Mike Fisher stands with Aaron Rodgers

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

As with any ideological leanings, there are degrees. I do not support zero regulations as many in here are attempting to paint it. I simply have reservations in forcing someone to do something to their body, no matter how minor it may seem. I suppose I have faith in our society to convince our peers no matter how difficult, rather than resorting to increasingly draconian means. The belief that good old, discussion, campaigning, PR etc is the better way to go than resort to more heavy handed means.

How many years should we commit to changing the minds of the selfish, while others die?


We saw the carrot tried with Kenney and his $100 bribe. It failed fantastically. We then switched to the stick with the REP, and it worked very well. Clearly, the stick is all these people understand. More stick, less sick.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

As with any ideological leanings, there are degrees. I do not support zero regulations as many in here are attempting to paint it. I simply have reservations in forcing someone to do something to their body, no matter how minor it may seem. I suppose I have faith in our society to convince our peers no matter how difficult, rather than resorting to increasingly draconian means. The belief that good old, discussion, campaigning, PR etc is the better way to go than resort to more heavy handed means.

You keep referring to "mandates" and forcing people to take the shot. Where do you see this happening? To continue with your other forced analogy, are women coerced to have an abortion?

[FiftyBelow]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That isn't really an honest reflection of these two issues though.

For one, vaccine mandates don't "force" anything. You can continue to live a life unvaccinated, should you choose. You have continued access to shelter, food, all of things necessary to live. You can continue to find employment. It does limit those options, of course. You can't go to a restaurant. You can't work as a nurse. But you don't have the right to do those things in the first place. A hospital is not required to employ you just because you have the required education. A restaurant is not required to serve you just because you show up.

So, with the premise that this violates bodily autonomy thrown out the window, as it is completely ridiculous, here is how these two beliefs actually align:

"Pro-life" people, which are actually anti-abortion people, value the existence of life over the quality of life or societal good. They are against a medical procedure, but do not actually care about the life of the mother or child involved. If a mother was forced to carry a child of rape to term, give up the child to foster care due to inability to care, and have that child become the responsibility of an already overwhelmed foster care system, that would be seen as a win, as the actual medical procedure was prevented. They are not "pro-life" because they don't actually value life in qualitative terms. If that child lived a terrible life, one full of horrific abuse and neglect, and ended up taking their own life in their teens, they would still count 15 years of hardship and abusive as objectively better than an abortion. They do not care about quality of life.

Anti-vaxxers are similar. They are strictly against a medical procedure. They do not care if people get sick, hospitals become overwhelmed, or rising death tolls, so long as the procedure itself is prevented. The actual impact on other people doesn't matter, even if people die, so long as the procedure itself is prevented.

There is a clear through-line between those positions. Pretending that either life or bodily autonomy are values at the core of those positions is false.

On the other side, pro-mandate and pro-choice people share a higher value placed on quality of life and societal health. "Forcing" people to undergo a medical procedure is not a belief held in either position; the choice to do so is respected and upheld in either case. What mandates accomplish is limiting the areas where those who choose to remain unvaccinated can spread the virus. Choices have consequences. You have the right to choose to be vaccinated or not and deal with the consequences of those actions, just as you have the right to an abortion or carry a baby to term and deal with the consequences of those actions. Bodily autonomy is fully intact.

It's the same sort of mental gymnastics that occurs in free speech debates. It's a very loosely applied term. Mike Fisher has every right to say what he wants, nobody is debating that, nobody is seriously suggesting that the government intervene and arrest him for saying it. But still self proclaimed "libertarians" come in waxing poetic about his right to say it, as if it's a counter-point to the equally respected right of everyone else to call it ridiculous bull#### and call his position idiotic. Think of how silly it looks when someone says controversial, people say "that's bull####," and a pseudo-intellectual comes by trotting out "actually, it's free speech," describing what's happening on both sides of the conversation, but using it as justification for only one side and as a counter-point to the other. It's the same with bodily autonomy in that the way it's being applied here is political, libertarian nonsense, and not based on upholding the actual right itself.

I disagree, a mandate that effectively requires some to take a vaccine or be barred from frequenting public spaces is not a choice.

As for your drive-bys against the pro-life movement, your comments say more about you then those dedicated so saving unborn lives. It's completely laughable that there's this supposed dichotomy between respecting unborn lives of the unborn and the quality of life of those who are born. As if there aren't those who spend their spend their weekends, lives even, supporting single parents, helping with food, shelter, expenses all the while marching in the streets to end the killing of helpless babies in the womb. But of course, the pro abortion moves like to use simple chareterizations. If you want I can put you in touch with a wonderful group of ladies who literally spend every waking movement doing so. For the record, I'm anti-abortion and proud of it. I am proud to be against a procedure that ends the life of a child that really has no say in the matter.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

I disagree, a mandate that effectively requires some to take a vaccine or be barred from frequenting public spaces is not a choice.

