TOPIC: Try discussing here....

Miathan wrote: Part of the problem is that we have allowed the anti vax/ religious exempt movement to exist for a while now with far more deadly and far more infectious diseases around that we currently have vaccines for, so to say this is the breaking point I feel is a little to late

Now suggesting that if you are unvaccinated you can’t go into public. I’m gonna say that segregation 2.0 isn’t a good option in America

Do you smoke tobacco in public indoors?

Miathan wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

Miathan wrote:

Josh M. wrote: It's not taking away religious freedoms. They don't have to get the vaccine, they need to get the vaccine to go to the public school and be around other kids in that public school. Someone's rights end where they interfere with someone else's. That line is fuzzy and requires interpretation. If I sincerely believe that having AIDS is the way to get to heaven and I should be spreading it as much as possible, I'm not going to be able to do that legally even though stopping me curtails my ability to practice my religion publicly. I don't think going unvaccinated is the same thing as deliberately trying to spread AIDS, but it is something that puts other people around you at risk. If you want to be unvaccinated in private spaces or in sacred spaces to you knock yourself out, just don't put the public at large at risk.

Part of the problem is that we have allowed the anti vax/ religious exempt movement to exist for a while now with far more deadly and far more infectious diseases around that we currently have vaccines for, so to say this is the breaking point I feel is a little to late

Now suggesting that if you are unvaccinated you can’t go into public. I’m gonna say that segregation 2.0 isn’t a good option in America

Segregation was based on the color of a person's skin, something they were born with that is ultimately meaningless. Not allowing people to put others in danger because they don't want to get a free, safe, thoroughly tested vaccine for a serious illness isn't even close to the same thing.

Yeah segregation based on religion probably has never happened in world history and if it has I’m sure it all worked out in the end

Which religions have objections to the Moderna and/or Pfizer vaccines? You can't just say this is segregation based on religion when a)people have a choice to get vaccinated or not and b)there are no grounds for a religious objection. The Supreme Court ruled, over 100 years ago, that the state could require a vaccination or enforce a penalty in Jacobson v Massachusetts.

I don’t care which religions mainly because mine has no such exemptions but I know a lot of non denomination Christian churches have spoken out about it and the fact that the form exist and we have allowed it to be an excuse even with measles, mumps or tb makes me say that it’s to late to demonize them for this one, especially since this has become politicized to dumb per portions and both sides have so many holes in their stories it not even funny.

And I don’t know where you are going with it but I don’t smoke

Miathan wrote: I don’t care which religions mainly because mine has no such exemptions but I know a lot of non denomination Christian churches have spoken out about it and the fact that the form exist and we have allowed it to be an excuse even with measles, mumps or tb makes me say that it’s to late to demonize them for this one, especially since this has become politicized to dumb per portions and both sides have so many holes in their stories it not even funny.

And I don’t know where you are going with it but I don’t smoke

Which holes, specifically, does that scientific and medical community have in their story that vaccines are generally safe and effective and should be used to protect against Covid (barring cases of immunocompromise or specific medical exceptions)?

People shouldn't be able to harm others.

By not getting the vaccine, people are harming others and society as a whole.

The fact that we let these people use religion as an excuse to harm others before, means it was a mistake then, and letting them do it again would be a mistake now.

The argument "well we already made this mistake, so we can't fix it" is not an argument.

It's laughable that anyone would think this is akin to segregation. Segregation was about skin color, that people are born with. This is about people making stupid decisions that actively harm others. Yeah, if you make a stupid decision that actively harms someone else, you may have to suffer the consequences here.

Where do people even come up with this garbage? Not a lick of it passes a simple logic test.

Also if your response to this is "how are they harming others?" then you haven't been paying attention, are obviously very misinformed about this entire situation, and really need to get off social media and get your information from credible sources.

I'm fed up with these people.

People who use religion and hurt others are the bane of this world. Trying to hurt others and you get no sympathy from me and will be told what to do and your life controlled to curtail such activities.

jpotter wrote: People shouldn't be able to harm others.

By not getting the vaccine, people are harming others and society as a whole.

The fact that we let these people use religion as an excuse to harm others before, means it was a mistake then, and letting them do it again would be a mistake now.

The argument "well we already made this mistake, so we can't fix it" is not an argument.

It's laughable that anyone would think this is akin to segregation. Segregation was about skin color, that people are born with. This is about people making stupid decisions that actively harm others. Yeah, if you make a stupid decision that actively harms someone else, you may have to suffer the consequences here.

Where do people even come up with this garbage? Not a lick of it passes a simple logic test.

Also if your response to this is "how are they harming others?" then you haven't been paying attention, are obviously very misinformed about this entire situation, and really need to get off social media and get your information from credible sources.

I'm fed up with these people.

