So yeah this is a lie. Our parents might be vaccinated against smallpox but we are most likely not and if it is coming back not because "freedoms"

Lol ok. Slippery slope ebola fallacy


I'm not about medical tyranny at all if you haven't figured that out yet.

Your posts don't make much sense. Laws had to be made that explicitly forbid discrimination on the basis of skin color, based on the courts interpretation. Many right wingers think (or pretend to think) that any laws that talk about race or are interpreted as talking about skin color are wrong.I know you aren't doing this on purpose, but it's very tedious to have to explain such basic stuff.

Yes Trolly. I fully support the civil rights act and public accommodation laws. I'm willing to carve out small sections there when it comes to issues of speech, art, and religious liberties, as is basically currently done.

OK, got it, thanks.

You are correct. I meant Measles and wrong said SP.

Substitute measles and my point stands and it is anti vaxxers driving the resurgence, at least in the US.

I guess they don't make sense to you because I'm trying to talk about the meaning of colorblindness and you're talking about how the far right has interpreted it-- but I don't see the relevance. We're having two different discussions. How the far right interprets colorblindness isn't anything I care about. I assume they interpret it poorly.

There is no slippery slope.

Ebola has presented in the US before. No reason to believe it or other serious pandemic causing viruses won't again so you either have an ability (legislation, rules) to contain or deal with them or you do not.

You are advocating for 'no way to deal with them' other than 'voluntary compliance from the infected' and no way for others to protect themselves from them with any knowledge.

That is the legal framework you are saying you want implemented.

Do you agree that there's at least a line where someone asserting their rights turns into potentially infecting other people? Individual liberty doesn't always play well with democratic society--and sometimes breaking the law is justified anyway Because people are going to try to protect themselves(even if it isn't always rational) and establish some community expectations. If you skip out on the measles/whateverthefk and end up infecting an entire community--is there some liability there? I kinda work on the assumption that ya you're free to opt out--but making that choice may come with some steep consequences that don't really make it worth it.

The vaccine stuff has never really seemed like a hill worth dying on to me--hell most of us were getting the vast majority of them while we were kids anyway. I've only ever gotten 2? flu shots myself(got em for the kids a fair few times though) and I'm not really convinced they did anything because I hardly ever get really sick to begin with--that'll prob. change when we're older though I imagine. I am going to be getting this one though--hopefully next week. I've seen a few guys I know well/and less so end up on the vent and if there's a little potion that can help me avoid being face down in a hospital bed etc for weeks count me in

All you had to say was "I disagree that laws can't make any reference to race or color". You parrot many far right talking points (CRT, cancel culture etc) so you can't expect us to assume what they say has no bearing on what you will say. It's often a great proxy.

I'm reading about measels and it's connection to anti-vaxxers right now.
Nature article.

More than 600 people in New York City contracted measles between October 2018 and July 2019, and 49 had to be hospitalized. The outbreak started after one unvaccinated child fell sick with the disease after returning home from Israel in September 2018. Although no deaths were reported, complications among those infected included diarrhoea, ear infections and pneumonia.
....
The authors found that reduced vaccination rates in some neighbourhoods facilitated the spread of the disease. Among 37 children hospitalized with the virus, 35 had not received the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. Most of those infected belonged to New York City’s orthodox Jewish community, which had been targeted by anti-vaccination groups — leading parents to shun immunization for their children, the researchers say. The outbreak cost New York City at least US$8.4 million.

Bolded is lol...as if orthodox Jews have no agency or other reasons for not wanting to vaccinate their kids.
And yeah-- it looks like 2/37 kids were vaccinated and still got it. And it's unfortunate for the children who did it who didn't get a say either. I don't claim to have all answers in terms of how to handle these issues. Ultimately I'd rather live in a society that allows for some risks than one where individual autonomy in medical decisions is usurped by the state.

Nah...that's just how you frame discourse in terms of left vs right.
Like I'll say "freedom is important" and you'll say "but that's something right wingers think"-- but it really doesn't mean I'm "parroting" anyone.