...what public spaces are barring unvaccinated people?

Here's Calgary's list, https://www.calgary.ca/csps/cema/cov...ine-bylaw.html

And let me highlight for you what's NOT included:

Businesses and services not included

Events in private dwellings
Curbside pickup, drive-through, food trucks and restaurants where there are no dine-in options
Retail and shopping malls
Food courts
Libraries
Workers and employees in/on a worksite for the purposes of their employment
Schools (Kindergarten to Grade 12)
School curriculum-based activities
Accommodations (e.g., hotel rooms)
Places of worship for faith-based services
Health Services
Personal services
Wellness services
Publicly-funded post secondary institutions, including cafeterias and residence common areas
First Nations college entities

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

I disagree, a mandate that effectively requires some to take a vaccine or be barred from frequenting public spaces is not a choice.

As for your drive-bys against the pro-life movement, your comments say more about you then those dedicated so saving unborn lives. It's completely laughable that there's this supposed dichotomy between respecting unborn lives of the unborn and the quality of life of those who are born. As if there aren't those who spend their spend their weekends, lives even, supporting single parents, helping with food, shelter, expenses all the while marching in the streets to end the killing of helpless babies in the womb. But of course, the pro abortion moves like to use simple chareterizations. If you want I can put you in touch with a wonderful group of ladies who literally spend every waking movement doing so. For the record, I'm anti-abortion and proud of it. I am proud to be against a procedure that ends the life of a child that really has no say in the matter.

Cool, there are groups of people who are anti-abortion, and do good things on the weekend.
If you want to know what the prevailing attitude is among anti-abortion voters look at the laws that their representatives put in place.

There is a pretty high correlation between states that are trying their damnedest to outlaw abortion, restrict access to birth control, and reduce services to single mothers and those in need.
They don't want to give women the resources they need to avoid abortions, and they don't want to give them the support they need when they are unable to obtain an abortion. The goal isn't harm reduction, or even saving lives, it sure appears to be punishing women for having sex.

You can give me anecdotal evidence of people doing the right thing all you want, but the truth of the matter is the states with the most restrictions on abortion, also provide women with the fewest resources to avoid, or deal with not having an abortion. That is the prevailing attitude among the anti-abortion crowd. If it weren't so, then all of the above wouldn't be so.

[Atlantica]

I know a non-medical solution - stop reading.

[sekimet]

Originally Posted by Atlantica

I did a quick google search and this came up:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y

Basically indicates that with Delta, doubly vaccinated individuals (like me and many others on this site) may spread the virus at rates comparable to unvaccinated after a number of months. I have no idea whether the literature cited in this article is accepted by the medical community or not.

This is an evolving field and I assume that unlike my quick search, a comprehensive medical lit. search may uncover other perspectives. All that said, it is easy to see how individuals like Mike Fisher can always find "evidence" to support their opinions.

I'd just like to add that this specific study, though very new and interesting has not been peer reviewed. The authors also make the distinction that you are more likely to contract the delta variant if you are unvaccinated, so the vaccinated are still less likely to spread delta because they are contracting it less.

And they still recommend increased vaccination to protect the most vulnerable, which is what most people here from my understanding are also advocating for.

"Increasing population immunity via booster programmes and vaccination of teenagers will help to increase the currently limited effect of vaccination on transmission, but our analysis suggests that direct protection of individuals at risk of severe outcomes, via vaccination and non-pharmacological interventions, will remain central to containing the burden of disease caused by the delta variant."


https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...xt#cestitle180 is where you can find the full study if anyone is interested.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Atlantica

I know a non-medical solution - stop reading.

Well non-vaxxers should definitely not stop reading, they need some serious educating clearly.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

I disagree, a mandate that effectively requires some to take a vaccine or be barred from frequenting public spaces is not a choice.

This is incorrect.

Freedom is a right. But society is a privilege.

Everyone has the right to remain unvaccinated. Period. Your personal choice is part of your freedom - a right we ALL share.

However, society is not a right. You do not have the right to drive - it is an earned privilege (once you earn your driver's license, and so long as you continue to obey traffic rules, you gain/maintain the privilege).

You do not have the right to enter public gatherings - that is a privilege that is granted to all (usually), until they abuse that privilege, and then it is taken away. Some places do not grant that privilege in the first place - they are not obligated to.

