Does government have the "authority" to force mandatory vaccinations on unwilling individuals ? Where does that authority come from ?
- Thread starter Rob Roy
- Start date
- Status
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I would resist a forced vaccine, just like I would resist a rapist, but I'm repeating myself.
If I want to travel to Canada a snowmobile, canoe or snow shoes might do the trick.
Slaves needed travel passes too didn't they. Interesting coincidence?
blueberryrose
Well-Known Member
Science is the new religion, often championed by the masses who know *nothing* about science. 800 years ago science told us we were at the center of the universe. Imagine by 2821 what science will think of 2021 'science'.
I think there's a HUGE danger in blindly trusting the "scientists" and their patrons in governments. Also please bear in mind that often-times science is open to interpretation, it is NOT a 100% sure here-and-now TRUTH. Scientists think x happens because y & z, and usually we can make a good guess on things. Do we really want to redefine our society along totalitarian lines because "science"? Remember the Nazis? They contributed a lot of great science - at what cost? Be very very wary of governments claiming they have the "science" on their side. The day they come door-to-door to take your kids, it will be for "science".
Here is some more science: they recently announced that 2 masks are better than 1, and 3 masks are better than 2. Think about it - it's true. This is the same "science" that tells us that circumcision prevents HIV. By the same reasoning, just cut off your penis completely, and your risk of catching HIV will be that much less (but you still won't be a woman) - it's science.
I don't want to live in a world where we are forced to get each and every vaccination for each and every new strain of (insert name of malady here).
I don't want to live in a world where we need to get a shot (paid for by future generations of enslaved taxpayers) for the latest class of sniffle, cough or wart that kills 0.4% of those who catch it. That's fine if you want to live in such a world - I don't.
Here's what's coming - a conflict between those who would want to live in this world of fear, perpetual lockdowns and endless cycles of vaccines and those who don't. It's simple. The latter will win, in time. Why? For reasons I've already stated, the whole thing is UNSUSTAINABLE. It's UNSUSTAINABLE because humanity cannot triumph over nature, the very idea is beyond stupid.
These concepts are true:
1. Humanity cannot defeat nature or live outside of nature.
2. Currency has no inherent value. Printing more money only decreases the value it represents (causing inflation)
3. Science is NOT truth. Science is a means to guessing at the truth, but restructuring society around science can (and has in the past) go horribly wrong.
I think there's a HUGE danger in blindly trusting the "scientists" and their patrons in governments. Also please bear in mind that often-times science is open to interpretation, it is NOT a 100% sure here-and-now TRUTH. Scientists think x happens because y & z, and usually we can make a good guess on things. Do we really want to redefine our society along totalitarian lines because "science"? Remember the Nazis? They contributed a lot of great science - at what cost? Be very very wary of governments claiming they have the "science" on their side. The day they come door-to-door to take your kids, it will be for "science".
Here is some more science: they recently announced that 2 masks are better than 1, and 3 masks are better than 2. Think about it - it's true. This is the same "science" that tells us that circumcision prevents HIV. By the same reasoning, just cut off your penis completely, and your risk of catching HIV will be that much less (but you still won't be a woman) - it's science.
I don't want to live in a world where we are forced to get each and every vaccination for each and every new strain of (insert name of malady here).
I don't want to live in a world where we need to get a shot (paid for by future generations of enslaved taxpayers) for the latest class of sniffle, cough or wart that kills 0.4% of those who catch it. That's fine if you want to live in such a world - I don't.
Here's what's coming - a conflict between those who would want to live in this world of fear, perpetual lockdowns and endless cycles of vaccines and those who don't. It's simple. The latter will win, in time. Why? For reasons I've already stated, the whole thing is UNSUSTAINABLE. It's UNSUSTAINABLE because humanity cannot triumph over nature, the very idea is beyond stupid.
These concepts are true:
1. Humanity cannot defeat nature or live outside of nature.
2. Currency has no inherent value. Printing more money only decreases the value it represents (causing inflation)
3. Science is NOT truth. Science is a means to guessing at the truth, but restructuring society around science can (and has in the past) go horribly wrong.
blueberryrose
Well-Known Member
so true.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
I should have stopped reading when I got to “oftentimes science is open to interpretation.”
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
Hey look Bob, you have a new friend.
Think I’ll just sit back and watch all the awkwardness.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So by "them" making a person a social pariah as you say, isn't there some kind of force involved by the other constraints they forcibly apply?
That would be like capturing a person and chaining them in your basement and tell them if they don't do X they will remain chained up in your basement, in perpetually soiled diapers. See? nobody is forcing you to do X, you just can't do Y or Z or P until you do X.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I heard you like to watch.
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
It's more like religion had a huge influence and also stiffling on the further development of astronomy because of the dangers of heresy. The human history involves many different world-views, but never have our observation tools been so precise and much at work. The errors of the past render the current scientific standard void? u must be kidding. this is brainwashing.
we could have invented rockets easily without a war. actually lots of great scientists fled Berlin and Kopenhagen at that time. You are trying to smear science together with Nazi crap, it's called the "Naz Hammer" it's a fallacy. When ppl cannot raise rational arguments anymore they resort to such slander and gossip. a shame
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
Who feeds you these lies?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
blueberryrose
Well-Known Member
"The errors of the past render the current scientific standard void? u must be kidding. this is brainwashing."
I didn't say that at all. Go back and read my comment again.
And yes, there is actual "science" out there claiming that circumcision reduces the risk of catching HIV. Do you believe it? I bet you do.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127372/
Forced circumcision for all males when? Yeah, thought so.
I'm not going to argue with you. Clearly our observation tools have never been so precise and as much at work. If you want to believe someone telling you that the science tells you 'x', you're free to do so. Just be careful before you start deciding the lives of others because you are so certain that science endows you with the right to do what you want.
BTW, do a little search for the name Wernher von Braun. Let me know how far the American space program got without him until 'Operation Paperclip' snatched him and all his colleagues up. Let me know what his political affiliation was until that time.
PEACE OUT.
Last edited:
blueberryrose
Well-Known Member
Stick to your trailerpark Ricky. I am the liquor.
the death that could've been avoided..
no. it's your choice that's the beauty of it.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You seem to default to the idea that a choice can have aspects of a false dichotomy and still remain a choice. I will pray for you.
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
I stopped reading when I saw the word science in parentheses.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Speaking of science did you know there's some compelling articles pointing out that the virus hasn't really been isolated and thus not scientifically proven as actually being a real virus ?
Wouldn't that be something if all this virus hysteria was just a giant building seven collapsing on itself ? As an aside has the flu fallen off the face of the earth ?
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
- Status