Will you get the vaccine?

[fides' Jack]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

It's a reason, but it ain't a valid reason.

You mean, not valid enough to not be arrested or jailed?  Is that what you mean?  If I said I don't want to take the vaccine because I don't like the color, that's enough to be a legitimate for me to not have to take it.

My decision not to take a vaccine doesn't do a thing to help or harm anyone who decides to take the vaccine.  If it does, then the vaccine doesn't work.

[Peace]

Just now, fides' Jack said:

You mean, not valid enough to not be arrested or jailed?  Is that what you mean?  If I said I don't want to take the vaccine because I don't like the color, that's enough to be a legitimate for me to not have to take it.

No, I mean that's not a valid reason for it to be considered a proper moral choice.

Just now, fides' Jack said:

My decision not to take a vaccine doesn't do a thing to help or harm anyone who decides to take the vaccine.  If it does, then the vaccine doesn't work.

That might be true, but not everyone has taken the vaccine, and you could spread it to them by your refusal to do so. For example one poster here said that her doctor advised her not to take it because she was pregnant. Another example is that the vaccine is not readily available around the world. Many people in other countries do not yet have an opportunity to be vaccinated. Your decision can impact people in those countries (we don't want to stop air travel now do we, since that would result in millions of people starving, per your previous argument).

But yeah, if you want to self-quarantine, then I suppose your decision would not impact others.

[fides' Jack]

23 minutes ago, Peace said:

Your decision can impact people in those countries

No it can't.  I refuse to wear a mask, and there's no way I'd be allowed on board a plane right now.

23 minutes ago, Peace said:

For example one poster here said that her doctor advised her not to take it because she was pregnant.

Thank God for that doctor.  Many doctors have advised the opposite.

Here's the thing, though.  There's no evidence that the vaccines prevent transmission anyway, so it's a moot point.  There's some evidence that they help alleviate minor symptoms, but there's no evidence that they lower the rate of serious illness or death from covid.

So no, my decision to take an experimental shot does not in any way impact others. 

If, in 10 years time, when these experimental shots are proven safe and effective, and all the data on them is transparent and conclusive, and there's no evidence of silencing those opposed to them, THEN I will consider taking one.  I read somewhere else that 10 years was the average time it took to develop a traditional vaccine for other viruses (that's probably off, but I don't know by how much), so that seems reasonable to me.

31 minutes ago, Peace said:

No, I mean that's not a valid reason for it to be considered a proper moral choice.

But it is a valid reason for it to not be legally imposed on me.

Don't get me started on morals...  The world has completely lost its ability to discern morality on any scale.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

No it can't.  I refuse to wear a mask, and there's no way I'd be allowed on board a plane right now.

Thank God for that doctor.  Many doctors have advised the opposite.

Here's the thing, though.  There's no evidence that the vaccines prevent transmission anyway, so it's a moot point.  There's some evidence that they help alleviate minor symptoms, but there's no evidence that they lower the rate of serious illness or death from covid.

So no, my decision to take an experimental shot does not in any way impact others. 

Sure, if your technical analysis is correct. That's a big if but certainly within the realm of one's prudential judgment.

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

If, in 10 years time, when these experimental shots are proven safe and effective, and all the data on them is transparent and conclusive, and there's no evidence of silencing those opposed to them, THEN I will consider taking one.  I read somewhere else that 10 years was the average time it took to develop a traditional vaccine for other viruses (that's probably off, but I don't know by how much), so that seems reasonable to me.

But if everyone took your view, there would never be any experimental data at all 10 years from now, no? I mean, not only have you chosen not to take it yourself, you are actively discouraging everyone you know from taking it.

Your ideal state is simply that no vaccines ever get developed, that nobody ever wears masks or does any social distancing, that essentially we just do nothing, keep living our lives like normal, and let nature take its course, right? Perhaps I am wrong but this certainly seems to be the approach that you are advocating for.