It looks like the measles vaccine is 97% effective according to a quick search....so entire communities would not be getting infected unless entire communities were unvaccinated. But I don't know much on measles.
Yes you're right that there has to be a balance. In a hypothetical ebola outbreak one could imagine some rules going out the window-- but ebola isn't something that people just pass around asymptomatically either. HIV is. We're never going to demand an HIV vaccine though because it's sexually transmitted and not airborne. It's the airborne viruses that are going to cause the most trouble for civil liberties.

Which is very much the position I referred to earlier re the smoking debate and then someone else referenced. Call if a quasi-libertarian position.

I recall that debate vividly in Canada as it played out like this:

Smokers : We have a right to smoke anywhere and everywhere we choose. If you don't like being exposed my smoke and the health risks you can always stay home

Non Smokers - how about we restrict smoking with something like liquor licenses where maybe 10% of establishments can apply to allow smoking because right now every place ends up being a smoking place. One smoker in any restaurant, bar, hospital, movie theater or church is forcing everyone else to breath their smoke.

Smokers : no frikkin way we will fight that. We should have the right to smoke and if others do not want to be exposed they need to stay home

Non smokers : ok we are going to ignore you and just set our own rules as clearly your view of 'stay home' as being the only way to protect ourselves is unreasonable.



People like you are now making the exact same argument re infectious disease.

A small number of kids with anti vax parents moves into a community where all kids are fully vaccinated against the Measles, and should be able to put every one else at risk and not even have them have a way to know due to 'muh freedums'.

If/when measles re-asserts itself in that community and some kids die, we simply say your kid is the price of muh freedums and if you don't like it yu can always keep yourself and your kids home.

If a virus spreads assymptaically that aspect makes it worse then if sympatmatic where OTHER people could more easily identify and avoid.

But again take this back to covid.

Covid varients we now know profiliarate fairly easily when given hosts to propogate in.

The way to end the vairents is to surpress and end the spread as much as possible.

So if you have a cohort of muh freedoms folk happy t get and pass on covid knowing they are liekly to survive it (which they are) they are accelerating varient creation and spread.

They are literally putting every single other person who is vaccinated at increased risk of a variant that the vaccines cannot deal with.

They also put all of society at the economic risk of endless rounds of 'shut downs' to try and contain these new variants until new vaccines ae developed.

We would be putting, generally speaking the dumbest segment of the population proportionally in a position of power over all the rest of us when it comes to our health and economic outcomes.

Do you not see why that is problematic more so than the 'muh freedums' argument?

I like how in South America they have completely different attitudes about a lot of things. Like in Colombia if there's a line of cars stuck on a highway because there was a landslide or something (this happened to me)-- men will just get out of their vehicles or buses or whatever and take a piss right on the side of the road. People wouldn't do that in the US nearly as much out of fear of being arrested and labeled a sex offender or something.
Another example: In Colombia, some places have these old Wily's Jeeps that they use as taxis. And there are two cities (Salento and Filandia) where you can take a shuttle between them for a few thousand pesos. But if there is no room they'll still let you just stand on the back and hang on, even though this means being on the highway standing on the back of a jeep.
This would never fly in the US because of liability reasons and it would just be illegal. But not in Colombia.
Now you also have to show your national ID if you want to use a credit card in Colombia-- so I'm not saying it's perfectly free or something. It certainly isn't. But allowing for freedom does come at some costs-- what if someone sees something they don't want to see while some dude is pissing off the side or road or what if I fell off that jeep somehow and died, or worse caused an accident that killed someone else. That's the cost of freedom.

I'll get back to this in a bit-- but can you at least now see why you have to take a public health approach to argue with me and why your business rights approach yesterday wouldn't work?

Nah, the stuff you say about cancel culture or CRT is the same as what Tucker Carlson or Trump say. You may not literally watch and copy them, but even if you come up with it on your own the end result is the same. You are indistinguishable on many issues from a far right winger, you just refuse to admit it. I fully admit that Maddow or Anderson Copper might say some of the exact same stuff I do even though I don't regularly watch them.