I’m sorry that we disagree on how this should be handled but whenever a situation like this arises some people’s rights will be infringed upon. I’m not a law maker so I don’t have to be on the floor to decide which rights are sacred to keep and be better off for the country as a whole.
And once again the fact that religious exemptions exist and have existed means that their is enough constitutional merit.
I referenced this to a form of segregation from the comment of unvaccinated people should go in public, that would be the start of segregation and if you think the only kind of segregation is based on skin color then you have a few holes in your history lesson

Miathan wrote: I’m sorry that we disagree on how this should be handled but whenever a situation like this arises some people’s rights will be infringed upon. I’m not a law maker so I don’t have to be on the floor to decide which rights are sacred to keep and be better off for the country as a whole.
And once again the fact that religious exemptions exist and have existed means that their is enough constitutional merit.
I referenced this to a form of segregation from the comment of unvaccinated people should go in public, that would be the start of segregation and if you think the only kind of segregation is based on skin color then you have a few holes in your history lesson

You mean the segregation where we put people in prison for breaking laws where they harm others?

Or do you mean the segregation based on skin color/religion/sexual orientation where no harm was done to others?


Again I'll point out that the bad segregation was based on things where people weren't harming others. We already have segregation where we put people away who harm others. Equating this to the bad segregation is ridiculous.

Your argument makes no sense.

You also said there were holes on both sides of the argument for and against vaccines.

You are mistaken here again. The literature and the data on vaccines and their effectiveness is vast.

jpotter wrote:

Miathan wrote: I’m sorry that we disagree on how this should be handled but whenever a situation like this arises some people’s rights will be infringed upon. I’m not a law maker so I don’t have to be on the floor to decide which rights are sacred to keep and be better off for the country as a whole.
And once again the fact that religious exemptions exist and have existed means that their is enough constitutional merit.
I referenced this to a form of segregation from the comment of unvaccinated people should go in public, that would be the start of segregation and if you think the only kind of segregation is based on skin color then you have a few holes in your history lesson

You mean the segregation where we put people in prison for breaking laws where they harm others?

Or do you mean the segregation based on skin color/religion/sexual orientation where no harm was done to others?


Again I'll point out that the bad segregation was based on things where people weren't harming others. We already have segregation where we put people away who harm others. Equating this to the bad segregation is ridiculous.

Your argument makes no sense.

You also said there were holes on both sides of the argument for and against vaccines.

You are mistaken here again. The literature and the data on vaccines and their effectiveness is vast.

You are mistaken when you say that I said their were medical holes on both sides of the story, I said politically.
Disease has been around forever and has always been possible for people to die from it, so should we make sure to prosecute any and everyone who goes into public with a transmitable disease? So to equate these people to lawbreakers that are in jail is as absurd to me as you think I am.

As for history let’s see where we are

1) demonize a group of people and blame them for everything that is going on

2) spread hate

3) get the hated group removed from society.

Typhoid Mary was locked up because she had a communicable disease, was told to not expose people and did anyway. The religious exemptions that do exist for vaccinations are based on the method by which traditional vaccines were produced using stem cell lines. Again, there are no major religions that are objecting to the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines and none of have told their followers to not get vaccinated.

When it comes to "which rights are sacred to keep and be better off for the country as a whole", there are zero rights that are sacred to keep. All of our rights have limitations placed on them, and those limitations are drawn when the exercise of those rights impacts other people. I am going to repeat myself when it comes to the Supreme Court having set a precedent in 1905. A priest claimed that being charged a fine for not getting a small pox vaccination was an undue burden. He lost. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts#:~:text=Jacobson%20v.%20Massachusetts%2C%20197%20U.S.%2011%20%281905%29%2C%20was,subject%20to%20the%20police%20power%20of%20the%20state .

Miathan wrote: You are mistaken when you say that I said their were medical holes on both sides of the story, I said politically.
Disease has been around forever and has always been possible for people to die from it, so should we make sure to prosecute any and everyone who goes into public with a transmitable disease? So to equate these people to lawbreakers that are in jail is as absurd to me as you think I am.

As for history let’s see where we are

1) demonize a group of people and blame them for everything that is going on

2) spread hate

3) get the hated group removed from society.

To your first point: There is a political group in the US that is pushing the science and the evidence. There is another group that is pushing the actual opposite. This is not a "hur dur both sides" time. Your centrist argument is based on a logical fallacy called the fallacy of the middle ground. Feel free to look it up. You are incorrect.

To your second point: You continue to argue that:

"segregating" people based ON THEIR OWN HARMFUL TO OTHERS CHOICES

is akin to

"segregating" people based on their harmless religion/skin color/other

You are again, incorrect.

"People shouldn't be able to harm others.

By not getting the vaccine, people are harming others and society as a whole."

I have a question about this statement. It is my understanding that the people that are being harmed are those that have chosen not to get the vaccine. According to the media and the reports, the majority of the people that are in the hospital or that have died are non-vax people.

The virus is caught and spread by both vaccinated and non-vaccinated people. My wife has been vaccinated and still caught the virus. We believe from another vaccinated person. To imply that the virus is only spread by non vaccinated people is a false premise. The true statement should be that people should realize that they are putting themselves at a greater risk of dying and should realize that they should get vaccinated.

The vaccine does not prevent catching the virus. The main benefit is it reduces your risk of hospitalization or death.

Is it wise and better for someone to get the vaccine? YES However it should not be mandated that they do so.