Why should people be forced to get vaccinated in order to protect others who choose not to get vaccinated??

chris155au

Active member
It's more likely that you will be prevented from entering a country, with the onus put onto airlines to make sure you are vaccinated before you get on the flight ... much like they do with visas.
Why would the government ban us from entering another country?
 

chris155au

Active member
Since you only mentioned Black New Yorkers, rather than just saying all unvaccinated New Yorkers would NOT be admitted into the "compliant society", I got the wrong idea. This would mean that 1.4M Black New Yorkers would NOT be allowed into a "compliant society", and only 609K Black New Yorkers will be allowed entry. I'm sure that this would be unconstitutional if challenged. We do not chastise a race for the choices made by its members.
Are you saying this because it's the majority of black New Yorkers who are unvaccinated and would be banned from society? Or would you say the same if it was only 10% unvaccinated ?

It's just that Blacks are more easily identifiable.
What do you mean they are more easily identifiable?

Why WOULD people be fined/arrested for choosing to get vaccinated?
I assume that you meant to ask: why would people be fined/arrested
for choosing to NOT get vaccinated?


Well I'm not suggest that. I'm suggesting that if the most extreme vaccine mandate measures came into place - other than literally capturing people, pinning them down, and forcing a needle into their arms - I imagine that it would be unvaccinated people who are simply not allowed to leave their home ever again, for anything other than essential shopping. Now, if they were to break that rule, therefore breaking the law, they would be fined or arrested. As unlikely as such a scenario would be, it is certainly more likely than the government arresting or fining people for not getting the vaccine by a certain date, which would actually not even achieve any public health benefit if the person has no restrictions. They would simply pay the one off fine, and live their life. Such a fine which wouldn't even achieve any public health benefit would likely be unconstitutional anyway.

I thought I did. Kay Ivey, Republican governor of Alabama.

Are you a Wall Street Journal subscriber?

If you mean "to serve someone" in the context of providing a service to someone, then YES I do think it is illegal to refuse service to anyone, by discriminating against them.
So then you think that it's okay to force someone to serve someone they don't want to serve?

Or, they could be fined each day that their child misses school. A parent could wind up deciding whether to vaccinate their child, or to lose their home.
Except the Australian Government is a party to the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 13 is the right to education. It seems to me that the government would be in violation of it if they stopped allowing any child from going to school even for one single day. A case could be launched with the Australian Human Rights Commission which would surely deem it illegal.
In either case, what are the stats that justify making vaccinations an exclusive pre-condition to enter any schools?
No stats that I'm aware of.

There are certain reasons that allow a country to prevent anyone from leaving that country. One reason is for health reasons(spreading of a dangerous disease).
How would preventing someone from LEAVING the country stop someone from spreading the disease? Do you mean, spreading it in the country that the person is going to? If so, then why would that be any country's problem other than the country that the infected person is going to? They have chosen to accept people. So it's their problem.

Otherwise, it would violate the Geneva Convention, to prevent anyone from leaving the country.

"The right may be restricted, either by way of derogation under article 4 of the ICCPR, or to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, as allowed by article 12(3).".
This is surely referring to people coming IN to a country,
perhaps specifically the residents of that country.

What a responsible government should have done above all, was NOT to alarm people. They should NOT use the stats from other countries, as any justification for implementing insensitive, impractical, and unnecessary policies and directives. The government should have provided extra resources to the healthcare industry. It should have provided all stats in their proper perspectives. It should have been more open and honest with us. Instead of providing only disinformation, half-truths, fear-mongering, and even turning Australians against other Australians. All this government cares about is control, credit, and power. They have all got to go.
How would the alternative government have been different do you think?

You should listen to other party groups, like Michael O'neil of the Informed Medical Options Party(IMOP). It is time to put common sense back into politics.
Are you anti-vax?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Are you saying this because it's the majority of black New Yorkers who are unvaccinated and would be banned from society? Or would you say the same if it was only 10% unvaccinated ?
What do you mean they are more easily identifiable?
Black Americans DO NOT have the advantage of racial/social anonymity. They are the most identifiable race in society, because of their obvious social features. I was shocked to hear that because a majority of Blacks have chosen NOT to be vaccinated, that this has led to a limit of no more than 10 Black Americans being allowed into certain businesses within "polite society". If this were in fact the case, then what are the vaccination stats on all the other races? I was also curious why only Black New Yorkers were singled out? And not Whites, Greeks, Italians, Irish, Latinos, or even Chinese? Maybe we should also limit the number of Republicans who enter businesses? Since so few of them have chosen to be vaccinated. Was it because the Black race is so easily identifiable? Or, are we now equating a person's choice as being race-specific? What role does race play in a person's choice to be vaccinated or not be vaccinated? Is the media implying that this is a "Black Thing"? Or, that if you choose not to be vaccinated, then you must be thinking like those Black Americans do? Silly right?

I assume that you meant to ask: why would people be fined/arrested
for choosing to NOT get vaccinated?
NO! I was just being facetious. Of course no one would be arrested/fined for being vaccinated. But, they certainly could be fined/arrested for not getting vaccinated, or failing to follow any of the other health and safety directives. Either directly, or indirectly.

Are you a Wall Street Journal subscriber?
Relevance??

So then you think that it's okay to force someone to serve someone they don't want to serve?
I was talking specifically about discrimination. I have already answered this question. Why are you still misrepresenting my answer out of context? My answer was conditional. That is, if you are discriminating against people in public(refusing service), based only on their race, ethnicity, disability, sexual preference, gender, religion, or their age, then YES you should be held accountable for your actions. Do you think this should NOT be the case? If this law had not been abused for hundreds of years, you might have an argument. You might want to ask yourself WHY do some people need to be forced to do the right thing? Surely, you don't have a problem with everyone being treated as an equal? Or, do you think that people should be free to choose to serve whomever they wish? Of course this would never be abused, right? Maybe we should also get rid of the Civil Rights Act, and just trust that people will treat others in the same way they would like to be treated? Good idea?

How would preventing someone from LEAVING the country stop someone from spreading the disease? Do you mean, spreading it in the country that the person is going to? If so, then why would that be any country's problem other than the country that the infected person is going to? They have chosen to accept people. So it's their problem.
Both countries have responsibilities towards its citizenry and its own sovereignty. In order to obtain a visa, a certain criteria must be met before you are allowed to enter another country. You will be ineligible for a visa if these criteria are not met. So, YES, anyone who has tested positive for Covid-19, will not be able to leave the country, PRECISELY to stop them from spreading this disease in another country. You're not suggesting that we maintain a double standard in the travel industry are you?


Are you anti-vax?
Again irrelevant and misrepresented. I believe in choice. If people choose not to vaccinate their children for early childhood diseases, then that is their choice to make. I am certainly NOT an anti-vaxxer when it comes to my children. But I am certainly pro-choice, and anti-mandatory choice for parents who choose NOT to vaccinate their children. Freedom of choice should never be consensus-driven. Regarding Covid-19 vaccinations, unless you are in the high-risk categories, a vaccine is just unnecessary. And, a dangerous precedence to set.

How would the alternative government have been different do you think?
I can't speculate on what a different government would have done differently. I can only talk about what this government has done, and should never have done. I have already stated/listed some of the things that the government SHOULD have done.

I HAVE learned just how gullible, intellectually lazy, and ignorant the public can be. I have learned that people only believe what they WANT to believe is true. They are not interested in what is not said. Only what is said. If all they are told that there were 200 more people infected with this virus, then all they know is that this is bad. If over 600K people have died from this virus in the US, and less than 1K people in Australia have died, then it must be because of the government's lockdowns. If this new strain of virus is more contagious, then clearly it must also be more dangerous. The government just plants the seed, and just let the people do the rest.

People simply don't think, or ask questions. In reality, you have more chances of dying from falling out of bed or off a ladder, than dying from Covid-19. You have more chances of being in a car accident, than ever becoming infected with Covid-19. Even if there were no lockdowns at all, it would theoretically still take centuries to infect 100% of the Australian population. But, because our herd immunity would have been reached, even this would be impossible.