What even is a far right winger in that case? It seems impossible that what I'm saying on any issue is in line with Tucker or Trump though. My frames are going to be completely different.
It is only how you perceive the world that makes the things that I say and the things that they say indistinguishable to you.

And i have to wonder if you see what you did there?


The reason upthread that I said your absolutist position you finally detailed was "better" as at least it is logically defensible even if others won't agree with your stance.

With this admission you say here you now open the door to discretion.

If you are ok with 'some rules going out the window' when it is a serious virus like Ebola, then you are using YOUR OWN personal discretion to decide when others can be limited based on YOUR perception of the seriousness of the risk. You are not looking for the Ebola spreader to agree his 'rules go out the window'.

You cannot then (if you are consistent) say others cannot assess things like COvid or other viruses and find the risk unacceptable and also have 'rules go out the window'.

That you might agree with Ebola 'rules going out the window' but not covid is not meaningful. That is unless you think society should revolve around you as sole arbiter.

Right and wrong in this area cannot solely be a function of Luckbox agreeing.

So do you understand how you unwittingly just made the argument for restrictions and other measures?

Look Cuepee:
If there is some virus that is raging through the world and can be spread asymptomatically and kills 30% of people it infects, then things would be different. Yes. That isn't some amazing admission on my part.

No.

I think you are completely wrong on that.

You have the governmental layer which should proscribe high level 'restrictions', 'access' and other such rules but then companies should maintain there right to navigate within that broad range and set very specific rules based on their perception of risk to their own company.

So again I do not think the gov't should require Vaccine Passports but i do see it as perfectly fine for the Cruise Industry or restaurants, etc to examine their corporate risk and that of their staff and customers and do just that.

I would fight for that Business Right and argue if we take that away then we (all citizens thru gov't) must then provide a public insurance policy and indemnity all business from any and all tangential litigation risk in that area, or if their business is unfortunate enough to experience many outbreaks and go broke we must also provide them an amount equal to their life time profits lost.

We cannot tell a business 'you cannot control your own risk, and 'but you must carry the cost if that risk breaks you', and have me see that as fair.

It is a huge admission but as i predicted you are incapable of seeing why.

You see, in a wave of your hand you, LuckBox just determined that 30% is the magic number where selectively impinging others right should be allowed.

What if I, QP say that should be 29%?

And others say 20% and so on and so on?

And then suddenly the point is one Luckbox does not agree with but QP does?


What is the means of arbitrated this in your view Luckbox? Be specific?

It cannot simply be 'it is ok to impinge if I, Luckbox, think the threshold is suffice; and 'it's tyranny and wrong if I, Luckbox, thinks the threshold is too low'.

SO what you are saying above is OK is exactly what is happening now. Others not named Luckbox think that threshold has been achieved with Covid. And thus measures are being proposed.

The proper response is not for you, Luckbox, to say you disagree and give reasons why, but to invalidate your prior position that this type of discretion should be allowe.

You really don't think your views on CRT or cancel culture mirror right wing talking points? I find it hard to believe you don't realize that. And it's not that I see everything as left vs right. It's the simple awareness to know I'm simply echoing what the American left or Dems say on an issue. Not doing so is not nonpartisan, it's simply dishonest.

canada has lockdowns in the worst possible way. ive been inside for 1 yr now as virtually nothing sociable is open and i work from home. ive gone out for a few things and to see friends, but other than that its like the world is dead to me and its slowly killing me mentally.


pretty dope that we lose prime years of our lives, so that grandpa bill whos 91 lives to be 92. ****ing sickening.

people who are weak and old should be locked away for safety, if they wish, not the entire population.


when the cure is worse than the disease.

I only just started even learning about CRT whenever McWhorter put out his first piece a few weeks ago. But yeah that's impossible.
Like I agree with CRT that the false consciousness generated by capitalism is problematic. There are tons of areas where my stances are more in line with left style thinking than not. And it is you who attempt to frame my thoughts differently based on how you divide the world and perceive people.