New York State Rockland County Bans Unvaccinted Kids From All Public Places

[TECSHARE]

Is everyone starting to see the pattern here? Do you really think the government cares this much about your health? This is not about vaccines, this is about control and stripping the rights of ALL OF US.

PROBLEM - REACTION - SOLUTION  = THESIS - ANTITHESIS - SYNTHESIS  =  CHAOS - FEAR - SUMBISSION

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-27/ny-county-bans-unvaccinated-kids-all-public-places

[1713940750]

1713940750

[1713940750]

1713940750

[1713940750]

1713940750

[Foxpup]

Sorry, but the "right" to get sick and die horribly only applies to things that aren't contagious.

[TECSHARE]

Sorry, but the "right" to get sick and die horribly only applies to things that aren't contagious.

It is interesting how people always seem to see themselves on the side of the ones being protected but never imagine themselves being the ones stripped of their rights. You don't get it. The dilution of the rights of any is dilution of the rights of us all. This is how law works.

[BADecker]

^^^ But the local jury has the power to strike down any law locally. Of course, they can't do it if they don't know that they have the right, or if they aren't called so that they can be asked the question, or if they aren't asked the right question in the right way, etc.

[SaltySpitoon]

I'm still upset that my right to make nuclear reactors was taken away  

Living in society means that you make some concessions in order to stay a part of a community. Rockland County has said that in order to stay a part of their community, you must be vaccinated, otherwise they don't want you there. That said, if you want to truly make it fair, since its a retroactive change, I'd argue that they should pay for those that want to move because of the change.

Soon we'll wish we had the ole Russian policy of shipping us off to Siberia, because they probably don't care what you do there.

[Beerwizzard]

I'have always admired the US healthcare system. Everyone knows that it is full of shit but no one can do anything with it. The lobbyism of pharma companies is something unbelievable.
My friend tried to buy some contact lenses in US and faced that he need to get an assignment (or however it called) from doctor for it. And he had to pay the doctor 5 times more than lense cost just to get 1 paper. And that happened because some retard didn't use his lense properly and lost his sight. This happens in like 0.00001% cases but the issue was heavily lobbied and people now should pay for that bullshit.

It is pretty much the same thing with vaccination. Pure lobbyism.

[BADecker]

^^^ Everything depends on the jury. But someone has to bring the case before the jury in the right way. If done right, since the medical doesn't have any safety studies, not only can the vaccine patrol be stopped, but the perpetrators can be fined.

[TECSHARE]

I'm still upset that my right to make nuclear reactors was taken away  

Living in society means that you make some concessions in order to stay a part of a community.

Sorry but building a nuclear reactor is not equivalent to a choice between bodily autonomy and freedom of movement. They are purposely building a very dangerous precedent to desensitize people to these kinds of actions.

[SaltySpitoon]

Sorry but building a nuclear reactor is not equivalent to a choice between bodily autonomy and freedom of movement. They are purposely building a very dangerous precedent to desensitize people to these kinds of actions.

I dont see why not. Its not about whether its a choice or not, its a matter of public risk. You have the right to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't infringe on others. The argument can be made that people that could become carriers for dangerous infectious diseases are a risk to others.

You don't have to be vaccinated, you can just move elsewhere. I can't build a reactor where I'm at, but I could move somewhere where I could potentially obtain a permit to do so.

Whats your take on lepers?

[Mometaskers]

Whats your take on lepers?

In my country we shipped off lepers to a far-away island so they don't endanger the population. After we managed to eradicate the diseases the island was decommissioned (the facilities are maintained as some sort of museum).

To be fair it was easier back then to just load people into ships without complaints - heard there used to be a separate island for prostitutes.

[SaltySpitoon]

Whats your take on lepers?

In my country we shipped off lepers to a far-away island so they don't endanger the population. After we managed to eradicate the diseases the island was decommissioned (the facilities are maintained as some sort of museum).

To be fair it was easier back then to just load people into ships without complaints - heard there used to be a separate island for prostitutes.

Right, that was sort of my point, no one has any objection to telling a specific group with infectious diseases, sorry you are a danger to public health, and are being relocated against your will. In this case, they aren't saying, alright we are shipping you off to an island, but, sorry you are a danger to public health, and can't stay here.

Compare the situation where someone is infected with a dangerous disease, versus someone who is healthy and carrying a vial containing the disease. One is a bio hazard that will get a SWAT/CDC team surrounding you, and the other is acceptable? People would be outraged if government officials ran into a house, killed, and cremated a disease carrier to prevent spread, but thats what was done in the past... We got around that with vaccinations and advances in medical science, but if people make a choice to disregard the measures in place to prevent a disease that requires those kinds of measures, you can't get angry when they decide that rather than having to deal with preventing disease, they'll just politely ask you to leave.