Except the Australian Government is a party to the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 13 is the right to education. It seems to me that the government would be in violation of it if they stopped allowing any child from going to school even for one single day. A case could be launched with the Australian Human Rights Commission which would surely deem it illegal.
Only a Primary education is compulsory in Australia. Secondary education is only made available and accessible to all. It is not compulsory or mandatory. Even Higher education is only made equally accessible to all. Unfortunately, if the government, or the school board tells parents to induce their child's immune system to start producing antibodies that they don't need, then the parents will just do it.

 

Texan

Active member
Last edited:

chris155au

Active member
This video has been banned from youtube. I wonder why? Check out the links below the video also. Even my own doctor recommended that I not take the jab as long as I have antibodies.

His argument seems to be in two parts. In the first part he seems to be calling vaccines useless against COVID illness. He says: "75% of people who had COVID-19 positive symptom cases in the Barnstable Massachusetts outbreak were fully vaccinated." Doesn't this conflict with other parts of the country and world where we see that 99% of people who are hospitalised from COVID are unvaccinated? The second part is much more simple - that vaccination doesn't guarantee people against infection. Which is pretty obvious. Is this school board trying to specifically stop the spread?
 

chris155au

Active member
Black Americans DO NOT have the advantage of racial/social anonymity.
Why do they need racial/social anonymity exactly?

They are the most identifiable race in society, because of their obvious social features.
Why is that a problem?

I was shocked to hear that because a majority of Blacks have chosen NOT to be vaccinated, that this has led to a limit of no more than 10 Black Americans being allowed into certain businesses within "polite society".
Oh wow, you actually think that New York City has a policy to have a capacity limit at certain businesses, but which exclusively applies to black people? Now THAT would be funny considering the progressiveness of New York! :ROFL1

Yeah, so you have totally misunderstood me, and it may be partly my fault! As far as I know, the policy wasn't motivated by the fact that a majority of Blacks have not been vaccinated, but rather motivated by the fact that the groundhog murdering Mayor seems to want every single human being vaccinated, and it's only at 67% right now. I was being hyperbolic when I said that only 10 black people will be allowed into restaurants, gyms and entertainment venues. In actual fact, this freedom will be granted to any of the 30% vaccinated black New Yorkers, just as it will be granted to any of the 67% vaccinated New Yorkers.

Maybe we should also limit the number of Republicans who enter businesses? Since so few of them have chosen to be vaccinated.
What's the evidence that "so few of them have chosen to be vaccinated?" You may consider not baselessly denigrating Republicans! After all, you may BE ONE one day!

What role does race play in a person's choice to be vaccinated or not be vaccinated?
For at least some black people, it seems that the horrific, forty year long 'Tuskegee Syphilis Study' lingers in their minds, leading to a deep mistrust of the public health establishment.

Is the media implying that this is a "Black Thing"? Or, that if you choose not to be vaccinated, then you must be thinking like those Black Americans do?
You obviously do not know anything about the US media, like CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post and the New York Times. They are VERY far from being white supremacist outlets, which they would be if they said this kind of thing! No, they are in actual fact much more likely to attack whites than blacks.

NO! I was just being facetious. Of course no one would be arrested/fined for being vaccinated. But, they certainly could be fined/arrested for not getting vaccinated, or failing to follow any of the other health and safety directives. Either directly, or indirectly.
No, I don't think that the government would start arresting or fining people for not getting the vaccine by a certain date, which would actually not even achieve any public health benefit if the person has no restrictions. They would simply pay the one off fine, and live their life. Such a fine which wouldn't even achieve any public health benefit would likely be unconstitutional anyway. However, as you say, it could be for failing to follow any of the health and safety directives, for example - in an extreme case - unvaccinated people leaving their home for a non-essential reason.
 

chris155au

Active member
Relevance??
You cited a Wall Street Journal article. I couldn't view it because I'm not a subscriber. Did you even read it? I can't see how you could have if you're not a subscriber.

I was talking specifically about discrimination. I have already answered this question. Why are you still misrepresenting my answer out of context? My answer was conditional. That is, if you are discriminating against people in public(refusing service), based only on their race, ethnicity, disability, sexual preference, gender, religion, or their age, then YES you should be held accountable for your actions.
Held accountable in what way? Prosecution?

Do you think this should NOT be the case? If this law had not been abused for hundreds of years, you might have an argument.
Which law?

You might want to ask yourself WHY do some people need to be forced to do the right thing?
I don't think they do, not in this day and age. If a business adopts a 'no blacks allowed' policy, or a 'no gays allowed' policy, they will have committed business suicide. They would be DONE!

Surely, you don't have a problem with everyone being treated as an equal? Or, do you think that people should be free to choose to serve whomever they wish?
Why can't I want everyone to be treated as an equal, while at the same time wanting people to be free to choose to serve whomever they wish without the fear of government gun?

Again irrelevant and misrepresented. I believe in choice.
It seemed that the Informed Medical Options Party which you referred to is anti-vax. Perhaps my perception was off.

Freedom of choice should never be consensus-driven.
What do you mean by "consensus-driven?"

If this new strain of virus is more contagious, then clearly it must also be more dangerous.
Aren't we being told that it IS more dangerous?

In reality, you have more chances of dying from falling out of bed or off a ladder, than dying from Covid-19. You have more chances of being in a car accident, than ever becoming infected with Covid-19.
You have more chances of being in a car accident, than ever becoming INFECTED WITH Covid-19, or DYING FROM Covid-19?

Only a Primary education is compulsory in Australia. Secondary education is only made available and accessible to all. It is not compulsory or mandatory.
It is until age 16. So HALF of high school. Is this not your understanding? This is why a number of kids leave school after completing year 10, but NEVER any earlier. Anyway, even if ALL of high school is not compulsory, or if it's only years 11 and 12, I still think that a human rights abuse case could be filed if the government prevented unvaccinated children from going to school. Even section 1 of the ICESCR would be grounds for a case:

-https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/right-education-

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Even Higher education is only made equally accessible to all. Unfortunately, if the government, or the school board tells parents to induce their child's immune system to start producing antibodies that they don't need, then the parents will just do it.
What does it mean to induce a child's immune system ?


Did you intend to post this?
 

Texan

Active member
His argument seems to be in two parts. In the first part he seems to be calling vaccines useless against COVID illness. He says: "75% of people who had COVID-19 positive symptom cases in the Barnstable Massachusetts outbreak were fully vaccinated." Doesn't this conflict with other parts of the country and world where we see that 99% of people who are hospitalised from COVID are unvaccinated? The second part is much more simple - that vaccination doesn't guarantee people against infection. Which is pretty obvious. Is this school board trying to specifically stop the spread?
I think the Dr. saw the benefits of the vaccine for some people. It does seem to prevent many SEVERE covid cases and can help the vulnerable. He said the vaccine was useless for those who already had covid antibodies and he was against compulsory vaccinations and mask usage. Since there were also problems with the body's response to the vaccine and that the disease can still be contracted and spread to vulnerable unvaccinated people, the vaccine gives a false sense of security.
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
You cited a Wall Street Journal article. I couldn't view it because I'm not a subscriber. Did you even read it? I can't see how you could have if you're not a subscriber.
Again, what is the relevance of the origin of the article? And, of course I would have read the article. Here is an excerpt from it. It also includes some stats on Republicans who are refusing to be vaccinated, UNLESS IT BECOMES MANDATORY.


"On Thursday, Kay Ivey, the unimpeachably conservative governor of a deep red state, treated her Alabama constituents to some straight talk. “I want folks to get vaccinated. That’s the cure,” she said. “The data proves that it works.” And it “doesn’t cost you anything. It saves lives.”

Asked what it would take to get more of her state’s population vaccinated, Gov. Ivey grew visibly frustrated. “I don’t know,” she said. “But it’s time to start blaming the unvaccinated folks, not the regular folks.