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

But it is a valid reason for it to not be legally imposed on me.

Well I don't think it should be imposed on anyone as a matter of law. Your employer and other private establishments have the right to require it though.

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

Don't get me started on morals...  The world has completely lost its ability to discern morality on any scale.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's not as if the world is less moral today than it was 50, 100, 500, or 1000 years ago. You can't exactly lose what you never had.

Besides, it's not like you or I get a free pass just because the world is corrupt.

[fides' Jack]

9 minutes ago, Peace said:

Sure, if your technical analysis is correct. That's a big if but certainly within the realm of one's prudential judgment.

Precisely.  Which is why I don't judge those who took the shot.  I pray for them.

 

10 minutes ago, Peace said:

But if everyone took your view, there would never be any experimental data at all 10 years from now, no? I mean, not only have you chosen not to take it yourself, you are actively discouraging everyone you know from taking it.

Your ideal state is simply that no vaccines ever get developed, that nobody ever wears masks or does any social distancing, that essentially we just do nothing, keep living our lives like normal, and let nature take its course, right? Perhaps I am wrong but this certainly seems to be the approach that you are advocating for.

Not everyone will take my view.  That would never, ever happen.  So again, it's a moot point.

I am not against all vaccines.  But at this point I might be against all vaccines for coronaviruses.  Certainly there are some viruses and some diseases of which humanity has greatly benefited from vaccines.  Polio is one, but the most obvious example is rabies.

But in those cases, the dangers of the disease had been known for decades.  They were talking about "vaccines" for covid the month after the disease was public knowledge.

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well I don't think it should be imposed on anyone as a matter of law. Your employer and other private establishments have the right to require it though.

I do expect to lose employment at some point.  10 months ago, I was saying it would come within 2 years.  Seems now that I was likely pretty close to the truth.

In my view, however, it should be law that employers can't fire you because of your vaccination status, especially if that's based on religious values, just like they can't because of the color of your skin, or because of your other religious values.

 

17 minutes ago, Peace said:

I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's not as if the world is less moral today than it was 50, 100, 500, or 1000 years ago. You can't exactly lose what you never had.

Actually, I disagree with this.  I believe there are times when humanity has been better, but never worse than we are now.  I think we're at a point where we are worse than before the flood, and worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.  

18 minutes ago, Peace said:

Besides, it's not like you or I get a free pass just because the world is corrupt.

Exactly my point.

[Peace]

10 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Precisely.  Which is why I don't judge those who took the shot.  I pray for them.

 

Not everyone will take my view.  That would never, ever happen.  So again, it's a moot point.

I am not against all vaccines.  But at this point I might be against all vaccines for coronaviruses.  Certainly there are some viruses and some diseases of which humanity has greatly benefited from vaccines.  Polio is one, but the most obvious example is rabies.

But in those cases, the dangers of the disease had been known for decades.  They were talking about "vaccines" for covid the month after the disease was public knowledge.

I do expect to lose employment at some point.  10 months ago, I was saying it would come within 2 years.  Seems now that I was likely pretty close to the truth.

In my view, however, it should be law that employers can't fire you because of your vaccination status, especially if that's based on religious values, just like they can't because of the color of your skin, or because of your other religious values.

Well if you want to claim religious exemption that could be legit. How are you gonna do that with respect to the new vaccines the other poster talked about - the ones that have no connection at all to aborted stem-cells?

Maybe they will just quarantine you. Put you at the back of the office in your own isolated cubicle like the guy from Office Space who set the place on fire.

10 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Actually, I disagree with this.  I believe there are times when humanity has been better, but never worse than we are now.  I think we're at a point where we are worse than before the flood, and worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.  

Yeah I dunno about all that. I think you have an overly optimistic view of times past. I'd say overall we are a much more moral society today than times past, with the chief horror of today being the abortion issue, obviously.

