Mike Fisher stands with Aaron Rodgers

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

You keep saying this and ignoring the response.
The only reason anyone cares is because it's not simply their own healthcare decision.

If it has a direct impact on the spread of covid to others and hospital access for others, that's not "their own healthcare", it's everyone's healthcare.

Yeah this statement is tiring and needs much more to it if people want to claim it:
“It’s my own decision to not give a #### about those around me, or make any effort to contribute positively to the general public’s health. Im really not in agreement with this whole “society” thing. I’m a selfish POS, deal with it”.

At least I could sort of respect the awareness of that.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

You keep saying this and ignoring the response.
The only reason anyone cares is because it's not simply their own healthcare decision.

If it has a direct impact on the spread of covid to others and hospital access for others, that's not "their own healthcare", it's everyone's healthcare.

One of his teammates had to apologize for his limited availability for. A press conference because he’d now (unbeknownst to him) been in close contact with someone who had COVID. Namely Rodgers.

He lied to his team, his teammates, his league and everyone else.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

cough baby inside womb but let's not open that debate in here.... t

Yes but again...it DOES NOT affect random people in direct contact with them. You don't see hospitals being overrun with abortion patients do you??

If you don't understand the distinction, then you are just being dense for the sake of it.

[Harry Lime]

It's interesting that Pro-life and Pro-mandate doesn't overlap more than it does.

From the Anti-mandate crowd, there is the argument that there should be no outward control on decision making concerning your own body. This would seem to align with Pro-choice.

From the Pro-mandate crowd, there is a desire to control a body to protect the common good, which would align more with the Pro-life stance.

But what I see in the media, and on forums such as these, is that the type of person who is Pro-mandate is generally Pro-choice, and viceversa. A lot of the arguments that each side are using appear to go against previously held beliefs.

Or am I seeing this wrong?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

It's interesting that Pro-life and Pro-mandate doesn't overlap more than it does.

From the Anti-mandate crowd, there is the argument that there should be no outward control on decision making concerning your own body. This would seem to align with Pro-choice.

From the Pro-mandate crowd, there is a desire to control a body to protect the common good, which would align more with the Pro-life stance.

But what I see in the media, and on forums such as these, is that the type of person who is Pro-mandate is generally Pro-choice, and viceversa. A lot of the arguments that each side are using appear to go against previously held beliefs.

Or am I seeing this wrong?

NM - Never mind, way off topic

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by socalwingfan

^ Heard someone the other day say that “Joe Rogan is the Gwenyth Paltrow for bros” Perfect description of that caveman

I used to actually listen to Joe Rogan until a few years ago. I liked that he a wide variety of guests on to speak about some interesting topics. I was duped a little into believing he was the "I'm interested in everything, and I'll let the educated guest speak and ask questions like I'm one of the viewers".

He had Nick Bostrom on (swedish philosopher) which was awesome, except he started just ripping into him in this awkward way. Nick was explaining how simulation theory would work if it were real and Joe suddenly decided that the only way simulation theory could be real is if he could see something in the world that looked fake.

It was so stupid and so awkward and Nick looked like he wanted to just walk away go back to speaking to adults.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

NM - Never mind, way off topic

I never saw what you wrote, but I bring it up here because I believe that Fisher and Underwood are both Pro-life, and it's seems jarring to see them arguing the other side.

I didn't mean to make this an abortion thread, but instead curious about the motivation that appears to not coincide with things that have gone before. You are right, this could lead to a full disrailing, but really what kind of shelf-life does this thread have anyway?

[jayswin]

And Joe just keeps getting worse and worse. He no longer has any of that "I want to know things so I'll bring on and expert and let them explain things to me and my viewers" persona left. Now he's upgraded himself to smartest guy in the room and brings on guests to reaffirm his beliefs.

[FiftyBelow]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

You keep saying this and ignoring the response.
The only reason anyone cares is because it's not simply their own healthcare decision.

If it has a direct impact on the spread of covid to others and hospital access for others, that's not "their own healthcare", it's everyone's healthcare.

