Jump to content

Trucker's Convoy


West

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 The abortion comparison is goofy.  Pregnancies aren't contagious.  

In the context of a public health crisis, the vaccine requirements made sense and legal challenges (particularly pre-vaccine availability) were resoundingly rejected across the country.  Those were not government decisions either.  Those were decisions made by the Courts.  

 

Abortion rights involve the control and autonomy a person has over their own body, even if it results in the death of another human life.  What is the difference with body autonomy with covid vaccines?  Besides an abortion guaranteeing the death of another human life while not being vaccinated only increases the chances of another getting sick with a virus that has a very low death rate.

Anyone who is pro choice on abortion but anti- choice on covid vaccines is a hypocrite who only cares about their own interests because the ethics is entirely inconsistent to each other.  It's in your interests to want abortion rights in case you're involved in a pregnancy, and it's in your interests to support vaccine mandates so that you're safer.  Isn't that convenient!

Nice to know the Canadian justice system also makes decisions with no ethical consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Luckily, they were temporary measures.  Extreme?  Absolutely.  But, we’re all the better for it, even the free-dumb people. 

Human rights to protect minorities don't exist to make sure "we're all better for it".  Using coercion to have medicine  injected in the general population is tyranny.  If you didn't want the vaccine your opinion would spin 180.  All you care about are your own interests, not that "we're all better for it".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Besides an abortion guaranteeing the death of another human life while not being vaccinated only increases the chances of another getting sick with a virus that has a very low death rate.

an argument that holds no water unless you've determined that a fetus = a human being with rights from the moment of conception.  You can believe that if you like, but most people don't and neither do our legal or health care systems.  

This is mostly a religious question, or at best philosophical, but it also applies in reverse.  If vaccine mandates were not okay, then the state has no right to interfere in a woman's abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

If you didn't want the vaccine your opinion would spin 180.

If I was an anti-science conspiracy person, then I would have a different opinion?  I suppose you are correct.  
 

Quote

All you care about are your own interests, not that "we're all better for it".

I’m arguing that society’s interests are more important than the very, very rare individual who may have adverse effects.  
 

You arguing that every individual shouldn’t have to do sacrifice anything for society as a whole is the “own interests” argument.  

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

an argument that holds no water unless you've determined that a fetus = a human being with rights from the moment of conception.  You can believe that if you like, but most people don't and neither do our legal or health care systems.  

This is mostly a religious question, or at best philosophical, but it also applies in reverse.  If vaccine mandates were not okay, then the state has no right to interfere in a woman's abortion.

A fetus certainly is a human being and does have rights.  It just has less rights than the woman.   It’s a problem with their competing rights and the fact that bodily autonomy trumps any rights the fetus may have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

an argument that holds no water unless you've determined that a fetus = a human being with rights from the moment of conception.  You can believe that if you like, but most people don't and neither do our legal or health care systems.  

This is mostly a religious question, or at best philosophical, but it also applies in reverse.  If vaccine mandates were not okay, then the state has no right to interfere in a woman's abortion.

This isn't a religious question, nobody has invoked religion.  This is about ethics of body autonomy.

Judges don't make a fetus less human.   Ending a human life is ending a human life.  People invoke "women should have control over their bodies" except when it comes to vaccines where many seem perfectly happy to deny their control over their own body and health decisions, including our prime minister and his government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Consent has nothing to do with science.  I am pro-vaccine and pro- science.

We’re both pro-vaccine and pro-science.  Terrific.   But, you said if I didn’t want the vaccine, then I would have the opposite opinion. 
 

You have the opposite opinion and still wanted the vaccine.  
 

Im not really understanding your argument.  You seem to be projecting a selfish trait  onto me without really explaining why. 

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Of course it's coercive while still offering a choice.

Where's the gurney and agents of the VCF (Vaccine Compliance Force)?

Holding your livelihood as leverage isn't much of a choice.  People need to eat and pay mortgages.  Our PM has never had to worry about a paycheck in his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Because they are tyrants, and hypocrites about control over ones body (abortion).

So like...abortion mandates?  What on Earth are you driving at?  Employer mandated vaccination is and has been a liability issue for decades, how did it escape your notice for so long if it's such a horrible authoritarian thing to have to endure?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So like...abortion mandates?  What on Earth are you driving at?  Employer mandated vaccination is and has been a liability issue for decades, how did it escape your notice for so long if it's such a horrible authoritarian thing to have to endure?