This was in response to your request to show just ONE Republican who proposed similar policies as the Democrats. I also noticed you left out Fox News. Which is the premier Republican mouthpiece for the Republican Party. Even they have consistently supported non-mandatory masks and vaccine policies.

Why do they need racial/social anonymity exactly?
Why is that a problem?
No one has said that they NEED racial/social anonymity, only that they don't have it. Just where exactly did this assumption come from? But the advantages of having racial/social anonymity are obvious. It means that you will no longer be racially stereotyped, discriminated against, or prejudged before you even open your mouth. You will NOT be targeted and monitored in shopping centers as a potential criminal. You will NOT be stopped, searched, profiled, questioned, or arrested many times more often than people not of color. It also means that you will NOT be scrutinized to the letter of the law, at employment or school interviews. Why is that a problem? Clearly you are NOT a person of color. And, is definitely NOT a Black American.

You obviously do not know anything about the US media, like CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post and the New York Times. They are VERY far from being white supremacist outlets, which they would be if they said this kind of thing! No, they are in actual fact much more likely to attack whites than blacks.
I am very familiar with the media in America. I have followed the media since Eisenhower. But especially during the Clinton and Obama campaigns. I have seen just how the media was used to destroy Tulsi Gabbard, and to lionize Donald Trump. The media doesn't care about fair and balanced reporting, or even about presenting the undeniable truth. It only cares about its market share, ratings, making more profit for its shareholders, and in being politically correct with the powers to be. That will never change.

Held accountable in what way? Prosecution?
Correct! Not only should the individual be held responsible for ignoring the basic civil rights of others, but his/her employer must also bare some responsibility for the conduct/actions of their staff.

Which law?
Civil rights laws(Federal Law).

"Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The Act prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and federally funded programs. It also strengthened the enforcement of voting rights and the desegregation of schools.".

Why can't I want everyone to be treated as an equal, while at the same time wanting people to be free to choose to serve whomever they wish without the fear of government gun?
Because they are both mutually exclusive and contradictory. You cannot treat everyone as equals, and still choose to treat some people differently. But we are talking about discrimination. This is a clear violation of the civil rights of others. Since no one initially chooses their parents, religion, gender, sexual preference, or their age, discrimination based only on these criteria, is morally, legally, and ethically arrogant and irreprehensible. Do you think that some people are inherently better than others? Or, that people SHOULD be allowed to discriminate against others for any reason they choose?

It seemed that the Informed Medical Options Party which you referred to is anti-vax. Perhaps my perception was off.
It seems to me that you are still confusing anti-vaxxers with pro-choice activists. Did you notice anything else about this party, or did you just stop at them being an anti-vaxxers party? You clearly do not have a basic understanding of the underlying reasons, that parents use to support their decisions to not vaccinate their children. The IMOP supports the right of all parents to choose to vaccinate, and to choose not to vaccinate. Or, do you think that only the government should have this right?


Aren't we being told that it IS more dangerous?
NO! we are being told that it is just more contagious/infectious. We are just assuming that it is more dangerous. How many people have died from this new strain compared to the original strain? If it is more dangerous, then what specifically makes it more dangerous?

What do you mean by "consensus-driven?"
"Consensus-driven" simply means that truth becomes relative to the majority opinion. Not to the objective facts. So, if the majority of people believe that something is correct, then it is correct. I.e., if the consensus is that masks will stop the spread of this virus, then it must be true. If the consensus is that vaccines will stop the spread of this virus, then that must also be true. The more people who believe that something is true, the truer that something becomes. This is a fallacy. It doesn't matter if something is true or false. It only matters how many times something is repeated as truth, or how many people believe that it is true.

You have more chances of being in a car accident, than ever becoming INFECTED WITH Covid-19, or DYING FROM Covid-19?
You have a 1 in 107 chance(0.9%) of being involved in a motor vehicle accident and dying, and a 1 in 1,000 chance(0.1%) of being infected and dying from this virus. So, YES, this is consistent with the results.

What does it mean to induce a child's immune system ?
To prompt/induce an immune response in a child's immune system. And, to have the child start producing antibodies that he/she doesn't need. If we introduce any foreign pathogen(or close facsimile) into the body, the body will start producing antibodies to protect itself. Unfortunately, NO vaccine can stop you from being infected, or prevent you from infecting others. I would prefer my body to defend itself, and to make antibodies, only when it needs to.

It is until age 16. So HALF of high school. Is this not your understanding? This is why a number of kids leave school after completing year 10, but NEVER any earlier. Anyway, even if ALL of high school is not compulsory, or if it's only years 11 and 12, I still think that a human rights abuse case could be filed if the government prevented unvaccinated children from going to school. Even section 1 of the ICESCR would be grounds for a case:
I agree. But anything is possible, when the masses are ignorant and compliant.
 

chris155au

Active member
Again, what is the relevance of the origin of the article?
I was just asking if you were a subscriber because I can't see how else you could have read it. It seemed that you hadn't actually read it, because you named Kay Ivey as a Republican who has a vaccine mandate policy, and the sample of the WSJ article which I was able to view, made no mention of that, but only quoted her as being VERY pro-vaccine, and having some unkind words for unvaccinated people, such as, "it’s time to start blaming the unvaccinated folks, not the regular folks.” However, this has precisely NOTHING to do with a vaccine mandate.

Also from the article sample which I can view:

"Nearly 90% of Democrats say they have already gotten vaccinated or intend to do so soon, compared with 54% of Republicans, a number that has not budged since April." Yet another indication that you identify more with the Republicans than the Democrats! Sorry, but I can't resist continuing to challenge you on this! I'm sure that the thought of identifying more with the Republicans on a particular subject might be a bit CHILLING!

And, of course I would have read the article.
Okay, so you're a WSJ subscriber. Assuming that you mean that you read the ENTIRE article, and not just the same sample that I could view.

This was in response to your request to show just ONE Republican who proposed similar policies as the Democrats.
Republican POLITICIANS who support vaccine mandates! Can you name ONE? Again, if your answer is no then so far, New York City type vaccine mandates are specifically a Democrat policy. Simple!

I also noticed you left out Fox News.
I left out Fox News because it has precisely NOTHING to do with what we are talking about, which is Republican POLITICIANS who support vaccine mandates!

No one has said that they NEED racial/social anonymity, only that they don't have it. Just where exactly did this assumption come from? But the advantages of having racial/social anonymity are obvious. It means that you will no longer be racially stereotyped, discriminated against, or prejudged before you even open your mouth. You will NOT be targeted and monitored in shopping centers as a potential criminal.
Actually this brings up a good point. Apart from anything else, blacks could be monitored in shopping centers and other places as a potential "PUBLIC HEALTH RISK" if they remain largely unvaccinated and politicians convince us all that unvaccinated people are a dangerous public health risk. So in New York City, the danger is that black people could be stigmatised as 'dangerous' because they are so much less vaccinated than everyone else. This would obviously be terrible. Again, I think that the left will EAT ITSELF for this! I cannot wait!

I am very familiar with the media in America. I have followed the media since Eisenhower. But especially during the Clinton and Obama campaigns. I have seen just how the media was used to destroy Tulsi Gabbard, and to lionize Donald Trump.
Did the media "destroy" Gabbard any more than any of the other candidates? Also, isn't the President of the United States important? I'm not sure that the media can be criticised for talking about the President, who is an important person. They do kind of lead the country after all.

The media doesn't care about fair and balanced reporting, or even about presenting the undeniable truth. It only cares about its market share, ratings, making more profit for its shareholders, and in being politically correct with the powers to be. That will never change.
Sure, but it's just weird that you questioned whether the media is "implying that this is a 'Black Thing'? Or, that if you choose not to be vaccinated, then you must be thinking like those Black Americans do." That would very easily fit the definition of 'white supremacy.' You don't actually think that the media is full of white supremacists do you?

Correct! Not only should the individual be held responsible for ignoring the basic civil rights of others, but his/her employer must also bare some responsibility for the conduct/actions of their staff.
Okay, so my point is that you think that people should be forced to serve people who they don't want to serve, but you do NOT think that people should be forced to get vaccinated, or abide by certain other COVID restrictions. I just thought that I would point out your double standard. I'd be interested to see if you think that you're being perfectly consistent.

