chris155au
Active member
Yes, so then you acknowledge that your 'insurance' analogy cannot apply.your house catching fire affects only you and your family, your potential to spread covid affects the wider community.
Yes, so then you acknowledge that your 'insurance' analogy cannot apply.your house catching fire affects only you and your family, your potential to spread covid affects the wider community.
Are those vulnerable people incapable of protecting THEMSELVES?not at all. It's not about fault, it's about protecting those that are most vulnerable
First you said that I was arguing AGAINST the lockdown, without explaining what I was arguing against(the non-voluntary nature, the facts that show why it is ineffective).
YES, you are wrong in arguing against the lockdowns whilst using the results of our lockdowns as the basis for your argument. If you want to prove lock downs are not necessary, find a similar jurisdiction who did not impose lockdowns and compare their data with ours.I'm I wrong?
sure it can, you just can't turn of your brain and stop thinking for yourself when using it.Yes, so then you acknowledge that your 'insurance' analogy cannot apply.
in many cases, yes.Are those vulnerable people incapable of protecting THEMSELVES?
Well I'll ask again, in a different way: what does being uninsured have to do with people other than the person who is uninsured?sure it can, you just can't turn of your brain and stop thinking for yourself when using it.
What sort of people are you referring to who cannot protect themselves?in many cases, yes.
those that are dependent on others for starters, either due to age, language restrictions, or disabilities.... those that don't have the resources to act, also those that don't have the mental capacity to understand the risks ... there are lots of people out there that need helpWhat sort of people are you referring to who cannot protect themselves?
I don't get why you're getting so hung up on this. It was similie. The vaccine is an insurance policy just like the insurance policy on your house. Sure, your chances of dying from covid in Australia aren't high, but there is a chance ... just like the chances of your house burning down aren't high. Despite that, most people still insure their homes against fire, so why not insure your life with a vaccine?Well I'll ask again, in a different way: what does being uninsured have to do with people other than the person who is uninsured?
Yes, but I wasn't sure how this related to a vaccine mandate.I don't get why you're getting so hung up on this. It was similie. The vaccine is an insurance policy just like the insurance policy on your house. Sure, your chances of dying from covid in Australia aren't high, but there is a chance ... just like the chances of your house burning down aren't high. Despite that, most people still insure their homes against fire, so why not insure your life with a vaccine?
Yes, but those around you can also have that added insurance.the added benefit is that the vaccine isn't just insurance for you, it's also added insurance for those around you
What does this have to do with vaccinations though?those that are dependent on others for starters, either due to age, language restrictions, or disabilities.... those that don't have the resources to act, also those that don't have the mental capacity to understand the risks ... there are lots of people out there that need help
of course .... it applies to everyoneYes, but those around you can also have that added insurance.
Another straw man to talk to. Had you also explained WHY I was arguing against the lockdown, you would have included my reasons. That is, in implementing such a simplistic and intrusive solution, it is destroying our economy, destroying our jobs, turning Australians into dobbers, destroying our industries, suspending our basic freedoms and basic rights(privacy), and is providing the template for more government surveillance. But you can conflate my argument to just arguing against the lockdown. I really didn't expect even a hint of intellectual honesty from you.why would I need to explain your own argument to you? Did you not understand your own argument?
Again, a direct causal link please! You can't just say lockdowns are working, unless you can either dispute the facts that I have already deposited, or can present your own facts to support your claims.YES, you are wrong in arguing against the lockdowns whilst using the results of our lockdowns as the basis for your argument. If you want to prove lock downs are not necessary, find a similar jurisdiction who did not impose lockdowns and compare their data with ours.
everything, We vaccinate to protect everyone, not just ourselves.What does this have to do with vaccinations though?
why would I need to explain your argument to you? That's your argument not mine.Had you also explained WHY I was arguing against the lockdown, you would have included my reasons.
Why you argue something is your problem, not mine.Clearly you DID avoided including WHY I was arguing against the lockdown
your 'facts' are irrelevant to the point I was making. You're using the result of our lock downs as some sort of convoluted proof that we don't need lock downs. It's like arguing you don't need oil in your car after adding oil.And clearly, you have NOT disputed even ONE of the facts that I have deposited.
Yes and if they choose to NOT get the "added insurance", that's on THEM, right?of course .... it applies to everyone
NO! Each person vaccinates for themself! The way to "protect everyone" is for each person to vaccinate for themselves!everything, We vaccinate to protect everyone, not just ourselves.
I have no idea what you are talking about, or the goal posts you are changing again. What I am talking about is not just my problem(another straw man). In fact, thousands of other Australians have this same problem, and feel the same way. Freedom of movement, and freedom of choice. What are these irrelevant facts that don't address the point you were making? And, if you think that the lockdown is saving us all from a viral apocalypse, then please, what evidence can you deposit that can clearly demonstrate any direct causal link?why would I need to explain your argument to you? That's your argument not mine.
Why you argue something is your problem, not mine.
your 'facts' are irrelevant to the point I was making. You're using the result of our lock downs as some sort of convoluted proof that we don't need lock downs. It's like arguing you don't need oil in your car after adding oil.