ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 1374 of 1618
« First < 37487412741324136413701371137213731374 1375137613771378138414241474 > Last »
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>Are you going to take the vaccine?
GloryDayz 08:48 AM 12-01-2020
I know I'm going to try to be first in line, but what about the rest of you? I'm not sure if the death count is where the science community wants it to be, plus Birdbrain hasn't been sworn in, so I expect there will be delays, but that's beside the point.

You can be honest.
[Reply]
Ninerfan11 02:36 PM 12-02-2021
Originally Posted by Eureka:
Do children under 5 have the same chance of dying from Covid as say a 70 year old?

Are there any long term affects of this new vaccine as the child grows? Is it 100% safe?
Not close. No one really knows. No.
[Reply]
BleedingRed 02:47 PM 12-02-2021

[Reply]
KCrockaholic 02:58 PM 12-02-2021
Originally Posted by Eureka:
Do children under 5 have the same chance of dying from Covid as say a 70 year old?

Are there any long term affects of this new vaccine as the child grows? Is it 100% safe?
Sure it can become that childs immune system prescription. Booster every 6 months until you clot.
[Reply]
RaidersOftheCellar 03:07 PM 12-02-2021
Originally Posted by BleedingRed:
Seems this was just 42k people who had reactions in the month of February of those that had reactions 1.2k Died.
It spanned a few months, but it doesn't matter. Any other drug would have been pulled from the market within a month. Just another sign that the FDA is compromised.

The released doc is also further proof that there's never been proper informed consent.
[Reply]
GloryDayz 03:29 PM 12-02-2021
Originally Posted by BleedingRed:
https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/

5.3.6 postmarketing experience.pdf
You should have waited 55 years...
[Reply]
frozenchief 06:05 PM 12-02-2021
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
Let's substitute "absolute right to bodily sovereignty" with "inalienable right to bodily sovereignty". By "absolute" I meant "inalienable". When I made my post we are discussing now the word "inalienable" did not come to my mind. Sorry for the confusion.

An inalienable right is by definition a right that is unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. If it is morally permissible for a society to imprison a criminal there is no inalienable right to bodily sovereignty. It doesn't matter if rationalize the imprisonment as a "need" or "forfeiture". Inalienable rights cannot be taken away or forfeited.



You have it wrong. I demolished frozenchief.
Your argument has a number of issues. First, you do not answer my questions: who decides and what is the criteria? Second, under your argument, Buck v Bell was appropriately decided. If you don't recall, Buck v Bell involved involuntary sterilization of 'mentally defective' persons. Essentially if a person was deemed to be mentally feeble, the government could sterilize such a person. Oliver Wendell Holmes famously upheld this law by saying, in part, "Three generations of imbeciles is enough." Do you agree with Buck v Bell? If not, how do you distinguish that from what you propose?

Finally, there is a difference between forcing someone to do something and bodily sovereignty/integrity. We can force someone to live in prison. We can force someone, with some exceptions, to be drafted. There is a difference, though, between forcing someone to "do something" versus forcibly doing something to somebody. This is why the Buck v Bell case is right on point. In that case, the government forcibly did something to Carrie Buck.

Put another way, if Carrie Buck had to serve time in prison, she could still be able to have children. If Carrie Buck were to be drafted, she would still be able to have children. Legally speaking, there is a great difference between forcing someone to do something and doing something to someone. Your position seems to be that since we can do the former, we can do the latter.

Given that background, your statement that "If it is morally permissible for a society to imprison a criminal there is no inalienable right to bodily sovereignty" is a non sequitur. The two are apples and oranges.

So, again, I would ask the questions:

1. Who decides?

2. What is the criteria?

What happens if the majority of the population in a given area decides that your beliefs are abhorrent and thus you should be sterilized? Would you agree or disagree? If you would disagree, why? Such a statement is entirely supported by your position.
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 06:10 PM 12-02-2021
Originally Posted by Ninerfan11:
tell me why this is dumb, or I can't take you serious:

If society can lock you up to keep you from committing crimes, why can't it vaccinate you to prevent your body from being a small pox virus factory?
What you quoted is a question not a statement. You say the question is dumb but you don't say why. It seems to me you don't know how to answer it.

I applaud Frozenchief for trying. He argued criminals forfeit their bodily sovereignty. In the case of abortion, Frozenchief argued(or at least implied), that in that situation we have two humans sharing the same body to consider. Frozenchief didn't touch on conscription though.