Civil rights laws(Federal Law).

"Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The Act prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and federally funded programs. It also strengthened the enforcement of voting rights and the desegregation of schools.".
So how has that been "abused for hundreds of years?" As in, people have broken that law?

Because they are both mutually exclusive and contradictory. You cannot treat everyone as equals, and still choose to treat some people differently.
Of course. But that's not what I asked. I asked, "why can't I want everyone to be treated as an equal, while at the same time wanting [OTHER] people to be free to choose to serve whomever they wish without the fear of government gun?"

But we are talking about discrimination. This is a clear violation of the civil rights of others. Since no one initially chooses their parents, religion, gender, sexual preference, or their age, discrimination based only on these criteria, is morally, legally, and ethically arrogant and irreprehensible.
I agree that it is morally, and ethically arrogant and irreprehensible.

Do you think that some people are inherently better than others?
No, I made that perfectly clear when I said that "I want everyone to be treated as an equal."

Or, that people SHOULD be allowed to discriminate against others for any reason they choose?
Yes, I think that people SHOULD be allowed to discriminate against others for any reason they choose. If it's on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation etc., then I stand ready to condemn such bigotry wherever I see it. But when does anyone even violate these laws in modern day America? Again, if a business adopts a 'no blacks allowed' policy, or a 'no gays allowed' policy, they will have committed business suicide. They would be DONE!

You have a 1 in 107 chance(0.9%) of being involved in a motor vehicle accident and dying, and a 1 in 1,000 chance(0.1%) of being infected and dying from this virus. So, YES, this is consistent with the results.
Yeah, okay, so you meant DYING FROM COVID-19, not being INFECTED WITH. You originally said "you have more chances of being in a car accident, than ever becoming infected with Covid-19. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Then again, you originally didn't specify DYING in a car accident. So it may actually be the case that you have a higher chance of being in a car accident, dying OR surviving, than ever dying from Covid-19.

To prompt/induce an immune response in a child's immune system.
And this is achieved with a vaccine?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Republican POLITICIANS who support vaccine mandates! Can you name ONE? Again, if your answer is no then so far, New York City type vaccine mandates are specifically a Democrat policy. Simple!
This would be like trying to prove that God does NOT exist. Would you say that Kay Ivey would NOT support a vaccine mandate? Based entirely on her pro-vaccine position? Can you prove that NO republican politician would be pro-vaccine-mandates, or would NOT support a universal vaccine mandate? Both are truth claims, in spite of the fact that neither can be positively proven. But clearly some Republicans are leaning in that direction. This is your claim, so you have the burden of proof.

45-percent-republicans-support-a-universal-vaccine-mandate-new-poll-2021-7?r=US&IR=T

I left out Fox News because it has precisely NOTHING to do with what we are talking about, which is Republican POLITICIANS who support vaccine mandates!
Since FOX NEWS is only an extension of the Republican Party, and the Conservative mouthpiece for turning back the clock to maintain the White status quo, I think it has everything to do with Republican politicians who support vaccine mandates. If you want to know what the current Republican views are, just tune into the FOX NEWS NETWORK. If Mitch says he likes it, Fox News will like it too.

Yeah, okay, so you meant DYING FROM COVID-19, not being INFECTED WITH. You originally said "you have more chances of being in a car accident, than ever becoming infected with Covid-19. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Then again, you originally didn't specify DYING in a car accident. So it may actually be the case that you have a higher chance of being in a car accident, dying OR surviving, than ever dying from Covid-19.
Yes both statements are correct. The chances are much less for catching and dying from Covid-19, than being involved in a motor vehicle accident and dying. Or, that you have a much greater chance of being in a motor vehicle accident, than you would have from dying from Covid-19. This is also a very accurate statement. My statement was,

"You have a 1 in 107 chance(0.9%) of being involved in a motor vehicle accident and dying, and a 1 in 1,000 chance(0.1%) of being infected and dying from this virus.".

So what part are you disputing?

Did the media "destroy" Gabbard any more than any of the other candidates? Also, isn't the President of the United States important? I'm not sure that the media can be criticized for talking about the President, who is an important person. They do kind of lead the country after all.
Really? How many of the other candidates were called, "Putin Puppets", "Asaad Apologists", "a Russian Asset", or who's religion and childhood was negatively propagandized by the media? None! Why didn't the media(liberal) point out why she didn't make the 3rd debate? And, why was it only FOX News that supported her(they claimed that she was a Republican). No actively servicing member of the Armed Forces was ever treated with so much half-truths, innuendoes, blatant lies, guilt by association, and unsupported slurs. She lost the minute she stepped down as Vice Chair of the DNC to support Sander. Who could argue with stopping all regime-change wars, and using the Trillions saved to address all domestic issues? She was being slurred from the week before her campaign was even announced. And, it hadn't let up. Tulsi was the only politician who was overqualified to become the POTUS. She was America's last hope for ending the cycle of endless regime-change wars, and had the perfect solution to finance all of our urgent domestic issues. But the media had us choosing a 78yo senile old man, over a progressive thinking and currently serving, 39yo senior military officer, who is also a veteran politician. Go figure!

As I've said before, Biden was the best company man for the DNC. But NOT for the people. And, Kamala is worse than Biden. She would be an even worse puppet than Trump or Biden. At least Trump had a limit on just how far he would go. There would be no limits to how far Kamala would go. The paid actors of MSM have done their jobs well. Just like with Covid-19. Trump may have been wrong about 90% of everything out of his mouth, but "fake news" was NOT one of them.

So how has that been "abused for hundreds of years?" As in, people have broken that law?
What? Really? For hundreds of years before and after reconstruction, White Americans have systematically been abusing the civil rights of POC. All POC were systematically excluded from education, employment, housing, property ownership, businesses ventures, loans, their legal due process, and their equal protection under the law. You must have seen at least ONE public lynching. Or, at least ONE Civil Rights March.


Sure, but it's just weird that you questioned whether the media is "implying that this is a 'Black Thing'? Or, that if you choose not to be vaccinated, then you must be thinking like those Black Americans do." That would very easily fit the definition of 'white supremacy.' You don't actually think that the media is full of white supremacists do you?
Now you are just being creative in your writing, and in your conclusions. Especially in this appeal to incredulity and pathos. I will say that there are now fewer idealistic and honest journalists in the media, than there are "good company men" journalists in MSM.

No, I made that perfectly clear when I said that "I want everyone to be treated as an equal."
Of course. But that's not what I asked. I asked, "why can't I want everyone to be treated as an equal, while at the same time wanting [OTHER] people to be free to choose to serve whomever they wish without the fear of government gun?"
I agree that it is morally, and ethically arrogant and irreprehensible.
I was confused, and didn't understand how you could so easily dismiss two contradictory and mutually exclusive statements. But after reading your next paragraph, I completely understand your position.

Yes, I think that people SHOULD be allowed to discriminate against others for any reason they choose. If it's on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation etc., then I stand ready to condemn such bigotry wherever I see it. But when does anyone even violate these laws in modern day America? Again, if a business adopts a 'no blacks allowed' policy, or a 'no gays allowed' policy, they will have committed business suicide. They would be DONE!
Clearly you believe that all discrimination should be allowed, and that they would be at worst, self-regulating. Just not very good for business. If your religion sees women as "chattel", and that they must wait outside of your business, then you have a right to discriminate/refuse service against all women. If you are told that POC all carry a rare disease, or that being mentally handicapped is contagious, then you can now discriminate/refuse service to them as well. How about if you don't believe in the Trilogy? Do you now discriminate/refuse service to all Catholics? We have seen what happens when people are free to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual preference, age, or handicap in the past. It can have a negative long lasting emotional, physical, economic, and psychological impact on those people being discriminated against. Or, is the only thing that matters to you, is "committing business suicide"?