[fides' Jack]

6 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well if you want to claim religious exemption that could be legit. How are you gonna do that with respect to the new vaccines the other poster talked about - the ones that have no connection at all to aborted stem-cells?

Maybe they will just quarantine you. Put you at the back of the office in your own isolated cubicle like the guy from Office Space who set the place on fire.

That's my stapler.

The abortion connection is only one of a handful of moral qualms I have with the shots.  I also don't think we have the moral authority to be messing with our RNA and DNA.  I also believe that taking the shot is the equivalent of espousing a monstrous lie.  I also believe that it's at least somewhat physically dangerous, which has moral implications as well.  There are other considerations, too.

9 minutes ago, Peace said:

Yeah I dunno about all that. I think you have an overly optimistic view of times past. I'd say overall we are a much more moral society today than times past, with the chief horror of today being the abortion issue, obviously.

And what about the hedonistic pride month, now celebrated worldwide?  In fact, I would argue we are less moral on every single moral issue.  Pick one and I'll argue for it (I think that's a skill you and I have in common).

[Peace]

Just now, fides' Jack said:

That's my stapler.

The abortion connection is only one of a handful of moral qualms I have with the shots.  I also don't think we have the moral authority to be messing with our RNA and DNA.  I also believe that taking the shot is the equivalent of espousing a monstrous lie.  I also believe that it's at least somewhat physically dangerous, which has moral implications as well.  There are other considerations, too.

And what about the hedonistic pride month, now celebrated worldwide? 

Pride month ain't exactly cool but in some of these old societies you had folks having sex with animals. And there's this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

Just now, fides' Jack said:

In fact, I would argue we are less moral on every single moral issue.  Pick one and I'll argue for it (I think that's a skill you and I have in common).

Come on man. Slavery. Murder. Racism. Colonization. Women's rights. Economic justice. Just war theory. Torture. Infanticide. Religious freedom.

[fides' Jack]

1 minute ago, Peace said:

Pride month ain't exactly cool but in some of these old societies you had folks having sex with animals. And there's this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

Both of those things are WAY more commonplace today than they ever were.

2 minutes ago, Peace said:

Come on man. Slavery. Murder. Racism. Colonization. Women's rights. Economic justice. Just war theory. Torture. Infanticide. Religious freedom.

Sex slavery is a huge problem.  Murder is commonplace in big cities.  Thanks to programs like CRT, we're more racist now than the KKK (which was a democrat group, btw).  Feminism is evil, and is largely responsible for the breakdown of the entire world's morals.  Just war theory - do you realize that almost every single country is now guilty of breaking the Nuremburg code, which was a result of the Nazi atrocities during WWII?  Infanticide - you mean abortion?  Religious freedom: given the arguments we're having about vaccines, we're about to lose that in the most free country on earth.  

Colonization?  Ok, you got me there.  If you can define how colonization is immoral, I might grant that we're doing better with that, today.

And I don't know what Economic Justice is, but if you mean socialism, I suspect you're on the wrong side of history there, friend.

Honestly, we only have the illusion of better morals now.  That's a trick of the devil.  Never have men had less virtue.

[Peace]

19 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Both of those things are WAY more commonplace today than they ever were.

Pederasty? Doubtful.

19 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Sex slavery is a huge problem. 

It was worse in the past than it is now.

19 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Murder is commonplace in big cities. 

It was worse then than it is now.

19 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Thanks to programs like CRT, we're more racist now than the KKK (which was a democrat group, btw). 

Yeah I think you make off better with some stuff you don't like being taught in schools today than I would have 100 years ago for whistling at a white woman.  I can't even take this seriously friend. If you think the world is more racist today than it was 100 or even 50 years ago you are plain delusional. Friend, my grandparents and yours could not have eaten in the same restaurant.

19 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Feminism is evil, and is largely responsible for the breakdown of the entire world's morals. 

Specifically what aspect of feminism is worse than not being able to vote, own property, and being able to be physically abused by one's husband with little legal recourse?