Other examples of society taking away bodily sovereignty. You can be compelled to appear in court. You can be required to serve on a jury. If you try to commit suicide, you can be stopped and put into a psychiatric hospital.

Where Frozenchief went wrong is in each of those situations the right of bodily sovereignty is taken away or forfeited. If the right to bodily sovereignty can be taken away or forfeited it is not an inalienable right.

As a matter of law, I don't believe the federal government can mandate vaccines. I do believe the states have that power though. Although a state can abuse that power, I don't find it intrinsically wrong for them to have it.


Edit: FrozenChief had since addressed conscription and similar examples in a subsequent post.
[Reply]
MahomesMagic 06:14 PM 12-02-2021
''

On now.

Joining me today is Brook Jackson, the Pfizer whistleblower who recently spoke with the British Medical Journal revealing documented safety concerns that directly undermine the trial data efficacy. Brook is here to set the record straight about what she saw during Pfizer's phase 3 trial, how the corporate media ignored the verifiable information, and publicly share for the first time the evidence that proves the allegations.
[Reply]
frozenchief 06:18 PM 12-02-2021
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
What you quoted is a question not a statement. You say the question is dumb but you don't say why. It seems to me you don't know how to answer it.

I applaud Frozenchief for trying. He argued criminals forfeit their bodily sovereignty. In the case of abortion, Frozenchief argued(or at least implied), that in that situation we have two humans sharing the same body to consider. Frozenchief didn't touch on conscription though.

Other examples of society taking away bodily sovereignty. You can be compelled to appear in court. You can be required to serve on a jury. If you try to commit suicide, you can be stopped and put into a psychiatric hospital.

Where Frozenchief went wrong is in each of those situations the right of bodily sovereignty is taken away or forfeited. If the right to bodily sovereignty can be taken away or forfeited it is not an inalienable right.

As a matter of law, I don't believe the federal government can mandate vaccines. I do believe the states have that power though. Although a state can abuse that power, I don't find it intrinsically wrong for them to have it.
A thoughtful response. Thank you. And I would agree that if such power existed, it would be held by states, not by the federal government.

But I do want to see your response to my argument that there's a difference between the state forcing you to do something and forcibly doing something to you.
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 06:43 PM 12-02-2021
Originally Posted by frozenchief:
Your argument has a number of issues. First, you do not answer my questions: who decides and what is the criteria? Second, under your argument, Buck v Bell was appropriately decided. If you don't recall, Buck v Bell involved involuntary sterilization of 'mentally defective' persons. Essentially if a person was deemed to be mentally feeble, the government could sterilize such a person. Oliver Wendell Holmes famously upheld this law by saying, in part, "Three generations of imbeciles is enough." Do you agree with Buck v Bell? If not, how do you distinguish that from what you propose?

Finally, there is a difference between forcing someone to do something and bodily sovereignty/integrity. We can force someone to live in prison. We can force someone, with some exceptions, to be drafted. There is a difference, though, between forcing someone to "do something" versus forcibly doing something to somebody. This is why the Buck v Bell case is right on point. In that case, the government forcibly did something to Carrie Buck.

Put another way, if Carrie Buck had to serve time in prison, she could still be able to have children. If Carrie Buck were to be drafted, she would still be able to have children. Legally speaking, there is a great difference between forcing someone to do something and doing something to someone. Your position seems to be that since we can do the former, we can do the latter.

Given that background, your statement that "If it is morally permissible for a society to imprison a criminal there is no inalienable right to bodily sovereignty" is a non sequitur. The two are apples and oranges.

So, again, I would ask the questions:

1. Who decides?

2. What is the criteria?

What happens if the majority of the population in a given area decides that your beliefs are abhorrent and thus you should be sterilized? Would you agree or disagree? If you would disagree, why? Such a statement is entirely supported by your position.
Who decided "To think freely" or "To act in self defense" are inalienable rights? Who decides which rights are inalienable and which are not? I don't have a good answer for you. The best I can give is it is a collective decision. If the right is something that it is commonly accepted as a right you can "forfeit" its not an inalienable right.

What would the criteria be? In my opinion the situation would have to be so dire, the existence of the society is in jeopardy.

Do I agree Buck v Bell was appropriately decided? It was the wrong decision, I believe the right to reproduce is inalienable.

