Alright. 1) You don't despise the wealthy, but you support libel against them. 2) You don't support choice, unless it's your choice. 3) You think people should be vaccinated, but you haven't made efforts, cuz China. 4) Medical care should be available to all, except those it shouldn't be available to. 5) You feel people can somehow be correctly or falsely accused without a trial. Have I missed anything? Excuse me for finding your position on things to be confusing.
I don't "support" libel against them. I care as much about the wealthy being defamed as I do anyone else, which is not much. The guy has enough wealth to file a defamation cases against every single person making and spreading the false information, he did not. Am I supposed to be offended for him and start litigation on his behalf? You are avoiding the point I was making about people who are ACTUALLY caught being horrible people and getting "cancelled". You twisted the argument into something completely different to avoid addressing it. I've made it very clear that everyone has the freedom to make their own choice but there are consequences for those choices. I've also clearly stated I can accept the consequences for my own choices. I'm not in a priority group that is being offered a vaccine here. I have looked into other ways but they are also not yet available. Currently, traveling out of the province is risky and expensive. If they told me I could return I would leave the Philippines and get a vaccine. I won't risk being stuck in the US or a foreign country and not know if I would be able to return for years. It should be available to all but it should be prioritize when resources are in short supply. (And no matter how much you want to ignore it, that is the way it currently works.) Anyone can be accused of anything without a trial. A trial is used to determine if those accusations are true. This is a right and the standard for governments to take action against the people. This is not the standard for private entities. Your employer does not need to take you before a judge to fire you for violating company policy. A restaurant can kick out and ban someone for causing disturbances without a trial. You are arguing in bad faith and not even trying to comprehend what others are saying.
This is exactly what you're doing, as a person that profits off of having members here. I can understand wanting to generate content for views but you're stretching it. Of course not. I don't care about the guy either. The point was you said social justice was justice in response to me saying there was no justice without a trial. Obviously, when someone didn't do what he was accused of, socially, and was vindicated to be totally innocent later, most would consider that a poor case for social justice being justice at all. I don't care who it is. Courts and religious entities provide "justice" in a governed society. Overt racists and typically nasty people in general should bear society's ire when it is irrefutable, directly said by them, and there's evidence a person can witness. I didn't twist your argument, because that's not something I disagree with, I disagreed with "social justice" being just. I even further clarified by posting, "What I meant by that, is that there are no trials for social justice, just judgement. The rest, I agree with." Mob rule is not justice. I'd argue your travel is a lot less expensive than a potential loss of life, but it is your choice. Not getting back in is certainly a risk, with governments deciding for everyone. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see governments in the not too distant future denying a person's ability to stay, based on their vaccination status. I never said otherwise. Again, you are arguing in bad faith and not even trying to comprehend what I am saying. Accusing someone of something is not justice. The majority deciding they are guilty, without a trial, does not equal justice. Personally, I don't even know why you decided to go on about justice. "Them" is you. You're not vaccinated, but you continue to roam around doing the things you find necessary, and by the words of the...hell, let's call em anti-anti-vaxxers, risking their lives.
I do not profit from this forum and I do not benefit from views or content in any way. I am not the owner. I never see a penny of the adsense. This is purely on a volunteer basis. Of course it wasn't just. The courts are there to give people justice when there are damages. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. There should be a statute of limitations on some this stuff but that's not really how society has worked. It would be nice if there was an agreed upon punishment for those that have been found guilty by the court of public opinion, but again, not how society works. Society has always been this way. I am not in an age group that has to be that concerned with serious illness or death. I mitigate risk as much as possible by staying home and by masking up/distancing myself from others when out. The benefits for the vaccine do not outweigh the cost of traveling for me. The vaccine is just not worth P15k (or possibly much much more depending on travel restriction and local reentry policy) to travel to the VA. I have a little over a year before I will be forced to leave due to visa limitations. I doubt they will be able to enforce any vaccine mandates or restrictions on people currently here before then since they can't even offer it to everyone yet. Will just have to wait and see what happens in 2023. Again, it hasn't even been offered to me. It is not comparable. I follow all the local rules, guidelines and restrictions. When the vaccines are available for my priority group (which is the very last one) I will find a way to get a vaccine of my choice. There is a massive difference between my situation and someone who is refusing to get vaccinated.