You do not have the right to own firearms (in Canada). It is a privilege that is granted, as long as you adhere to the rules that restrict it.

You do not have the right to walk into a restaurant. It is a privilege, and a benefit, of being part of a society. But the business owner, or society, can restrict that privilege. For instance, age is a restriction, where alcohol is involved. But if a business owner doesn't like you, they can refuse your admittance - again, it is not your right to enter, but a privilege that is granted, so long as you respect the rules.

Choosing to be unvaccinated is a right.

Being barred from entry into societal gatherings is the privilege that is revoked, because your choice has put others at risk.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Had the same concern myself at the car dealership the other day. Brought my 5 year old son down to buy his first car. Dealer was willing to take my money for the car, but when I said that the registered owner would be my 5 year old son, I was told that my five year old son can't drive a car or even be the registered owner. Told the business owner it was a shame because I had $15,000 bucks for the car.

Just find another dealer. In Alberta, you just need a guardian's signature to register according to alberta.ca. And the Traffic Safety Act section that requires a person to have a licence to operate a vehicle only applies to highways (which includes private property that the public generally has access to). So a 5 year old could legally own and drive a car in Alberta just without insurance and not on a highway.

Ontario had an issue where a 14 year old bought a car then crashed it causing death. The car was bought legally, but of course not properly registered and he had no licence to operate where he did.

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2007/11/...ar-in-ontario/

"An 8-year-old could buy a car," said Durham police Det. Const. David Cormack who is investigating Sunday's collision in rural Ajax. "Everything about this whole situation is just plain wrong.

So I guess, we're anti-vaxx now.

[Kipper_3434]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Why is driving regulated? The main reason. What is it?

Liability.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

As with any ideological leanings, there are degrees. I do not support zero regulations as many in here are attempting to paint it. I simply have reservations in forcing someone to do something to their body, no matter how minor it may seem. I suppose I have faith in our society to convince our peers no matter how difficult, rather than resorting to increasingly draconian means. The belief that good old, discussion, campaigning, PR etc is the better way to go than resort to more heavy handed means.

No one is forced to do anything to their body. And no, saying “you can’t go to a hockey game” or “no, you can’t work here” is not forcing anyone to do anything.

Recently I was told I had to put on clothes to enter an establishment. ON MY BODY!!!!!

I’m also told I have to wear a medical device just to drive.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Liability.

Liability is a derivative of the primary reason.

And the primary reason is that we need compliance, in order to make the roads safe. Driving would be a chaotic death match without rules and regulations. The only way it is functional for society, is if we all play by the same rules. And in order to ensure that, we restrict who can drive.

If you want to drive, you learn the rules, you get a license, you maintain your license and your understanding of the rules, and you COMPLY with the rules of the road.

If you do not do these things, you cannot drive a vehicle on the roads.

Because driving is a privilege that is earned. It is not a right.

[PepsiFree]

The lack of surprise I felt when the self-proclaimed libertarian who describes not being able to go to a restaurant as being forced to get a vaccine, outing themselves as an anti-abortion advocate who hates bodily autonomy when that body is a woman... priceless.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The lack of surprise I felt when the self-proclaimed libertarian who describes not being able to go to a restaurant as being forced to get a vaccine, outing themselves as an anti-abortion advocate who hates bodily autonomy when that body is a woman... priceless.

I also like how the fetus' [nonexistent] feelings are somehow more important than the birth mother.

[MoneyGuy]

Has anyone actually been forced to get vaccinated.

Want to fly, vaccination is required; that’s not forcing you to get it. Your employer requires it for employment, same thing. Eating in at a restaurant, same thing.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Looch City

I also like how the fetus' feelings are somehow more important than the birth mother.

Fetus > Anti-vaxxer > literally everyone else

Freedom of choice! Unless you can't choose because you don't have a brain yet, in which case I will choose for you instead of your future mother, because I am a good person, but nobody else is allowed to choose for anybody else or force them to do anything... and I also decide what constitutes choice and force... freedom... unless you're a woman... then less freedom...

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Liability.

You don’t have to try so hard when you know the answer is increased safety of the public in the public space.

[Tron_fdc]

I think some people need a lesson in legal/illegal discrimination.

Legal: No shirt, no shoes no service

Illegal: No coloured folk allowed.

Legal: No vaccine, no service

If you don't like that statement, get a lawyer and go challenge it. And when it gets thrown out of court, STFU and stay home. Or get vaxxed. Whatever. But stop acting like "mah freedoms" are being trampled on because you went to the University of Facebook.

[Enoch Root]

thanked for 'University of Facebook'