-->
@Kritikal
protein deficiency is very serious.
please provide an example of someone who ate a diet of rice and beans and somehow magically suffered a "very serious" "protein deficiency"
i'll wait
Vaccine mandates
Posts
Total:
46
-->
@3RU7AL
I was wrong about the protein deficiency because apparently beans do have enough protein, but it still isn't a good idea for many other reasons.
-->
@3RU7AL
And your point?
-->
@coal
you might need a slightly more specific argument
-->
@Kritikal
from your link,
"Still, if rice and beans is all you've got, it's a pretty decent choice."
-->
@3RU7AL
"But 'you're not going to have a complete diet'"
-->
@3RU7AL
@Kritikal
If you use the cooking water as the basis of a tasty sauce, then Bob's your Uncle.
And a bowl of fruit crumble and custard for dessert...Fanny's your Aunty.
Wash it down with a bottle of cold beer (bottled not canned)....Nutritional bliss.
And vaccine mandates don't forget.
Is this helpful?
-->
@3RU7AL
If your point is that I need a more "specific" argument, you're doing a bad job of making it.
What I said about Roe has nothing to do with what I said about vaccine mandates.
Further, you seem to think I want to ban all abortion. If you think that, you're pretty laughably mistaken.
-->
@Kritikal
"But 'you're not going to have a complete diet'"
the same thing can be said for only eating cheeseburgers
-->
@Kritikal
Disagree, protein deficiency is very serious.
Black beans have plenty of protein.
This was about children, not about freeloaders.
Consider the following scanareao: Let’s say a parent wanted to feed their child hydrogen peroxide. They claimed it was their kid, their choice. Would we let them? No; children need to be protected and the right of one parent to feed their child something poisonous is smaller than the right of the child to live. Children need protection, and that includes with vaccine mandates. It’s just precedent to vaccinate kids against disease.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Would we let them?
the central point here
the pivotal and paramount issue at hand is
epistemological limits (aka "privacy")
-->
@TheUnderdog
Black beans have plenty of protein.
Yes, I was wrong about the protein claim specifically:
I was wrong about the protein deficiency because apparently beans do have enough protein, but it still isn't a good idea for many other reasons.
Consider the following scanareao: Let’s say a parent wanted to feed their child hydrogen peroxide. They claimed it was their kid, their choice. Would we let them? No; children need to be protected and the right of one parent to feed their child something poisonous is smaller than the right of the child to live. Children need protection, and that includes with vaccine mandates. It’s just precedent to vaccinate kids against disease.
The difference is between actively "protecting" someone and actively harming them. Ovbiously we should not allow anyone to poison anyone else, but other concerns can arise when talking about vaccines. There may be health or religious concerns. Furthermore, the government has no right to define the truth and as such should not be allowed to say that a vaccine "protects" someone when that is not the consensus among the people. Even if a decent majority suport something that does not mean that the government should pass a law on it either because the federal government should try to protect the rights of the minority (this is why federalism exists, so laws can be passed locally with out infringing on the minority of those who do not like something) With poison 99.9% of people would be in favor of banning parents from killing their kids, but this is simply not the case for a vaccine. Maybe there is an argument for local mandates, but a federal mandate on vaccines of any kind is tyranny. My body, my choice.
-->
@Kritikal
but a federal mandate on vaccines of any kind is tyranny. My body, my choice.
exactly
-->
@Kritikal
There may be health or religious concerns.
The health concerns are false. In order for a religious concern to be valid, one needs to cite where their holy book says to refuse vaccinations. If this happens, I would support a vaccine opt out for such a person.
Furthermore, the government has no right to define the truth
That’s what the CDC does.
Maybe there is an argument for local mandates, but a federal mandate on vaccines of any kind is tyranny.
I’m fine with vaccine mandates being up to the county. But if you end up hospitalized due to COVID and you aren’t vaccinated, no treatment for you; that would be socialism.
-->
@TheUnderdog
The health concerns are false. In order for a religious concern to be valid, one needs to cite where their holy book says to refuse vaccinations. If this happens, I would support a vaccine opt out for such a person.
It is impossible to say the health concerns are false for all vaccines? I disagree that people need to cite a 'holy' book. In Christianity for example, the bible is just a set of inspired texts written by human, but there are most certainly other inspired texts and thoughts.
That’s what the CDC does.
Which is a serious problem. Anthony Fauci should not be the most powerful politician in the country because he is an unelected bureaucrat who has proven willing to lie to the public. For example, there is proof that he intentionally lied about the efficacy of masks.
I’m fine with vaccine mandates being up to the county. But if you end up hospitalized due to COVID and you aren’t vaccinated, no treatment for you; that would be socialism.
Why should we deny treatment to anyone based on vaccine status? Doctors are not even allowed to do this for several reasons, including the hippocratic oath. How is that socialism? Socialism is an economic system that is completely unrelated.
-->
@Kritikal
It is impossible to say the health concerns are false for all vaccines?
The side effects from all vaccine are less severe than the side effects for the diseases they protect you from.
In Christianity for example, the bible is just a set of inspired texts written by human, but there are most certainly other inspired texts and thoughts.
Do any of these prohibit vaccinations?
Which is a serious problem.
How else do you define the truth?
For example, there is proof that he intentionally lied about the efficacy of masks.
I would need evidence to believe he intentionally lied. Science changes as more stuff gets discovered.
Why should we deny treatment to anyone based on vaccine status?
Because I oppose socialized medicine/universal healthcare.
Doctors are not even allowed to do this for several reasons, including the hippocratic oath.
The hippocritic oath merely calls for doing no harm. If a sick person comes to you and you don’t help him, you don’t do harm to him, you merely don’t help him. Therefore it doesn’t violate the oath.
How is that socialism?
Because I have to pay for their treatment with my tax dollars if they are under government health insurance.