I completely disagree that employees should have the right to discriminate against any person, for any reason. Including those reasons that any person would otherwise be called a bigot for. There are legitimate reasons when employees DO NOT have to serve a customer. But bigoted reasons are NOT one of them. Discrimination is just not as open these days. But it still exists today. It is just hidden in the selective interpretation of rules, laws, restrictions, and hidden in the fine print.

Okay, so my point is that you think that people should be forced to serve people who they don't want to serve, but you do NOT think that people should be forced to get vaccinated, or abide by certain other COVID restrictions. I just thought that I would point out your double standard. I'd be interested to see if you think that you're being perfectly consistent.
Double standard? No, it is just a false equivalency. Forcing people to NOT discriminate against others because it is morally and ethically correct, and would create a more harmonious society, is not the same thing as forcing children(and adults) to vaccinate themselves, just to be politically correct. Vaccines do not prevent you from becoming infected. Vaccines do not prevent you from infecting others. Vaccines only prompts an early immune response to an artificial pathogen(not a real one). And, vaccines have a shelf-life. I would prefer my body to develop antibodies to a real pathogen. But that is my decision. What other people decide is their business.

If you or people like you feel more secure in having a vaccine, then have one. If you feel more secure wearing a mask, then wear one. So why are you worried about me, or my business?

Actually this brings up a good point. Apart from anything else, blacks could be monitored in shopping centers and other places as a potential "PUBLIC HEALTH RISK" if they remain largely unvaccinated and politicians convince us all that unvaccinated people are a dangerous public health risk. So in New York City, the danger is that black people could be stigmatized as 'dangerous' because they are so much less vaccinated than everyone else. This would obviously be terrible. Again, I think that the left will EAT ITSELF for this! I cannot wait!
Very good point. Although I think Blacks(and other POC) are being monitored for their potential as a crime risk, than as a health risk.
 

chris155au

Active member
This would be like trying to prove that God does NOT exist. Would you say that Kay Ivey would NOT support a vaccine mandate? Based entirely on her pro-vaccine position? Can you prove that NO republican politician would be pro-vaccine-mandates, or would NOT support a universal vaccine mandate? Both are truth claims, in spite of the fact that neither can be positively proven. But clearly some Republicans are leaning in that direction. This is your claim, so you have the burden of proof.
So you think that I should prove a NEGATIVE? Surely you can't be serious! Look, it's VERY simple - not one single Republican politician, local, state, or federal has expressed their desire for a vaccine mandate. Yet, there are COUNTLESS Democrat politicians who have not only expressed their desire for a vaccine mandate, but have already implemented them! I feel like I have made my point VERY clear. Once again, can you name ONE SINGLE Republican politician who supports vaccine mandates? Again, if your answer is no, then so far, New York City type vaccine mandates are specifically a Democrat policy. Simple!

Since FOX NEWS is only an extension of the Republican Party, and the Conservative mouthpiece for turning back the clock to maintain the White status quo,
You mean just like CNN is an extension of the Democratic Party and a liberal mouthpiece?

I think it has everything to do with Republican politicians who support vaccine mandates.
Republican politicians which you have not shown even exist! These 'Republican politicians who support vaccine mandates' seems to be purely a figment of your immagination! :ROFL1

If you want to know what the current Republican views are, just tune into the FOX NEWS NETWORK. If Mitch says he likes it, Fox News will like it too.
Current Republican views on COVID include being against vaccine mandates, and being against masks for the vaccinated, which you agree with them on! :ROFL1

"You have a 1 in 107 chance(0.9%) of being involved in a motor vehicle accident and dying, and a 1 in 1,000 chance(0.1%) of being infected and dying from this virus.".

So what part are you disputing?
Only that you originally said "you have more chances of being in a car accident, than ever becoming infected with Covid-19.

What? Really? For hundreds of years before and after reconstruction, White Americans have systematically been abusing the civil rights of POC. All POC were systematically excluded from education, employment, housing, property ownership, businesses ventures, loans, their legal due process, and their equal protection under the law. You must have seen at least ONE public lynching. Or, at least ONE Civil Rights March.
This all happened AFTER the Civil Rights Act was passed making this stuff illegal?

Now you are just being creative in your writing, and in your conclusions. Especially in this appeal to incredulity and pathos. I will say that there are now fewer idealistic and honest journalists in the media, than there are "good company men" journalists in MSM.
Yes I agree with you, but they don't say wild racist things such as, "if you choose not to be vaccinated, then you must be thinking like those Black Americans do." I think that YOU were being creative in your writing!

Clearly you believe that all discrimination should be allowed, and that they would be at worst, self-regulating. Just not very good for business. If your religion sees women as "chattel", and that they must wait outside of your business, then you have a right to discriminate/refuse service against all women. If you are told that POC all carry a rare disease, or that being mentally handicapped is contagious, then you can now discriminate/refuse service to them as well.
Yes, and a business which adopts such an outrageous policy will have committed business suicide! They will be EXTINCT in a matter of days after the news spreads. You can't see this?

How about if you don't believe in the Trilogy? Do you now discriminate/refuse service to all Catholics?
Well it's important to note that not only Catholics believe in the TRINITY, which I assume is what you meant by "trilogy." It is indeed something that the VAST majority of Western Christians believe. And if someone wants to refuse service to all Christians, they should be free to do so.

We have seen what happens when people are free to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual preference, age, or handicap in the past.
Yep. "In the past." There's simply no reason to believe that if the Civil Rights Act was rescinded, widespread discrimination would break out all over the country. Do you believe that it would? I thought that America had moved on a little bit since slavery and Jim Crow. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Double standard? No, it is just a false equivalency. Forcing people to NOT discriminate against others because it is morally and ethically correct, and would create a more harmonious society, is not the same thing as forcing children(and adults) to vaccinate themselves, just to be politically correct.
Yeah, it's not the same thing, but they are both examples of removing someone's freedom. You're totally okay with one, but not the other.

Vaccines do not prevent you from becoming infected. Vaccines do not prevent you from infecting others. Vaccines only prompts an early immune response to an artificial pathogen(not a real one).
As in, coronavirus is an artificial pathogen?

If you or people like you feel more secure in having a vaccine, then have one. If you feel more secure wearing a mask, then wear one. So why are you worried about me, or my business?
Why the hell do you think that I'm one of those people?

Very good point. Although I think Blacks(and other POC) are being monitored for their potential as a crime risk, than as a health risk.
In New York, being unvaccinated probably WILL become a crime!
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Republican politicians which you have not shown even exist! These 'Republican politicians who support vaccine mandates' seems to be purely a figment of your immagination!
The articles that I deposit do not come from my imagination. Are you claiming that these imaginary Republicans never said these things? Or, are NOT pro-vaccine mandates? Why do you feel that way?

So you think that I should prove a NEGATIVE? Surely you can't be serious! Look, it's VERY simple - not one single Republican politician, local, state, or federal has expressed their desire for a vaccine mandate. Yet, there are COUNTLESS Democrat politicians who have not only expressed their desire for a vaccine mandate, but have already implemented them! I feel like I have made my point VERY clear. Once again, can you name ONE SINGLE Republican politician who supports vaccine mandates? Again, if your answer is no, then so far, New York City type vaccine mandates are specifically a Democrat policy. Simple!
Yet you expect others to disprove YOUR own negative claims. What I have proven, is that there are at least 2 republican politicians who are leaning towards a vaccine mandate. Based only on their pro-vaccine rhetoric. Since it is YOU who have made this truth-claim, that NO republican supports/demands vaccine mandates, then it is YOU who should be able to back it up. You make the claim that there are NO republicans supporting, or in favor of a vaccine mandate. But instead of proving this claim, you simply tell others to try to disprove your claim. Essentially, you want others to try an disprove YOUR negative claim.

I claim that not ALL Democrats support a vaccine mandate as well. Does this mean that these democrats are really just republicans in disguise? And even if you could prove that many republicans might be in favor of a vaccine mandate, no one could prove which ones are not. Unless it is taken to a vote. Is it your logic that if no one can prove you wrong, that you must be right by default? This is a logical fallacy.