I'm afraid your argument is shallow and ill conceived. Long covid is real. You cannot deny long covid risk by seizing on a word, and twisting the meaning. And yes she DOES get to assess the risk for someone your age living in the UK. Her assessment as a pro is infinitely better than yours would ever be, even though different pros vary. She is interested in kids in the UK, advocating for policies to protect them. Your use of the term "force" is false. [Coercion - the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.] You agreed to business. Travel, gatherings, dining, - any spreading event, small or large - can be limited in a contagion. There is NO RIGHT to increase the risk of harm or death to others, therefore unvaxxed folks can be limited. You chose vaxx for whatever reason, but we live on a social compact in the US. The rights of the individual do not supersede the rights of others in a pandemic. That has always been true historically . Anyone who doesn't realize that certain rights can be limited by necessity in time of war, social upheaval, and pestilence needs to read up on that. Rights don't disappear, but they can be severely limited with a showing of necessity. Here's something to look at with a link: IV.IMPLICATIONS OF EXPANDED EXECUTIVE POWERS ON PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCIES V.CONCLUSION –THE PRINCIPLE OF NECESSITY AS A GLOSS ON EXECUTIVE POWERS It is obvious and unarguable that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation.392The authority for the President to act immediately in response to an emergency arises out of the principle of necessity.393―[A] military commander should be able to use available resources to alleviate human suffering, without first requiring a bureaucratic permission slip.‖394As stated previously, necessity is a prerequisite for presidential action.395According to Thomas Jefferson, the laws of necessity or even those of self-preservation, which necessitate the immediate action to preserve the safety of our country when in danger, are of the highest obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means. . . . The officer who is called to act on this superior ground, does indeed risk himself on the justice of the controlling powers of the Constitution, and his station makes it his duty to incur that risk. . . . The line of discrimination between cases may be difficult; but the good officer bound to draw it at his own peril, and throw himself on the justice of his country and the rectitude of his motives.396Jefferson recognized the concept of necessity as a by-product of self-preservation.397Without necessity, there is a heightened potential for the abuse of presidential authority.398Chief Justice Stone in Kahanamoku directed that ―[the] executive has broad discretion in determining when the public emergency is such as to give rise to the necessity.‖399The determination that an emergency exists is a decision exclusively resting with the President.400… …Despite its reservations, the Court has dismissed any possibility of ―executive tyranny‖404in the existence of a showing of necessity. ―Any ambiguities in the allocation of a power that is executive in nature . . . must be resolved in favor of the executive branch.‖405Any individual who acts on the principle of necessity in an emergency scenario is presumed to act in the interest of the populace rather than in furtherance of his own ambitions.40… https://www.law.csuohio.edu/sites/d...s/jlh/friedman_final_version_of_article-2.pdf
Long COVID is real? What is long? My God man...really? Long? In every case, for every disease, there are those more affected. Of course. Who in their right mind would argue that isn't true? Do we call them long colds? Long flu? Long HIV? I never argued anything against the long term effects of anything, save to say we don't understand the long term effects of some vaccine methodologies. I'm truly pleased you want to discuss things and argue them reasonably, I am, but why argue something someone never opposed? I didn't know she was a UK doc, and it is irrelevant in any case, just doubly so now. Again, you've missed my argument. Of course a trained medical professional is able to make a better assessment of risk in their chosen profession, they just don't get to make my choice for me. This is exactly what I'm arguing and you are using it to argue against me. No one has a right to make me take a vaccine. You argue "force" as though people aren't being threatened. Feeling threatened is again a personal matter. That's why they should get to choose. Incentivize if you must, but forcing is wrong. America is supposedly 65% vaccinated. A successful program whereby vaccine recipients were entered into a lottery was working well and costs far, far, far, far less than all of the legal actions and bureaucracy this mandate will cost. The mandate has made that lottery null and void. No mandate is necessary. I hope this is just for general reading, or your joy of writing, because I never said certain rights can't be limited by necessity in time of war, social upheaval, and pestilence, as anyone can see whoever has the military can do as they please; just ask anyone from Afghanistan, Syria, or Iraq. Should they be limited, or is this truly a pandemic worthy of this loss of freedom? That's arguable. Anything else?
I agree with your decisions, 100%. It would be my choice as well. Whether or not that was our choice, given limited options or not, it is also our choice to travel within a populace that is largely unvaccinated. My family has had a 28 year old single mother that doesn't work, a 20 year old college student, a 48 year old mother of 6, and a 62 year old father of 6 all get vaccinated, so I'm not sure it is unavailable to you, but it is still your choice, regardless.
My gf is in the bpo industry (a higher priority group than me) and her company hasn't told her where to get it yet. I drive by the area where they give vaccines in Valencia almost every day and I haven't seen anything going on for awhile now. The Philippine government hasn't given private entities authorization to buy their own vaccines yet so that is still not an option. If there is a place that will vaccinate a 38 year old foreigner in good health I would be interested to hear about it.
I think with choice comes consequences. You just have to make the consequences appropriate to the choice. : )
Glad to see we are back on topic Please inform me if I'm wrong, Vaccines are available in Phil; if you are willing to travel? if so you must decide if the cost or risk of catching the virus while travelling is worth it?
