Jump to content

Mandatory Covid vaccination in Canada now a possibility.


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

Thinking of Dr. Robert Malone.  They won't even touch what he is actually saying because they've been told he DIDN'T invent mRNA tech, yet his name is on 8 of the patents.

I wonder what the Nobel Committee will make of things when the time comes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

3 paragraphs of conspiracy copypasta.

 

 

You’re lazy.  Anyone can sling dismissive insults.  Instead, why don’t you attempt to sincerely answer the question, “How far away is our current “pandemic” state from the totalitarian dystopia I just described?”

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

How far away is our current “pandemic” state from the totalitarian dystopia I just described?

Still quite far away. I would say there will be more interest in climate change as a means of taxation and societal behavior. 

But I would ask, to what end? Or is everyone operating on individualism without thought for the collective.

Generic automation is also quite far away, people are just too cheap to replace at this time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

“Sacrifice for the greater good.  Bend the curve.”   Once in a while let the useless eaters out of their cages as dogs are allowed to roam in an off-leash park. With drones and self-driving vehicles, even deliveries can be automated.  If people get too antsy, ridicule them on social media as reckless, selfish safety risks.  If people get too depressed, we have assisted suicide.  If people start agitating politically through social media, ban them from sites or simply outlaw their content as spreading falsehood.  The upside for climate is lower greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprints as the birth rate plummets and people die because of various forms of neglect.

Governments can issue enough universal basic income to keep people stupefied by drugs, alcohol, tv, and film (especially porn).  Slam the former liberal democracy that once ruled the land as colonial and oppressive.  Strip away religion and family as oppressive forms of patriarchy, sexism, and racism. Instil pandemic fear before holidays and opportunities to gather.  Make the population feel guilty for wanting to spend time with parents, children, and loved ones.  Maintain masking to help reduce human connection and individuality. Dehumanize people. Let data and algorithms drive all decisions based on the goals of reducing carbon footprints (humanity) and ensuring public safety (keeping people apart).  Set up the automated systems and press start (the A.I. revolution Hariri described).  Use digital vaccine passports and government-issued travel apps to track movements and ensure compliance with public health measures.  No compliance means no employment or income.

Bingo.

Start at 38 mins in to see Tam speaking at a WHO planning session circa March 2019 - yes, that's right 2019 - discussing exactly that plan for Canadians.

Theresa Tam at a W.H.O. Planning Session, in May 2019 (rumble.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Winston said:

Still quite far away.

While time and distance are relative, the progression is telling and in my something of a grave concern. Two years ago we were fully confident in our rights and freedoms. Now the majority thinks very little of the individual right over their body and even agrees with prosecution all the way to incarceration with very little to none factual justification.

How far it is, in physical time, election cycles from here to undeniably authoritarian state who knows? Is the transition, in the eventuality, a possibility? In my view, it would be difficult to deny. Not in the least, due to a simple question: what would stand in the way of it, what checks, restraints and balances? Do we have any, anything at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

Now the majority thinks very little of the individual right over their body and even agrees with prosecution all the way to incarceration with very little to none factual justification.

I doubt this is true. The majority thinks vaccines are the way to stop covid, but when asked " do you have the right to determine what enters your body?", the majority answer yes. There is a small minority of extremists who may think individual rights should not exist and a small minority of extremists who think everything is about individual rights. They are just loud, on both sides. 

Realistically most people will follow the mass, not necessary with thought to their actions, I agree.

1 hour ago, myata said:

 In my view, it would be difficult to deny. Not in the least, due to a simple question: what would stand in the way of it, what checks, restraints and balances? Do we have any, anything at all?

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”

We actually have something quite powerful, the internet, where discussions can occur and action items can be planned. 

But on the other side, the majority is so distracted by covid, that the real issues plaguing society are ignored. It is clever to those that desire this distraction.

Edited by Winston
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All conditioning for this idea of "stakeholder capitalism". Basically a Chinese style social credit system which can deny loans if you don't take on the causes. "Experts" funded by ultra rich corporations to legitimize the policy and on and on. 

 

We've got it now with mask tickets (they've known cloth masks are useless to stop a virus) far exceeding even the most extreme fines for wreckless driving, taxes for not taking a vax which clearly isn't stopping the spread of Covid-19, vax passports which make little to no sense, curfews because we all know the virus gets hungry after 10pm. 

Part of your social credit score is turning your brain off and obeying as you are told no matter how moronic the idea is

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Winston said:

doubt this is true. The majority thinks vaccines are the way to stop covid, but when asked " do you have the right to determine what enters your body?", the majority with think yes. 

That may be so if individuals were given time and instruments to reflect and make their own decisions. This is not how it works though and one look around is enough to see that. No, at times it looks very much like the intent is to not let individuals reflect and make their own decisions by scaring, distracting, imposing artificial agendas (like "what should we do to unnvaccinated", almost literally from the highest levels of democratic government). And in this situation there's no way to predict reasonably where the choice of the majority would sway. But all, with very few exceptions earlier experiences in similar conditions point to a conclusion that under sufficient influence and pressure the majority will choose acceptance and compliance with the dominant agenda. It can be in our genes; we hoped that nurture could change or at least influence the nature; but the empirical experience, where the choice is essential and binary tells us otherwise. For a human herd, fear and fitting in are deeper ingrained and more essential traits than critical analysis and independent thinking.

I did not just say it. Someone posted links to the polls where majority supported imprisonment for a failure to vaccinate earlier in one of the threads. So from some perspective at least it's real: someone has asked it, and many agreed.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Moonbox said:

An allegation with no proof or support or even proper explanation is worthless.  

The lawyer in the case made allegations on social media. It has use within that context and the article never claimed it was anything else. In fact he specifically stated that's all it was.