Is there really a difference between forcing someone to do something and bodily sovereignty/integrity? If you force someone to get vaccinated, you forced them to do something. If you force someone into prison. You force them to eat certain foods, sleep at a certain time, you force them to shower. You force them to cut their hair(if they have lice for instance), you bind them in chains, etc. If you are in prison, you lose a lot of bodily sovereignty
[Reply]
frozenchief 07:43 PM 12-02-2021
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
Who decided "To think freely" or "To act in self defense" are inalienable rights? Who decides which rights are inalienable and which are not? I don't have a good answer for you. The best I can give is it is a collective decision. If the right is something that it is commonly accepted as a right you can "forfeit" its not an inalienable right.

What would the criteria be? In my opinion the situation would have to be so dire, the existence of the society is in jeopardy.

Do I agree Buck v Bell was appropriately decided? It was the wrong decision, I believe the right to reproduce is inalienable.

Is there really a difference between forcing someone to do something and bodily sovereignty/integrity? If you force someone to get vaccinated, you forced them to do something. If you force someone into prison. You force them to eat certain foods, sleep at a certain time, you force them to shower. You force them to cut their hair(if they have lice for instance), you bind them in chains, etc. If you are in prison, you lose a lot of bodily sovereignty
What I can tell you is that our laws have recognized that distinction for some time. I have the right to my own body but police can pat me down under a Terry frisk but to actually enter my body, to violate my bodily integrity, requires a specific warrant. That warrant requires probable cause to establish specific and articulable facts to believe that a crime has been committed, evidence of the crime is located within my body, and that the law is justified in entering my body to look for evidence of that crime. It is substantially higher than a Terry stop.

On the one hand, no right is inalienable. I generally do not have the right to take someone else's life, in part because of their own rights and in part because of their own physical sovereignty. But I can take someone else's life when I reasonably believe they are about to cause me or someone else serious physical injury or death. Laws throughout Western civilization have recognized such an exception based upon the idea of preserving innocent life. That idea is woven throughout Western civilization from numerous sources: Socratean ethics; Greco-Roman law; and Christian morality.

The idea that a right is inalienable stems from the Declaration of Independence, which posits that certain rights are inalienable, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet even at the signing of the Declaration, people could be executed for certain crimes. So what was the difference? One difference was Due Process and recognizing that certain rights could only be forfeited by affirmative acts by someone. Thus, Buck v Bell is wrong because Carrie Buck did not affirmatively do anything that endangered others' lives. Rather, she possessed (according to the legal proceedings) genes that could lower others' IQ if she were to be allowed to reproduce.

As a society, we say that the right to reproduce is inalienable but if you are drunk, do not provide for your children and you affirmatively put them at risk, the State can terminate right rights as a parent. Is that right? If so, is your right to reproduce really inalienable?

To put my cards on the table, I believe that an individual can forfeit certain rights by affirmative acts but those affirmative acts have to represent grave danger to one or more natural persons. A mere state of being is insufficient. Could someone's illness be cause to forfeit certain rights? The archetype example is Typhoid Mary, which was a truly sad case but she could also have found ways to support herself outside of the foot industry that resulted in transmitting disease to others. That is, she was not banished for her first, or even second offense. But the mere fact that someone is sick does not give others the right to cure or immunize or otherwise violate their bodily sovereignty. As a result, I do not believe that the State has the right to force people to be immunized, particularly against a disease with a 99.5+% survival rate.
[Reply]
RodeoPants2 01:31 AM 12-03-2021

[Reply]
MahomesMagic 05:30 AM 12-03-2021
Originally Posted by RodeoPants2:
With Trump every death is his fault. When Biden is in every death is not his fault.

Simpleton politics.

But I'm glad you agree that Biden is failing at what he claimed he could do.

Not only is he failing, more dying under Biden than Trump.

That's massive fail.
[Reply]
MahomesMagic 05:32 AM 12-03-2021

Oh muh chron-ology is off!

50 mutation genetic difference dictates 10.3 total years of genetic distance (by well-vetted rates of mutation) from Omicron to Alpha. Apportioned by mutations/arrival time, this places LCA of Alpha-Omicron in April of 2016.

Lucy we have a problem... pic.twitter.com/vhCEcyMsly

— Ethical Skeptic ☀ (@EthicalSkeptic) December 2, 2021

[Reply]
Munson 06:11 AM 12-03-2021
Get ready for the Covid pill


The FDA absolutely should NOT approve Merck's experimental COVID pill molnupiravir. Here’s why it's so dangerous: pic.twitter.com/lxEYozTRjQ

— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) December 3, 2021

[Reply]
Page 1374 of 1618
« First < 37487412741324136413701371137213731374 1375137613771378138414241474 > Last »
Up