So, I'll ask again, prove that NO republican politicians are in favor of a vaccine mandate? I mentioned 2, which you haven't disputed their words. I have demonstrated that Kay Ivey is pro-vaccine mandate. She is the Republican Governor of Alabama. So, are you saying that she is NOT in favor of a vaccine mandate? Or, that the comments made by Mitch McConnell do not show his leaning towards a vaccine mandate? You can't just continue to simply dismiss questions, by asking more questions indefinitely.

Current Republican views on COVID include being against vaccine mandates, and being against masks for the vaccinated, which you agree with them on! :ROFL1
The current MAJORITY republican view is anti-vaccine mandates. NOT anti-vaccines.

Only that you originally said "you have more chances of being in a car accident, than ever becoming infected with Covid-19.
Even if I originally said this, both statements are still correct. YOU DO HAVE MORE CHANCES OF BEING IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, THAN YOU HAVE BEING INFECTED WITH COVID-19. Are you saying that this is NOT true? That you would have a greater chance of being infected with Covid-19, than being involved in a traffic accident?

This all happened AFTER the Civil Rights Act was passed making this stuff illegal?
I'm assuming that you are talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1866? Which means that it took the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to finally make people culpable and liable for violating the first Civil Rights Act. That's over 98 years of blatant civil rights abuses, that systematically excluded POC from all major areas of society. We have seen who the first people would be to suffer, if all discrimination laws are ignored, let alone repealed/rescinded.

You are correct though. Whites will do anything for power, votes, honey or money. So it was only when the freedom marchers began to target the business community, that their voices were heard. When millions began to voice their disapproval over being discriminated against, the politicians then starting jumping on the band wagon. Either every American citizen is protected under the law(1866 or 1964), is provided with the same due process, and is given the same opportunities as everyone else, or just stop lying to the people. Stop telling the world that America is the land of the free, the home of the brave, and provides everyone with the same opportunities.

For such a supposedly rich country, I have never seen so many poor beggars and addicts. I have never seen a more indebted nation. I have never seen so much violence and premature deaths. And, I have never seen so many people, willing to screw so many people over, for a bigger service tip.

As in, coronavirus is an artificial pathogen?
The Coronavirus is NOT an artificial pathogen, nor did I claim that it was. It is the VACCINE that artificially prompts an immune response to an artificially lab-created RNA sequenced facsimile of a real virus. Or, some artificially altered pathogen. So, Yes the VACCINE contains no real viruses at all. I personally would prefer that my immune system respond to true and natural pathogen. Or, do you think that the vaccine contain LIVE Coronaviruses?

Yeah, it's not the same thing, but they are both examples of removing someone's freedom. You're totally okay with one, but not the other.
They are NOT the same. You can remove anyone's freedom from them. But there must be due process. There is NO due process if wearing masks or vaccinations become mandated. But it is the right of all those being discriminated against, NOT be discriminated against. The Constitution guarantees this. You are talking about one right that claims to protect society, and another right to protect bigots and racists. We have come along way to start going backwards again.

I am totally okay with protecting anyone from being discriminated against. Discrimination is rooted in fear, egoism, power, and racial insecurity. People DO NOT choose their parents, where they are born, what their gender is, what is their parent's religion, to be handicapped, or how old they are. So why should their discrimination be only on these basis? This is beyond arrogance to discriminate based on these unavoidable realities. This is just supremacism and elitism, with bigotry and fear at its core.

Clearly you are NOT a POC, or we would NOT be having this conversation. And, YES discrimination would run rampant within society, once all discrimination is permitted. You are either socially naïve, or historically ignorant, to not be aware of what will happen once we go down this slippery slope. And, if you think that discrimination will be self-regulating and profit-driven, then I strongly disagree with you.

This started out with me agreeing that vaccines, mask-wearing should never be mandatory. It has deflated into something much worse. So, lets just agree to disagree?

You mean just like CNN is an extension of the Democratic Party and a liberal mouthpiece?
Is that your argument. "Well they are too". Really. From the independent perspective, both are just MSM, owned and controlled by the oligarchy, oil companies, and the MIC. If you want unbiased news reporting, either go outside of the US. Or, listen to the free independent news networks.
 
Last edited:

chris155au

Active member
The articles that I deposit do not come from my imagination. Are you claiming that these imaginary Republicans never said these things? Or, are NOT pro-vaccine mandates? Why do you feel that way?
Because they simply have not expressed their desire for a vaccine mandate! The only person who you have quoted is Kay Ivey. And while she had some pretty unkind words to say about unvaccinated folks, she did NOT express her desire for a vaccine mandate.

You make the claim that there are NO republicans supporting, or in favor of a vaccine mandate. But instead of proving this claim, you simply tell others to try to disprove your claim. Essentially, you want others to try an disprove YOUR negative claim.
The way to disprove my claim is VERY simple: name ONE single Republican politician who has expressed their desire for a vaccine mandate. My claim that there are no such Republican politicians is based on the fact that I am not aware of any, and I follow US politics VERY closely. I'm saying that there MIGHT be some out there, and you're saying that there ARE some out there! So who are they exactly? If you are unable to name any, then so far, New York City type vaccine mandates are specifically a Democrat policy. Simple!

So, I'll ask again, prove that NO republican politicians are in favor of a vaccine mandate? I mentioned 2, which you haven't disputed their words. I have demonstrated that Kay Ivey is pro-vaccine mandate. She is the Republican Governor of Alabama. So, are you saying that she is NOT in favor of a vaccine mandate?
I'm saying that she MIGHT be, but so far you have no quoted her expressing her desire specifically for a vaccine mandate!

Or, that the comments made by Mitch McConnell do not show his leaning towards a vaccine mandate?
"Leaning towards." So this is YOUR interpretation of what he has said. And you haven't even quoted anything that he has said! The simple FACT of the matter is that Mitch has NOT expressed his desire for a vaccine mandate! Are you going to ask me to PROVE that he has not? Anyway, he's not even in charge of a State or a City like Bill Deblassio! Even if he did want a vaccine mandate, he has no actual power to do anything about it!

The current MAJORITY republican view is anti-vaccine mandates. NOT anti-vaccines.
Exactly! How does this go against what I said? I said, current Republican views on COVID include being against vaccine mandates, and being against masks for the vaccinated, which you agree with them on!

Even if I originally said this, both statements are still correct. YOU DO HAVE MORE CHANCES OF BEING IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, THAN YOU HAVE BEING INFECTED WITH COVID-19. Are you saying that this is NOT true? That you would have a greater chance of being infected with Covid-19, than being involved in a traffic accident?
Absolutely! In NSW today there were 390 cases of COVID! There were NOT 390 traffic accidents! And this is in a lockdown! If the virus was allowed to run wild, there would be thousands of cases a day, but there would NOT be thousands of traffic accidents!

I'm assuming that you are talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1866?
NO! 1964, which you previously quoted an extract from! Then you went on to say: "White Americans have systematically been abusing the civil rights of POC. All POC were systematically excluded from education, employment, housing, property ownership, businesses ventures, loans, their legal due process, and their equal protection under the law." Are you saying that this all happened AFTER the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed making it illegal? If not, then I don't know what you mean when you say that this law has "been abused for hundreds of years."

The Coronavirus is NOT an artificial pathogen, nor did I claim that it was. It is the VACCINE that artificially prompts an immune response to an artificially lab-created RNA sequenced facsimile of a real virus. Or, some artificially altered pathogen. So, Yes the VACCINE contains no real viruses at all. I personally would prefer that my immune system respond to true and natural pathogen.
So then what is this artificial pathogen in the case of the COVID vaccine?

Or, do you think that the vaccine contain LIVE Coronaviruses?
I thought that all vaccines contained some of the virus/bacteria that they are defending against. But I really don't know anything about vaccines!