[Quickseller]

I don’t think this is so much about freedom but is more about public safety.

It needs to be noted that vaccines are absolutely safe and the antivaxxers rely on disinformation and propaganda. There have been many studies over a long time that confirm this safety.

Some children however are not healthy enough to receive certain vaccines and as such cannot receive them. If children who can receive the vaccines don’t, then those who cannot are being put at risk.

[Sutters Mill]

The whole vax thing is a touchy subject and I think people should have the choice, but what's the issue with people not being vaccinated? Surely these diseases would only effect people who haven't been vaccinated anyway? If you've been vaccinated then what's to worry about? The only people then endanger our themselves and others who haven't been immunized, but that would be their fault if that ever happened.

[SaltySpitoon]

The whole vax thing is a touch subject and I think people should have the choice, but what's the issue with people not being vaccinated? Surely these diseases would only effect people who haven't been vaccinated anyway? If you've been vaccinated then what's to worry about? The only people then endanger our themselves and others who haven't been immunized, but that would be their fault if that ever happened.

Vaccines work by introducing a dead virus that allow your body to create antibodies. In the case that you come in contact with the live virus in the future, your body already has the antibodies necessary to fight it off before it gets the chance to proliferate. That doesn't mean you can't get sick with a disease if you have a vaccine for it, it typically just means that you'll be able to fight it off more easily before it gets the chance to develop. If you have ever gotten the flu after getting a flu shot, you'll probably notice its like a cold, not that bad, but it still sucks. That doesn't mean you aren't contagious though.

I agree that people should have the choice to be vaccinated or not, but that also means they should understand that others may dislike their choice and not choose to just respect it. Nudists live in their own separate communities because they'd get arrested for walking around naked in public elsewhere. If you enjoy chewing gum, maybe avoid Singapore. If you are an avid gun collector, and enjoy shooting, maybe avoid living in Boston.

Its not really that touchy of a subject on the surface, it becomes an upsetting subject when we get to the step past it. Suppose everyone has the right to choose whether they get vaccinated, the next step is what to do with those that do get sick, and thats a humanitarian can of worms.

[TECSHARE]

Sorry but building a nuclear reactor is not equivalent to a choice between bodily autonomy and freedom of movement. They are purposely building a very dangerous precedent to desensitize people to these kinds of actions.

I dont see why not. Its not about whether its a choice or not, its a matter of public risk. You have the right to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't infringe on others. The argument can be made that people that could become carriers for dangerous infectious diseases are a risk to others.

You don't have to be vaccinated, you can just move elsewhere. I can't build a reactor where I'm at, but I could move somewhere where I could potentially obtain a permit to do so.

Whats your take on lepers?

It is literally about that choice for some people. Kind of you to summarily dismiss the reality of the minority. After all, it is not like we live in a constitutional republic where the rights of the minority are protected by the constitution right? Do you really think this tiny minority of people who refuse to vaccinate for whatever reason are more of a threat than the thousands flooding in from our Southern border every month?

I find it interesting a lot of the same people cheering for the loss of individual rights in the name of temporary safety are also cheering for open borders. Of course when you point this out, instantly come the floods of accusations of racism and xenophobia, because of course infectious diseases care what race you are right? At what point does this obsession with taking the rights of others to provide temporary safety end? Is this not setting a dangerous precedent ripe for abuse in the very near future?

[SaltySpitoon]

It is literally about that choice for some people. Kind of you to summarily dismiss the reality of the minority. After all, it is not like we live in a constitutional republic where the rights of the minority are protected by the constitution right? Do you really think this tiny minority of people who refuse to vaccinate for whatever reason are more of a threat than the thousands flooding in from our Southern border every month?

I find it interesting a lot of the same people cheering for the loss of individual rights in the name of temporary safety are also cheering for open borders. Of course when you point this out, instantly come the floods of accusations of racism and xenophobia, because of course infectious diseases care what race you are right? At what point does this obsession with taking the rights of others to provide temporary safety end? Is this not setting a dangerous precedent ripe for abuse in the very near future?

I would absolutely say that Antivaxers have the right to do as they wish, if they are willing to agree to deal with any consequences as a result of their choice. Thats not going to happen though. I'm not going to try to compare threats, just because one threat has a higher total amount of damage as a possibility, doesn't mean we should disregard the others. Talking about dangerous precedents, do you know the human rights you lose during a federal isolation order by the CDC? You are imposing that on others by choosing not to get vaccinated. Yes, I understand that not everyone that doesn't get vaccinated will contract all of the diseases, but the possibility is real and not insignificant.

Your rights end when they spill over and infringe on others, thats just sort of how human civilization works. You don't get to claim minority rights, when they are harming the majority or anyone else.

