Jump to content

Trucker's Convoy


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Moonlight Graham said:

If you're working with vulnerable people like in a hospital or long term care home, requiring vaccines makes some sense.  Otherwise they can bugger off.  The only employer I know that has required covid  vaccines outside these sectors among the regular workforce is the federal government.  Because they are tyrants, and hypocrites about control over ones body (abortion).

You have never heard of any business, or provincial government, having a vaccine mandate?  Is it maybe because you’ve never looked?   
 

All the large Canadian banks had a vaccine mandate  

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/vaccination-mandates-employees-rights-1.6142584

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

You have never heard of any business, or provincial government, having a vaccine mandate?  Is it maybe because you’ve never looked?   
 

All the large Canadian banks had a vaccine mandate  

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/vaccination-mandates-employees-rights-1.6142584

 

Well there you go.  More tyrants trying to control people's bodies and health decisions. Disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

If you're working with vulnerable people like in a hospital or long term care home, requiring vaccines makes some sense.  Otherwise they can bugger off.  The only employer I know that has required covid  vaccines outside these sectors among the regular workforce is the federal government.  Because they are tyrants, and hypocrites about control over ones body (abortion).

 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.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Being vaccinated has been a term of employment in many sectors for decades.  If you recall front line health workers were amongst the first to be getting vaccinated and I'm pretty sure there was trouble with a few hesitant/anti types long before you started freaking out.

If you are so sure that there's no issues with the vaxx then you shouldn't need to use threats or coercion to get the numbers up. 

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

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
      10,695
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Linda Teskey
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

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