Darwin Award Winners? Lol

But that would be going against their right to be stupid.

@dalefvictor their rights were ignored when put in the stock. It is cruel & unnatural inhumane treatment same as waterboarding.

Don't do Facebook. Deleted my account three years ago. I suggest you do the same. A poor source of dependable information.

Below I said there are always exceptions, especially due to pre-existing medical exemptions. and they can be accommodated.

I have diabetes, fibromyalgia, both for a long time, and now Congestive Heart Failure...I got vaccinated ASAP! None of those things will improve with COVID!!!

In 1906, a small pox epidemic in Massachusetts caused the state government to mandate masks and vaccines. People acted like they are presently. It went to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that a local, state, or Federal government had the right to mandate those health steps necessary to protect the public during a health crisis. They further determined that this health related mandates were not an infringement of the First Amendments rights. The safety and health of the public took precedence over the individual discomfort with the mandate.

@t1nick Thank you. Funny, but just this morning I talked with our gym manager and she didn't think people behaved like this in the past. Then, in an article in the "Atlantic" (about Poe of all people) was a report on his belief in science and even in the early 19th century people didn't believe in the science during an epidemic of Cholera. Seems this is human nature. It's also human nature to fail to see lessons from mistakes from the past.

I am in favour of compulsory vaccination for health workers who are not immunocompromised: nobody has the right to willfully endanger the lives of other people. To use your own body as a machine to spread disease and death is as culpable as endagering the lives of others through reckless use of a motor vehicle.

No just tired of Republican stupidity and psuedo-arguments about rights they know nothing about. Supreme Court ruled in 1906 that in the case of a health crisis, mandating masks and vaccines was not an infringementbof First Amendments rights. The protection of the community was more important than an individuals feeling of personal infringement.

There are always exceptions Heavykevy@. They would be accommodated. Not just complainers for the sake of resisting.

@anglophone and nobody, even the government, has the right to tell you what you can put in your body or not.

@anglophone, @t1nick It would be if it’s involving someone personal religious beliefs. No, individual liberty is way more important. Otherwise, you have a “two wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for dinner” mentality. Unless you are a communist, individualism is the most sacrosanct ethos of a free society

@Heavykevy1985 So a health worker has a greater right to remain unvaccinated than the people that he or she works with to be protected from that health worker's Covid-19 infectiousness? I beg to differ. /@t1nick

@anglophone yep. It is called personal choice. We take risks everyday in our lives. I would be in danger but than safe but unfree.

@Heavykevy1985 I thank you for confirming that you are prepared to risk the lives of other people so that you can exercise your personal choice.

@t1nick But trump was not around to make it all right.

@anglophone you are welcome. I am obligated to only my life and to use the excuse of “but think of your grandma” is bullshit. If that is the case, lest not forget that 2 million Americans die of heart disease so let’s get rid of junk food. 45,000 die in car accidents. We can all take the necessary precautions but mandating that citizens give up their inalienable rights because of a virus is idiotic.

@Heavykevy1985 Inalienable rights? Disagree. Any health worker who refuses to be vaccinated against Covid-19 shows that they are unfit for the job: the people that such health workers work with have the right to be cared for safely.

@Heavykevy1985

All liberties come with responsibilities and limitations. Otherwise you are defining anarchy. The need to protect the greater public outweighs the selfish discomfort with rules of the individual.

@t1nick not anarchy. Libertarianism. Otherwise, your logic could apply to abortion rights.

@t1nick, @anglophone And they wear PPE that protects them and the patients. It is their right to put whatever they want bin their bodies

@Heavykevy1985 I find it interesting that you mistake anarchy for libertarianism. /@t1nick

@Heavykevy1985

Libertarianism is just another name for selfishness (and not the Objectivists type). It comes from people who have hated sharing their entire life. Who only thought of themselves their entire life.

These are the type of people who demanded on the playground that everybody play by their rules only. When they didn't the others didn't agree, they took there ball and went home to pout.

I have been a member of the Ayn Rand zobjectivists when I early. That is until I realized that the prople who gravitated toward that philosophy were not interested in the philosophical premises, only finding an excuse to justify their own selfish intetests.

One final point. You can not say that you support the fact that we are a Nation of Laws and you support that premise, if you chose to ignore the 1906 SCOTUS ruling because its inconvenient for you. Nothing has changed with the 1906 ruling. It didn't change during the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918-1921. It didn't change with SARS, MERS, Ebola, etc.

@Heavykevy1985

According to the 1906 Supreme Court ruling, it is not. Health mandates are not an infringement of First Amendment rights. The safety of the public takes precedence over individual discomfort with being told what to do. According to the Supreme Court decision you are not in the right to refuse. Stupid Republican whining does not change that.

