself at what you deem is an unacceptable risk to protect others. End of Discussion. That is by definition an unreasonable accommodation. I say this as a vaxxed person. Last I checked, you are allowed to put your own health and safety first, and your health and well being is your own responsibility. Why are you so insistent on a vaccine mandate when the data materially shows it is ineffective against spread?
When a manufacturer seeks the government's permission to not stand behind its own product, and the government lets them, that is material evidence that something's up. Forgive me for casting doubt on the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer product on this basis. This is not like buying a car with a warranty, this is like buying a car with no warranty. I would absolutely think twice about a car with no warranty.
Ok, so people should just be allowed to fire a gun inside city hall, because anyone who doesn't like the risk can just stay home? You really think this???
I can remember the last time I dove so deeply into the details of the FDA approvals of a drug my doctor prescribed me. Trust no one except yourself. Ok I have a flight to catch in 3 months. I need to go search for the plane's maintenance logs now.
So ignorance is bliss... For the ignorant I suppose.
Not a single person has responded to this statement the numerous times people (including myself) have posted it. I even add a red color but they still don't read it.
In a pandemic with a CONTAGIOUS virus, your choices are not just about yourself. The "individual rights" model works well with things like cancer and diabetes, that do not spread to others.
Will you ever admit that everybody spreads the same cooties? Other then that pokes a hole in the biggest bag of totalitarian tyranny your side has, why is that so hard?
Ok, so people should just be allowed to fire a gun inside city hall, because anyone who doesn't like the risk can just stay home? You really think this???
Ok, so people should just be allowed to fire a gun inside city hall, because anyone who doesn't like the risk can just stay home? You really think this???
You're just getting desperate now. It is illegal to fire guns inside City Hall absent an immediate threat to your life. If there is an immediate threat to your life, or that of others, yes, you are legally allowed to fire a gun to the extent required to neutralize that immediate threat. That's called the right to self-defense.
It is not illegal to refuse any medical treatment for any reason or no reason. Forcing someone to accept medical treatment against their will and without informed consent is a capital offense per international law and is considered a crime against humanity. Refraining from firing a gun inside City Hall doesn't require you to inject a foreign substance into your body that can never be extracted from you and has not been proven with no warranty, explicit or implied, from the manufacturer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