19 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Just war theory - do you realize that almost every single country is now guilty of breaking the Nuremburg code, which was a result of the Nazi atrocities during WWII? 

And they weren't in the past?

19 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Infanticide - you mean abortion? 

No, I mean infanticide.

19 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Religious freedom: given the arguments we're having about vaccines, we're about to lose that in the most free country on earth.  

Please.

19 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

If you can define how colonization is immoral

Please.

19 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

And I don't know what Economic Justice is, but if you mean socialism, I suspect you're on the wrong side of history there, friend.

No, I refer to the things set forth in Rerum novarum and the subsequent papal encyclicals on the same subjects.

19 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Honestly, we only have the illusion of better morals now.  That's a trick of the devil.  Never have men had less virtue.

I'd just say we've done a pretty crappy job all along.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Peace

[fides' Jack]

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

Pederasty? Doubtful.

Yep.

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

It was worse in the past than it is now.

Disagree.

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

It was worse then than it is now.

When?  And disagree.  In some places in history, murder has been particularly bad.  But abortion is also a part of that.  In the last hundred years, we've murdered billions.  It's never been worse than it is now.

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

Yeah I think you make off better with some stuff you don't like being taught in schools today than I would have 100 years ago for whistling at a white woman.  I can't even take this seriously friend. If you think the world is more racist today than it was 100 or even 50 years ago you are plain delusional.

I think the west had a point where we were far less racist.  That's changing.  Now the racism is largely pointed at whites, though.  Kids in schools across the world are being taught that to be white is to be evil.  

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

Specifically what aspect of feminism is worse than not being able to vote, own property, and being able to be physically abused by one's husband with little legal recourse?

Heh...  I'm going to say, I have my opinions and I'm not having that argument today.

What I will say is that if there's a marital issue now, men don't have a fighting chance - the kids go with the mother, in virtually all cases, even when it's obvious the mother has issues and the father should get the kids.  

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

And they weren't in the past?

Since the Nuremburg code is ~70 years old, I will say no, virtually no countries were violating it until now, with the exception of the US in places like Africa, which was mostly kept silent.

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

No, I mean infanticide.

What's the difference?  The magical birth canal?  Morally it makes no difference, and that's exactly what we're talking about.

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

No, I refer to the things set forth in Rerum novarum and the subsequent papal encyclicals on the same subjects.

I haven't read that one, but looking into it briefly, he condemns things like socialism.  We're falling more into that error than ever before.  So that confirms my suspicions on the subject matter. 

 

Edited August 28, 2021 by fides' Jack
Removal of pointless comment

[Peace]

28 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Yep.

How so? it was legal and encouraged in Greek societies. At least today when we have pedophile priests and other people doing the same, we condemn them and lock them up when we can.

28 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

When?  And disagree.  In some places in history, murder has been particularly bad.  But abortion is also a part of that.  In the last hundred years, we've murdered billions.  It's never been worse than it is now.

The abortion point is fair, but its unclear what the situation there has been. It's much easier to keep an abortion secret than a murder of an adult, for obvious reasons. Certainly there is more efficient abortive technology available today but whether public opinion is truly more supportive of abortion today than in times past, I'm not as convinced of that. If you look at the history you can see that the practice has been very common throughout history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

It seems that you had a brief period from say about 1800 - 1950 where it was severely restricted by way of law in Christian countries (although many illegal abortions continued) but it ain't as if we just have an abortion heyday today and everything was just all chill and cool in the past. If you just read through the history of it you can see that we've been pretty crappy on that issue in the past, too.

28 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I think the west had a point where we were far less racist.  That's changing. 

What year was that exactly? The year when me and you could not sit down at the same restaurant together, or the year when I would have been a slave?

28 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Now the racism is largely pointed at whites, though.

Woe is me. White people have it so tough in this country. I feel your pain. I really do.

28 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Heh...  I'm going to say, I have my opinions and I'm not having that argument today.