They are NOT the same. You can remove anyone's freedom from them. But there must be due process. There is NO due process if wearing masks or vaccinations become mandated.
Okay, so what about a vaccine mandate with a formal legal process in order to grant due process? I assume that you would STILL be against a vaccine mandate.

But it is the right of all those being discriminated against, NOT be discriminated against. The Constitution guarantees this.
Nope, the Constitution protects against GOVERNMENT discrimination, more so for the Federal government as far as I know. Otherwise, why was the Civil Rights Act required?

You are talking about one right that claims to protect society, and another right to protect bigots and racists.
Which right are you talking about which "claims to protect society?"

And, YES discrimination would run rampant within society, once all discrimination is permitted.
I thought that America had moved on a little bit since slavery and Jim Crow. Perhaps I'm wrong. You also seem to think that a business would survive a 'no blacks allowed policy.' Weird.

Is that your argument. "Well they are too". Really. From the independent perspective, both are just MSM, owned and controlled by the oligarchy, oil companies, and the MIC
I just wanted to make sure that you were being logically consistent about your views on the media. It turns out that you are.
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
wow

From a bogus question, you guys have had a ball.

Chris155 up to his same old tricks. Endless questions, and not very interesting. Crikey you fellas must spend a LOT of time at your keyboards. Do you actually work.? It must be crushingly boring if the above has entertainment value for you.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
NO! 1964, which you previously quoted an extract from! Then you went on to say: "White Americans have systematically been abusing the civil rights of POC. All POC were systematically excluded from education, employment, housing, property ownership, businesses ventures, loans, their legal due process, and their equal protection under the law." Are you saying that this all happened AFTER the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed making it illegal? If not, then I don't know what you mean when you say that this law has "been abused for hundreds of years."
What I am saying is that civil rights abuses were happening before the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and afterwards. These abuses were occurring before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and afterwards. And finally, they are still occurring today. But, just not as open and as obvious, as it was practiced in the past. Remember the Clan only caved because of ONE lost lawsuit. So, they needed to adapt their hate rhetoric.

At some point in your attempts to rationalize the irrational, you will eventually have to admit, that these laws, like all laws, were created to protect people from being abused by other people. If people did NOT commit a list of civil rights abuses, and discrimination against others, on all levels of society, there would be no need for laws forbidding discrimination. Right? Or, did you think that these laws came into being, just because the government felt like screwing with the rights of people to discriminate against whomever they please? And, for any reason they pleased? Without these civil rights guarantees, POC will become the new legal slaves in society.

Nope, the Constitution protects against GOVERNMENT discrimination, more so for the Federal government as far as I know. Otherwise, why was the Civil Rights Act required?
NOPE! The Constitution supersedes all other State Laws. If the Federal Laws say that that States can't discriminate against a Black Child for entering an all-White school, then that child will enter that school. Regardless of whatever State law is in place. The Constitution protects ALL people against ALL discriminations. Remember the Preamble to the Constitution?

Which right are you talking about which "claims to protect society?"
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare,...".

The Government has a duty of care to the people, to enact policies that would protect and give meaning to all of these social ideals.

So then what is this artificial pathogen in the case of the COVID vaccine?
I thought that all vaccines contained some of the virus/bacteria that they are defending against. But I really don't know anything about vaccines!
No vaccines contain live viruses or bacteria. The first vaccine that you shove into your arm, is a small mRNA code for a protein that causes the cell to make the "Locks" that allow the real virus to attach to the cell. The immune system will respond to the presence of these "locks" on the outside of the cell. So anything that tries to attach itself to these "locks" will also prompt an immune response.

The second and third vaccines you shove into your arm, will give you a cocktail of altered, and inert fragments of Adenoviruses(cold and flu viruses). They are just assuming that you are already immune to some of them. When these artificially reconstructed/modified fragments of pathogens are present in the blood, they will also prompt an immune response. In reality, just about anything foreign to the body will prompt an immune response.

Would it not be prudent to know what you are putting into your arm, before you put anything into your arm? Ignorance is the one thing that all governments are counting on.

Okay, so what about a vaccine mandate with a formal legal process in order to grant due process? I assume that you would STILL be against a vaccine mandate.
It is NOT a criminal offence to refuse to vaccinate yourself. But if there is a health mandate, then the offense will be refusing to obey this mandate. In order to be enforced, the inevitable outcome is forced vaccinations. And, this will open the door to other privacy, and personal liberty issues and breaches. Forcibly! There is no due process here. You either obey the mandate, or you don't. You will go to jail, or you will pay a fine. And, still be forced to comply with the mandate. This is a very dangerous slippery slope to go down. Even when this virus runs its course, these mandates will still be in place.

Look, I totally disagree with giving anyone the right to discriminate against anyone. Especially, when their reasons are based in bigotry, elitism, insecurity, fear, and ignorance. This just seems a no-brainer to me. Clearly people will abuse this right. And, not because of anything as silly as not being cost-efficient, or not being a sound business strategy. But being self-regulatory is even more incredulous. It would only spiral out of control.

Fortunately, no one is going to go back to those "good old days". When POC knew their place, and knew how to behave. So, again I totally disagree with you.

You also seem to think that a business would survive a 'no blacks allowed policy.' Weird.
Do you really think that any business in America, would still hang out a "no Blacks Allowed" sign. But they might hang out, "Only qualified People Need Apply". There are many subtle ways racism and discrimination is still being practiced in America. What does the Black mother tell her daughter who just lost an all-White dance contest? Especially, when the White child stumbled and slipped and still won. Does she tell her child, that success is based on hard work? Or, does she go back to the Ghetto, for an even playing field? I really don't expect you to understand the real effects, that any form of discrimination can have of generations of POC.

The way to disprove my claim is VERY simple:
I think that you are missing the point(or avoiding it). The way to prove your claim is to show that there is NOT one single republicans who is in favor of a vaccine or mask mandate. I gave you at least one person, and you dismissed her rhetoric. Do you think that any Republicans would vote on mandatory vaccines on the floor? How do you know? So what is YOUR independent evidence that will support your claim? Claiming that if I can't disprove your claim, is NOT evidence. It is a fallacy. "The absence of evidence, is NOT the evidence of absence.". You made the claim, so what is your evidence? How do you know that every republican does NOT support mandatory vaccines? How do you know that only democrats support mandatory vaccines? If it is so simple, then lets hear it. Even if I couldn't produce one Republican, it still would NOT make your claim right by default. Now would it?

Absolutely! In NSW today there were 390 cases of COVID! There were NOT 390 traffic accidents! And this is in a lockdown! If the virus was allowed to run wild, there would be thousands of cases a day, but there would NOT be thousands of traffic accidents!
I was comparing the yearly stats of those with Covid-19 in all of Australia(not just in NSW), to all those who were involved in a motor vehicle accident throughout Australia. If you believe that the lockdown have saved us all from a viral apocalypse, then lets see the evidence? What is the direct causal relationship? All of the other viruses that we have let "run wild", and nothing has happened in over 70 years. Viruses will still run their course regardless of anything that we do.
 

chris155au

Active member
wow

From a bogus question, you guys have had a ball.

Chris155 up to his same old tricks. Endless questions, and not very interesting. Crikey you fellas must spend a LOT of time at your keyboards. Do you actually work.? It must be crushingly boring if the above has entertainment value for you.
Okay, so you have absolutely NOTHING to contribute
to the thread! How the hell is it a "bogus question?"
 

chris155au

Active member
What I am saying is that civil rights abuses were happening before the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and afterwards. These abuses were occurring before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and afterwards. And finally, they are still occurring today. But, just not as open and as obvious, as it was practiced in the past. Remember the Clan only caved because of ONE lost lawsuit. So, they needed to adapt their hate rhetoric.
So to confirm then, since 1964, has the following been happening?

"White Americans have systematically been abusing the civil rights of POC. All POC were systematically excluded from education, employment, housing, property ownership, businesses ventures, loans, their legal due process, and their equal protection under the law."

If people did NOT commit a list of civil rights abuses, and discrimination against others, on all levels of society, there would be no need for laws forbidding discrimination. Right?
The laws were introduced at a time when it was normal to discriminate against black people! Whereas today it is NOT normal. Can you not see that?