If you didn't understand that the problem was on your end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This idea you've debunked an idea by slurring specific people has got to end. 

Some people suggest they lack recourse if they allege a covid vaccination causes harm to them or theirs. Specifically in the article in a specific case the defense lawyer was talking about recourse from insurers. If you have reason or fact based evidence showing that isn't the case I'd love to hear it. But if all you have is "somebody writing an article is a big, fat, poopy head  for telling us about it' you've got nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, myata said:

I did not just say it. I think someone posted links to the polls where majority supported imprisonment for a failure to vaccinate earlier in one of the threads. So from some perspective at least it's real: someone has asked it, and many agreed.

I found this poll. 

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a17333eb0786935ac112523/t/61e77919672c5a0fc0148e8b/1642559771161/Unvaccinated+Factum+19+02+22.pdf

It represents 1506 individual opinions with weighting "The results have been weighted by education, age, gender, and region (and in Quebec, language) to match the population according to Census data which ensures the sample is representative of the entire adult population of Canada." Meaning you have a higher subset of older generation and university graduates. 

Overall I can agree with you Myata, but bringing up the Covid virus is a distraction it has nothing to do with the issues we are commenting on. Freedom of speech, individual rights and distribution of wealth have little to do with Covid virus itself. (off topic)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Winston said:

but bringing up the Covid virus is a distraction it has nothing to do with the issues we are commenting on.

Well, I can agree that it can be one of those grey, border areas. If someone is using Covid as a mean to promote certain policies and practices, without providing sufficient or any objective and honest rationale, I consider it at least related to the topic being used as a distraction. If we choose to ignore it because it's not a direct and obvious fit, it would only play into their hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, myata said:

 If we choose to ignore it because it's not a direct and obvious fit, it would only play into their hands.

With due respect I think ignoring it does not play into their hands. Because they focus on Covid rather than the underlying issue of rights violation. Changing the discussion from Covid to rights violation changes the premise of the argument.

For example are there situations where someone's rights to their own body can be violated? 

There are many examples in society, criminal activity, insanity and if they pose an extremely high risk to others.

The question becomes at what level of risk can we violate someone's rights by force? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Winston said:

The question becomes at what level of risk can we violate someone's rights by force? 

Or by coercion, of different types and by different methods. Indeed, this is the principal point in this argument and it's being avoided and distracted away from, by fear mongering, repetitive propaganda, incomplete information, imposing issues and agendas (like "what we should do to / with them") instead of genuine and objective investigation of the problem. Covid has been and is being used as a mean and pretext for all of the above. And for that reason, in my view, it is relevant to the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Winston said:

The question becomes at what level of risk can we violate someone's rights by force? 

But OK point taken, so how can we approach the question in an objective manner? For this we would need objective data. First we would need to know the rates of serious outcomes by risk group and vaccination status. We want to find objective truth, not play creative games to confirm a foregone conclusion so we have only two vaccination groups, vaccinated and non vaccinated.

Comparing these statistics would tell us (my hypothesis) that for higher risk group vaccination provides a significant benefit in reducing severe outcomes, while for the regular and low risk groups, some reduction.

For that objective reason (and if confirmed by the statistics) vaccination can be recommended for higher risk groups, and made available to the regular and lower risk ones by individual choice as only individual can decide on the balance between the risk of a severe disease and lower, but non zero risk of vaccine complications.

And the last input in this analysis is the "common good". If it can be demonstrated that vaccination suppresses spread of the infection by a strong factor the argument can be an effective tool in controlling the disease. In this argument several factors have to be balanced: the severity of the disease; the level of suppression vaccines provide; and rights of the individual, critical ones in this case. On this point, to me at least the standard of social necessity is not met or even approached: first, the severity in a general case, outside of higher risk groups is not serious enough; and secondly, clearly even without extensive studies, vaccines do not provide strong protection from infection and spreading. So no, as far as I can see it, the "public good" standard is not met in this case. Not everything and anything with a proclaimed public benefit can be a ground for infringement and violation of individual rights; there's a threshold and standard, and the onus is on those promoting restrictions and infringements to explain, justify and prove their necessity.

There's no explicit or implicit duty of a citizen to comply every time "public good" argument is claimed by the authority, as it's been claimed by every single authoritarian and totalitarian in history. On the contrary, the duty is to review, investigate and challenge all such claims until and unless they are strong enough to satisfy the standard.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Just as the Brits were the first to declare war on the Nazis, they have again stood up in defence of freedom over tyranny.

Not so sure about that. Ol BJ has shown himself to be a globalist through his build back better scam. He needs to be removed ASAP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, myata said:

Not everything and anything with a proclaimed public benefit can be a ground for infringement and violation of individual rights; there's a threshold and standard, and the onus is on those promoting restrictions and infringements to explain, justify and prove their necessity.

Yes exactly. We must first draw a line at when we can and can not violate the rights of an individual. 

Even ignoring Covid, crossing of that line requires tedious work, evidence and analysis by multiple parties for criminal/mental issues. 

55 minutes ago, myata said:

There's no explicit or implicit duty of a citizen to comply every time "public good" argument is claimed by the authority, as it's been claimed by every single authoritarian and totalitarian in history. On the contrary, the duty is to review, investigate and challenge all such claims until and unless they are strong enough to satisfy the standard.

Yes, as an individual who is part of a collective, there is a duty to carry out actions that are for the benefit of the collective, but there also is a duty for the collective to uphold the rights of the individual.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Winston said:

there is a duty to carry out actions that are for the benefit of the collective

Ok this is bordering on philosophical aspects with virtually unlimited breadth and depth of possible questions and angles. Let's note however that even if a duty of an individual to the collective is assumed, it does not necessarily mean or imply unquestionable and unconditional agreement with the dominant views or government agendas, even democratic governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...