What I will say is that if there's a marital issue now, men don't have a fighting chance - the kids go with the mother, in virtually all cases, even when it's obvious the mother has issues and the father should get the kids.  

Sure, there are issues with the divorce system. But is it as bad as not being able to vote or own property?

28 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Since the Nuremburg code is ~70 years old, I will say no, virtually no countries were violating it until now, with the exception of the US in places like Africa, which was mostly kept silent.

Come on now. The whole reason for the code is because people were doing the very things that the code prohibits.

28 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

What's the difference?  The magical birth canal?  Morally it makes no difference, and that's exactly what we're talking about.

Well I addressed the abortion issue above. But abortion, infanticide, and the murder of an adult, are different issues. They are all morally repugnant, but they are not all morally equivalent. Infanticide is clearly worse than abortion in most cases. An infant can feel pain. A zygote does not feel pain. You aren't really going to sit here and tell me that throwing an crying infant into a garbage can, smothering an infant, or slicing the neck of an infant isn't more morally depraved than a woman taking a pill when she is one week pregnant are you?

28 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I haven't read that one, but looking into it briefly, he condemns things like socialism.  We're falling more into that error than ever before.  So that confirms my suspicions on the subject matter.

I suppose you think the feudal societies of the past were more fair to the common man than the "socialism" that we have today. Friend. I would have been a slave. You would have been a peasant.

[fides' Jack]

On 8/28/2021 at 5:58 PM, Peace said:

You aren't really going to sit here and tell me that throwing an crying infant into a garbage can, smothering an infant, or slicing the neck of an infant isn't more morally depraved than a woman taking a pill when she is one week pregnant are you?

You don't think that's happening now?

You think the majority of abortions occur at 1 week pregnant?  You may not have experience with this, but you should know that it's very unlikely for any woman to know she's 1 week pregnant.

You think ripping a babies limbs off and sucking the remains through a straw is LESS depraved than smothering an infant or throwing an infant into a garbage can?

For those who are younger, do you know what happens when a baby is murdered via an abortion pill?  You think it's like putting it to sleep?  It's not.  I would read up on that if I were you.

On 8/28/2021 at 5:58 PM, Peace said:

I suppose you think the feudal societies of the past were more fair to the common man than the "socialism" that we have today. Friend. I would have been a slave. You would have been a peasant.

Considering that, in the space of 2 years, socialism killed 30-40 million people under Mao, yes, I believe that I would much prefer to be a peasant.  Much, much prefer.

[Peace]

12 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

You don't think that's happening now?

It happens less now than in the past.

12 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

You think the majority of abortions occur at 1 week pregnant? 

No. Based on a quick google search it appears that most occur between weeks 4-9.

12 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

You think ripping a babies limbs off and sucking the remains through a straw is LESS depraved than smothering an infant or throwing an infant into a garbage can?

The more developed the child is, the more depraved it is to the kill the child. You already know that.

12 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

For those who are younger, do you know what happens when a baby is murdered via an abortion pill?  You think it's like putting it to sleep?  It's not.  I would read up on that if I were you.

All forms of abortion are depraved, and bad, obviously. But some forms of murder are more depraved than others. Is that really an issue? Why do we differing degrees of murder charges?

12 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Considering that, in the space of 2 years, socialism killed 30-40 million people under Mao, yes, I believe that I would much prefer to be a peasant.  Much, much prefer.

Oh please. False comparison. The issue being discussed there was economic justice, the rights of the worker to have a living wage, things of that nature, and nobody asserted that Mao type socialism was better than feudalism. The comparison was the type of mixed economies that most advanced nations today (like the US) have against the type of feudal economies of the past. And it's plainly obvious that our "socialist" economies like in the US today have produced much more wealth and prosperity for the common man than those feudal societies of the past. It's not even close.

[Winchester]

Whether I take it or not, I stand with the unclean. The only reason to stand with the unvaxxed is to be behind enemy lines when they get violent.