@anglophone read below. No mistake.

@t1nick Plessy v. Ferguson was constitutional too. This pandemic violated people’s rights including freedom of assembly, religion, and speech, especially since the Biden administration is asking Facebook to crack down on “disinformation.”

@t1nick People went about their lives during the Spanish Flu pandemic, which came from China. Plessy v. Ferguson was constitutional too.?

@t1nick what is wrong with self-interest? It has lead to the surge of the upward mobility of mankind including those inventing that revolutionized their world,

@anglophone how? I am willing to follow a law that is justified. Mandating that people get vaccinated when it violates their right to privacy or their beliefs is unjustified

@Heavykevy1985

1n 2020, the SCOTUS reviewed the 1906 ruling and determined that no amendment or revision was needed. And Plessis was reviewed by SCOTUS and determined invalid. Conversely, Jacobson was reviewed by SCOTUS last year and deemed it still valid.

Once again SCOTUS found that public safety outweighs personal inconvenience with rules in order to contain a health crisis.

Selfishmess unfettered, as in today's capitalism leads to the unnecessary suffering for millions who do not have the opportunity, ability, or wherewithal to be able to take advantage of its promises. It is not, nor has been a level and equal playing field for millions. Meritocracy only works for those with access, which in this country is mostly manifest in the white culture. Predatory capitalism, the model extant today in the US is both destructive and unnecessary. Other models that are more equitable exist.

Your understanding of selfishness is destructive. Perhaps not to you, but is destructive to the larger population. So I suggest you take your ball, go home and pout. You are not in the right in your contentions.

@Heavykevy1985

Most people who herald the merit of self interest, generally have a short term selfish interest as their motivation. Rarely do they recognize the long term impact of their desires or their actions.

One of the points Ayn Rand made in one of later works was that selfishness needs to be long term and needs to consider the system within which it operates. The level of selfishness should be commersurate with the structure and health of the larger system. It should inherently benefit you, but not to the point of what is beyond reason or begins to negatively impact the system itself. That is what today's capitalistic model is practicing today. All so the reason theiberyarianism is a fallacy. Human history demonstrates that the premises of Libertarianism is not possible to sustain, or in fact ever truly exist.

Capitalism should parallel an evolutionary biological model. In that model the organism not only pursues those actions beneficial to themselves, but inherently pursues actions that serve to strengthen the species (in this case species is the system). The perpetuation of this type of strategy perpetuates the best circumstances for preserving the system and the individual. But within this structure the perpetuation of the ideal circumstances puts the health of preserving the best, most fit system, which benefits all its stakeholders ad infinitum. It places the health of the species (aka system) above the individual.

But unlike predatory capitalism of today, which serves only to serve the individual at the the expense of the larger system. It is short-sighted and short term in its motivation and its orientation.

@t1nick what and socialism does not cause suffering? Read about the Holodomor or Maoist China, etc. Humans are animals but the fact that humans have the ability to pursue their own interests is what has led to the upward mobility of mankind. Henry Ford perfecting the assembly line allowed for more people to afford cars, which led to the creation of highways, gas stations, motels, roadside diners, etc. Silicon Valley at the beginning was largely made up of libertarians like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Their revolutionizing of personal computers has forever changed mankind. You are unable to convince me why the government should force people at gunpoint to be vaccinated when it should be your choice and now you are arguing against capitalism, which are failing in this regard too. Yeah, socialism is equitable because it will create more poor people

@t1nick also, if this is such a white culture, how come Indian-Americans have the highest per capita income or even Nigerian-Americans making more money per capita than whites? Are conflating white majority with white supremacy? If you are talented and work hard, you can make it,

@Heavykevy1985

I've taught in the Native American community for 24 years, and I still am teaching on the Reservation. I do not know where you got your data, but that only applies to a small number of tribes that adopted gaming and casino. It is not indicative of the larger NA communities.

@Heavykevy1985

Chosen ignorance is hard to overcome.

@t1nick nope. Indian-Americans, not First Nations. Indians, as in people from India. The First Nations are largely dependent on the government teat. That is why they are so poor, except for tribes like the Lumbees who do not receive welfare.

Yep. Everybody needs to protect themselves from the tyranny of stupidity.

@anglophone Well said!. We all need to protect ourselves from the stupidity of tyranny!

@anglophone

Yeah Republican tyranny and stupidity.

@PBuck0145, @t1nick sounds like you are both.

Still doesn't stop them from transmitting to other innocent people (people medically compromised and children under 12)

Rotten tomatoes and rotten eggs are the usual projectiles. Should we follow the example set by chimpanzees and throw feces as well?

@anglophone Rotten onions are better, but that's just me.