@Moonlight Graham didn’t know of such a thing until I told him about the banks.  It seems like he hasn’t really thought about it, or researched it whatsoever.  Maybe one of those forum “devil’s advocate” types?   Which is great…. if one has put some thought into their posts. 

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eyeball said:

So like...abortion mandates?  What on Earth are you driving at?  Employer mandated vaccination is and has been a liability issue for decades, how did it escape your notice for so long if it's such a horrible authoritarian thing to have to endure?

Liability lol.

At least a vaccine requirement in an occupation where if you're working with a certain population etc has some kind of logic behind it where it has at least something to do with the job.  Otherwise someone's health record are none of the employers business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

@Moonlight Graham didn’t know of such a thing until I told him about the banks.  It seems like he hasn’t really thought about it, or researched it whatsoever.  Maybe one of those forum “devil’s advocate” types?   Which is great…. if one has put some thought into their posts. 

Get bent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Moonlight Graham said:

Liability lol.

At least a vaccine requirement in an occupation where if you're working with a certain population etc has some kind of logic behind it where it has at least something to do with the job.  Otherwise someone's health record are none of the employers business.

If a business (maybe a bank) didn’t want to lose workers due to an outbreak within their place of work, is your opinion just to say “too bad.  You’re going to have to put up with shutting down your business when an outbreak happens”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

If a business (maybe a bank) didn’t want to lose workers due to an outbreak within their place of work, is your opinion just to say “too bad.  You’re going to have to put up with shutting down your business when an outbreak happens”?

Listen to yourself. An employer doesn't get to require their employees to undergo invasive medical procedures where they have medications injected into their bloodstream just so they might not miss work.  What next, mandatory flu shot and daily vitamins?  So yeah, my opinion is "too bad".

We don't live in Stalinist Russia.  You're clearly a Stalinist because they're the only type of lefties who defend the government and big banks over worker rights.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I don't ever recall vaccines being a term of employment in sectors where it doesn't apply more than any other.   But the federal government required all public servants to get jabbed even if they were working from home full time, and required truckers even though they mostly worked alone isolated in a truck cab all day.

Oh well, I guess they figured it was enough of an emergency to warrant doing so. Sometimes it seems truckers are cast as being were like some hapless religious sector of the population singled out for special persecution - as I recall that they were already voluntarily 90% or better vaccinated even before the stupid convoy got started.

Quote

Tyrants.

Seems there will always be an element of truth to that alright.  Apparently we live under a responsible government not a representative democratic one, or so I've been told.

Although it sucks COVID has provided some real insights into a number of important deficiencies on multiple often intertwined levels in our world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Listen to yourself. An employer doesn't get to require their employees to undergo invasive medical procedures where they have medications injected into their bloodstream just so they might not miss work.  What next, mandatory flu shot and daily vitamins?  So yeah, my opinion is "too bad".

We don't live in Stalinist Russia.  You're clearly a Stalinist because they're the only type of lefties who defend the government and big banks over worker rights.

A jab isn’t an invasive medical procedure, and they actually can require vaccines.  Court approved and everything;  it is settled law in Canada.  
 

Plus, you have no problems for health workers needing mandatory vaccines…. so we both think mandatory vaccines are ok, we just draw our lines differently with respect to who should have to get them. 
 

So don’t pretend you’re the freedom guy and get outraged just because I think bank workers shouldn’t be able to infect each other the same as you do healthcare workers. 

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Holding your livelihood as leverage isn't much of a choice.  People need to eat and pay mortgages.  Our PM has never had to worry about a paycheck in his life.

Our PM didn't mandate vaccine vs. job for anyone but federal employees.  Provinces didn't mandate vaccine vs jobs for anyone other than Provincial employees, and not even for all of them - that was left to individual ministries, at least in BC.  Some, but not all, employers mandated vaccines to keep jobs.

Blaming the PM for the decisions of every level of government and private businesses is misguided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Our PM didn't mandate vaccine vs. job for anyone but federal employees.  Provinces didn't mandate vaccine vs jobs for anyone other than Provincial employees, and not even for all of them - that was left to individual ministries, at least in BC.  Some, but not all, employers mandated vaccines to keep jobs.

Blaming the PM for the decisions of every level of government and private businesses is misguided.

I never did that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

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

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • exPS went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • exPS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Recently Browsing

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