And you keep cutting out this part of my posts: I thought that America had moved on a little bit since slavery and Jim Crow. Perhaps I'm wrong.

NOPE! The Constitution supersedes all other State Laws. If the Federal Laws say that that States can't discriminate against a Black Child for entering an all-White school, then that child will enter that school. Regardless of whatever State law is in place. The Constitution protects ALL people against ALL discriminations.
Then why was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 required, if the Constitution already protected "ALL people against ALL discriminations?"

It is NOT a criminal offence to refuse to vaccinate yourself. But if there is a health mandate, then the offense will be refusing to obey this mandate. In order to be enforced, the inevitable outcome is forced vaccinations.
Yes, which would be wrong. People should have the freedom to refuse, right?

Look, I totally disagree with giving anyone the right to discriminate against anyone.
Do you have the right to other people's services?

Do you really think that any business in America, would still hang out a "no Blacks Allowed" sign. But they might hang out, "Only qualified People Need Apply".
I don't see how that would lead to racism.

There are many subtle ways racism and discrimination is still being practiced in America. What does the Black mother tell her daughter who just lost an all-White dance contest?
How was the black girl in the all-white dance contest if she's not white?

Especially, when the White child stumbled and slipped and still won. Does she tell her child, that success is based on hard work? Or, does she go back to the Ghetto, for an even playing field?
I wasn't aware that all black people live in "ghettos."

I think that you are missing the point(or avoiding it). The way to prove your claim is to show that there is NOT one single republicans who is in favor of a vaccine or mask mandate.
I said that there is there is not one single republican who has expressed their desire for a vaccine mandate. Simple!

I gave you at least one person, and you dismissed her rhetoric.
How exactly did I dismiss her rhetoric? Do you mean I dismissed it as an expression of her desire for a vaccine mandate? If so, sure! I dismiss it! However, I do NOT dismiss it as an expression of her being VERY pro-vaccine, to the point of being nasty towards non-vaccinated folks, which again, is NOT expressing a desire for a vaccine mandate! I don't know how this can be so difficult for you!

Do you think that any Republicans would vote on mandatory vaccines on the floor?
No idea. Maybe!

Claiming that if I can't disprove your claim, is NOT evidence. It is a fallacy. "The absence of evidence, is NOT the evidence of absence.". You made the claim, so what is your evidence?
My claim: there is not one single republican who has expressed their desire for a vaccine mandate. Simple!

How do you know that every republican does NOT support mandatory vaccines? How do you know that only democrats support mandatory vaccines? If it is so simple, then lets hear it. Even if I couldn't produce one Republican, it still would NOT make your claim right by default. Now would it?
Correct. It is ENTIRELY possible that every single Republican politician in the land secretly desires vaccine mandates. However, this would mean NOTHING unless it translates into ACTUAL policy like the policy in New York City! Again, if you are unable to name any, then so far, New York City type vaccine mandates are specifically a Democrat policy. Simple!

I was comparing the yearly stats of those with Covid-19 in all of Australia(not just in NSW), to all those who were involved in a motor vehicle accident throughout Australia.
As of 3pm on 12 August 2021, a total of 37,754 cases of COVID-19 have been reported in Australia. Have there been more car accidents than that since March 2020? I don't know, but it's an interesting question. Do YOU know?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Do you have the right to other people's services?
Absolutely. Especially, if these other people are being paid to provide that service to others. If someone(regardless of race) comes to your home, and demands that you provide them with tea and biscuits, do you have the right to refuse that service? Of course you do. But if you go to a hospital injured, do they have the right to be refused service for bigoted reasons? Of course they don't. So what is the difference here? The difference here, is that you have defined service under one brush-stroke. Surely common sense should play a role in the narrative you are creating here. You must also include just how easily your assumptions can lead to abuse, and eventually the destruction of society. Remember the results of political and economic discrimination of Apartheid in South Africa?

As of 3pm on 12 August 2021, a total of 37,754 cases of COVID-19 have been reported in Australia. Have there been more car accidents than that since March 2020? I don't know, but it's an interesting question. Do YOU know?
As of Aug 14th, 2021, there have been a total of 38,658 reported cases of Covid-19 in Australia. But when you add the truth into the mix of half-truths, there is only 6,694 total active cases in Australia(38,658 total cases - 31,011 recovery cases - 953 deaths = 6,694 true number of active cases in Australia). It is so hard to see the truth behind so much disinformation. I wonder why people aren't talking about the thousands who have recovered?


So in a population of 26M people, your chances of being infected(based on the current infection rate) is just a probability of 2 in 10K(0.0002) per year. The odds of being in a motor vehicle accident(based on the number of insurance claims) is a probability of 5 in 100 drivers(0.056 x no. of years driving). So a probability of 0.0002(Covid-19) vs. a probability of 0.06(traffic accident)..., well you do the math!

How was the black girl in the all-white dance contest if she's not white?
Please stop answering questions with questions. Obviously being Black did not exclude her from competing in the contest. Her entry is totally irrelevant.

I wasn't aware that all black people live in "ghettos."
Again another mute point at best. And, another deflective distraction at worse. My comment was about one Black woman and her child. It was NOT about where ALL Black Americans live. Please stop selectively responding to my comments OUT OF CONTEXT!

Do you have the right to other people's services?
More misrepresentation of my comments. I said, "Look, I totally disagree with giving anyone the right to discriminate against anyone.". So what are you responding to? Do people have the right to discriminate against others for bigoted reasons? Of course not! And YES, people do have the right to the services of others, if these people are being paid to provide that service. They also have a duty of care to the people who they are serving.

My claim: there is not one single republican who has expressed their desire for a vaccine mandate. Simple!
No, what your original comment was, "Is there a SINGLE Republican proposing this sort of stuff? I follow US politics VERY closely, and I haven't heard of any.". I guess you needed to define stuff first! In either case, you simply assumed that if no one could disprove your truth claim, that it must be correct. The point was, that it is YOU who must prove it, since you are the one who said it. To most people this is just your own confirmation bias, supported only by suppositions and speculations. But, in reality, it will take an actual proposed policy, or a vote on the floor to support your claims. But I am more than confident, that there will be a few Republicans voting along with many Democrats for a vaccine mandate.

No idea. Maybe!
What? The crack is becoming bigger. First you are claiming that NOT ONE Republican is proposing, or in favor of a vaccine mandate. And, now you are claiming that you are not sure if even ONE Republican may vote yes to a vaccine mandate? I'm confused.


Yes, which would be wrong. People should have the freedom to refuse, right?
Wow! what a deflection!! I almost got whiplash with that one. Context please!

So to confirm then, since 1964, has the following been happening?
Absolutely Correct! Just not as open or as obvious.

The laws were introduced at a time when it was normal to discriminate against black people! Whereas today it is NOT normal. Can you not see that?

And you keep cutting out this part of my posts: I thought that America had moved on a little bit since slavery and Jim Crow. Perhaps I'm wrong.
You are. And most people of non color would say that. You can't change a person's core beliefs and attitudes. If there were no laws, civil resistance, or the normalcy that you refer to, nothing would have changed. It took people willing to get out of their chairs, and actually put some skin in the game, to defend/express their moral beliefs. These people knew how wrong it was to own another human being, to lynch another human being, to deprive POC of their due process under the law, and to make discrimination/segregation of POC such an insidious moral institution.

Then why was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 required, if the Constitution already protected "ALL people against ALL discriminations?"
The simple answer is, that people ignored the civil and Constitutional rights of POC. Hence why the Jim Crow laws, the segregation laws, the Black Codes, the Separate but Equal policies, Blacks NOT allowed to own homes or property, suppression on the Black votes, and the systematic inequality in the American Democracy. This treatment of POC had been happening before, and after the Civil Rights Act of 1866(to protect Black Americans against racial discrimination). Clearly the States had found other ways around it. But there are still watchdog groups still vigilant.

 
Top