I'm all for encouraging as much people as possible to get vaccinated. But not through the use of approaches that violate bodily autonomy--vaccine mandates. Use PR campaigns, the education system, incentives etc. The effect on the healthcare system because of poor vaccination rates is devastating. I'm just as angry as everyone here.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

I'm all for encouraging as much people as possible to get vaccinated. But not through the use of approaches that violate bodily autonomy--vaccine mandates. Use PR campaigns, the education system, incentives etc. The effect on the healthcare system because of poor vaccination rates is devastating. I'm just as angry as everyone here.

There is no violation. You don’t have to.

The incentive is, you cannot participate in these privileged events without a vaccine.

No ones taking away housing, food, health care, from these people. They can’t play in the league without meeting additional measures. Or they aren’t welcome in a private business. It’s pretty straightforward.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

It's interesting that Pro-life and Pro-mandate doesn't overlap more than it does.

From the Anti-mandate crowd, there is the argument that there should be no outward control on decision making concerning your own body. This would seem to align with Pro-choice.

From the Pro-mandate crowd, there is a desire to control a body to protect the common good, which would align more with the Pro-life stance.

But what I see in the media, and on forums such as these, is that the type of person who is Pro-mandate is generally Pro-choice, and viceversa. A lot of the arguments that each side are using appear to go against previously held beliefs.

Or am I seeing this wrong?

Yes. Pro-mandate and pro-choice are largely utilitarian positions. Basically do what you want as long as it doesn't place a significant burden on society at large. Things get judged on a case-by-case basis and opinions can change based on circumstances. If COVID becomes much less serious over time (either through pre-existing immunity or effective antivirals) to the point where it's not really a significant burden on society, then vaccination status will no longer really matter to the vast majority of people.

Being antivaxx mandate and pro-life at the same time is more incongruous. The justification for being against requiring vaccination for anything is that no one can tell you what to do with your body no matter how much harm it causes other people. But then how can that logic coexist with the notion that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and have no control over their own body? I have no idea, but I'm guessing it's because these opinions are rooted far more in emotional reactions rather than in any coherent philosophy or ideology.

[calumniate]

Joe rogan is Alex Jones 2.0. Time to put Rodgers and fisher into the same swamp

[FiftyBelow]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

There is no violation. You don’t have to.

The incentive is, you cannot participate in these privileged events without a vaccine.

No ones taking away housing, food, health care, from these people. They can’t play in the league without meeting additional measures. Or they aren’t welcome in a private business. It’s pretty straightforward.

What about a private business wishing to allow unvaccinated people?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

What about a private business wishing to allow unvaccinated people?

At the detriment of the public healthcare system? Not unless it’s an essential.

Is that like a totally wild idea?

[Saqe]

The government has mandates on many things like the driver's licence and people seem fine with that.

[Kipper_3434]

Originally Posted by Saqe

The government has mandates on many things like the driver's licence and people seem fine with that.

Laws and mandates are different. FYI.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Laws and mandates are different. FYI.

Not much, really.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Laws and mandates are different. FYI.

In implementation yes.

What would you say is the biggest difference between requiring a drivers license to operate a vehicle on public roads, and mandating a vaccine to enter shared air public spaces during a respiratory pandemic?

[chedder]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Yes. Pro-mandate and pro-choice are largely utilitarian positions. Basically do what you want as long as it doesn't place a significant burden on society at large. Things get judged on a case-by-case basis and opinions can change based on circumstances. If COVID becomes much less serious over time (either through pre-existing immunity or effective antivirals) to the point where it's not really a significant burden on society, then vaccination status will no longer really matter to the vast majority of people.

Being antivaxx mandate and pro-life at the same time is more incongruous. The justification for being against requiring vaccination for anything is that no one can tell you what to do with your body no matter how much harm it causes other people. But then how can that logic coexist with the notion that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and have no control over their own body? I have no idea, but I'm guessing it's because these opinions are rooted far more in emotional reactions rather than in any coherent philosophy or ideology.

Summed up in a cartoon:

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Laws and mandates are different. FYI.

A mandate becomes a law if the public outcry is loud enough. It happened with the driver's licence eventually, a lot people had to die first though.