No more boosters for me

[jc456]

that's not a strawman, what you did is deflection pivoting to avoid a discussion on the topic. Trolling in other words.

BTW, the premise, vaccine, does exist. What also exists is people who took said vaccine are afraid of those who didn't take it. And I want to know why? Not sure how that's a strawman.

If you can't explain why someone should take something, then you lose the right to say shit about it.

Orangecat he's gone now.

 

[jc456]

It is a strawman argument. If you feel otherwise, back up your claim that the vaccinated are “afraid of the unvaccinated.” (It is a bullshit premise).

sure, mandate.

 

[Orangecat]

Orangecat he's gone now.

Intellectual impotence often precedes flight.

 

[EyeBRollin]

sure, mandate.

Confirming it was a bullshit premise. Vaccine mandates have nothing to do with “fear” of the unvaccinated.

 

[Orangecat]

Yawn, and now it becomes a semantics food fight.

 

[jc456]

Confirming it was a bullshit premise. Vaccine mandates have nothing to do with “fear” of the unvaccinated.

then what is the mandate for exactly? why do you care if i choose to not take a vaccine? you're arguing for something you believe doesn't exist and yet you argue about it. That's called insanity.

 

[Orangecat]

Confirming it was a bullshit premise. Vaccine mandates have nothing to do with “fear” of the unvaccinated.

Why aren't the manufacturers legally liable for the adverse effects of their product?

 

[EyeBRollin]

then what is the mandate for exactly? why do you care if i choose to not take a vaccine? you're arguing for something you believe doesn't exist and yet you argue about it. That's called insanity.

What do you think the mandate is for?
(hint: Trump said it in 2020 and misspoke)

I don’t care at all if you take the vaccine. Do you!

 

[jc456]

What do you think the mandate is for?
(hint: Trump said it in 2020 and misspoke)

I don’t care at all if you take the vaccine. Do you!

the term implies conformity. Then why do you need a mandate if people are saying they won't take the vaccine? People are choosing to take the risk. why don't you just accept it and move on? you're vaccinated, go along now.

 

[EyeBRollin]

the term implies conformity. Then why do you need a mandate if people are saying they won't take the vaccine? People are choosing to take the risk. why don't you just accept it and move on? you're vaccinated, go along now.

Individual choice to not take vaccines affects public health. Why do you think we only allow vaccinated children in schools?

As for my personal opinion- I really don’t care if you choose to catch COVID-19.

 

[otto105]

That depends on what you consider "working" to be.
If a vaccine prevents a person from contracting or spreading a virus, with no long or short term detrimental side effects, I consider that to be a vaccine that "works".
Many vaccines have worked, historically speaking. The jury is still out on the experimental ones being pushed by the State and its useful idiots.

You mean the former president's experimental vaccine? Damn, he was a disaster.

 

[jc456]

Individual choice to not take vaccines affects public health. Why do you think we only allow vaccinated children in schools?

As for my personal opinion- I really don’t care if you choose to catch COVID-19.

you have no right to good health. I have no clue and you won't tell me why unvaccinated kids can't be around vaccinated kids. BTW, sounds like fear of unvaccinated to me. You deflected and pivoted.

 

[EyeBRollin]

you have no right to good health. I have no clue and you won't tell me why unvaccinated kids can't be around vaccinated kids. You deflected and pivoted.

Disagree. Public health in this context is analogous to public safety.

Here you’ve repeatedly demonstrated your utter lack of understanding in how vaccines work. You have a lot of reading to do.

 

[Orangecat]

You mean the former president's experimental vaccine? Damn, he was a disaster.

Trump did preside over the rushed development of the vaccines. He was not in the labs that actually did the work, though. Political pressure prompted the rush. That pressure came from liberal fucktards. That doesn't make Trump a "disaster", just a POTUS dealing with a pandemic in a politically charged environment.

 

[Orangecat]

Disagree. Public health in this context is analogous to public safety.

Here you’ve repeatedly demonstrated your utter lack of understanding in how vaccines work. You have a lot of reading to do.

Why aren't the manufacturers legally liable for the adverse effects of their product?

 

[otto105]

Trump did preside over the rushed development of the vaccines. He was not in the labs that actually did the work, though. Political pressure prompted the rush. That pressure came from liberal fucktards. That doesn't make Trump a "disaster", just a POTUS dealing with a pandemic in a politically charged environment.

Still on the former presidents apology tour I see.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Why aren't the manufacturers legally liable for the adverse effects of their product?

That is not even relevant to this discussion.

 

[colfax_m]

Why aren't the manufacturers legally liable for the adverse effects of their product?

The government did that to promote the development of vaccines.

 

[otto105]

Why aren't the manufacturers legally liable for the adverse effects of their product?

like guns?

 

[jc456]

Disagree. Public health in this context is analogous to public safety.

can't be, there is no right to good health. It isn't in the constitution. It's unconstitutional to mandate someone take medicine. Just is. Unless you believe the constitution is wrong, and if so, change it by legislation.