[TECSHARE]

It is literally about that choice for some people. Kind of you to summarily dismiss the reality of the minority. After all, it is not like we live in a constitutional republic where the rights of the minority are protected by the constitution right? Do you really think this tiny minority of people who refuse to vaccinate for whatever reason are more of a threat than the thousands flooding in from our Southern border every month?

I find it interesting a lot of the same people cheering for the loss of individual rights in the name of temporary safety are also cheering for open borders. Of course when you point this out, instantly come the floods of accusations of racism and xenophobia, because of course infectious diseases care what race you are right? At what point does this obsession with taking the rights of others to provide temporary safety end? Is this not setting a dangerous precedent ripe for abuse in the very near future?

I would absolutely say that Antivaxers have the right to do as they wish, if they are willing to agree to deal with any consequences as a result of their choice. Thats not going to happen though. I'm not going to try to compare threats, just because one threat has a higher total amount of damage as a possibility, doesn't mean we should disregard the others. Talking about dangerous precedents, do you know the human rights you lose during a federal isolation order by the CDC? You are imposing that on others by choosing not to get vaccinated. Yes, I understand that not everyone that doesn't get vaccinated will contract all of the diseases, but the possibility is real and not insignificant.

Your rights end when they spill over and infringe on others, thats just sort of how human civilization works. You don't get to claim minority rights, when they are harming the majority or anyone else.

Yeah, why would you compare threats when you can just let the lesser threat serve as a scapegoat for the more severe threat right? All it will cost is your freedom for some temporary safety. The threat of losing human rights is far more real and significant. I don't know if you have noticed, but this stripping of rights has become a global trend, but as long as they have scary excuses its A-OK right?

THESIS - ANTITHESIS - SYNTHESIS

[SaltySpitoon]

Yeah, why would you compare threats when you can just let the lesser threat serve as a scapegoat for the more severe threat right? All it will cost is your freedom for some temporary safety. The threat of losing human rights is far more real and significant. I don't know if you have noticed, but this stripping of rights has become a global trend, but as long as they have scary excuses its A-OK right?

THESIS - ANTITHESIS - SYNTHESIS

No one has a right to compromise public safety. Saying that threat X statistically will claim 1,000 lives vs threat Y will statistically claim 100 doesn't mean we can just ignore threat Y. We could save far more lives ignoring nearly all hot-button issues combined, and focusing on proper nutrition, but that doesn't mean there is no point in anything besides nutrition.

This topic isn't about people in Rockland County being forcibly strapped to chairs and injected full of chemicals, its about them being told, you aren't welcome here because you are a threat to public safety. Those that have enjoyed their decades of lack of crippling diseases should change, just because others are willing to take the risk? You don't have to be forced to put anything inside your body if you don't want to, just don't feel indignation when others tell you they don't want to come in contact with you.

Owning a snotty tissue with measles virus on it will get you sent to prison for a while, why is having the child that produces those snotty tissues acceptable?


This isn't vaccination related, its travel related, but check out the SARS outbreak in Toronto in the early 2000s. It didn't affect hundreds of people, but it shut the city down pretty well. The doctors that didn't quit were quarantined along with those they came in contact with. They don't really want little Jimmy going to the hospital if he comes down with something that could kill the other patients with weakened immune systems, and quarantine is awful expensive. 

[TECSHARE]

Yeah, why would you compare threats when you can just let the lesser threat serve as a scapegoat for the more severe threat right? All it will cost is your freedom for some temporary safety. The threat of losing human rights is far more real and significant. I don't know if you have noticed, but this stripping of rights has become a global trend, but as long as they have scary excuses its A-OK right?

THESIS - ANTITHESIS - SYNTHESIS

No one has a right to compromise public safety. Saying that threat X statistically will claim 1,000 lives vs threat Y will statistically claim 100 doesn't mean we can just ignore threat Y. We could save far more lives ignoring nearly all hot-button issues combined, and focusing on proper nutrition, but that doesn't mean there is no point in anything besides nutrition.

This topic isn't about people in Rockland County being forcibly strapped to chairs and injected full of chemicals, its about them being told, you aren't welcome here because you are a threat to public safety. Those that have enjoyed their decades of lack of crippling diseases should change, just because others are willing to take the risk? You don't have to be forced to put anything inside your body if you don't want to, just don't feel indignation when others tell you they don't want to come in contact with you.

Owning a snotty tissue with measles virus on it will get you sent to prison for a while, why is having the child that produces those snotty tissues acceptable?


This isn't vaccination related, its travel related, but check out the SARS outbreak in Toronto in the early 2000s. It didn't affect hundreds of people, but it shut the city down pretty well. The doctors that didn't quit were quarantined along with those they came in contact with. They don't really want little Jimmy going to the hospital if he comes down with something that could kill the other patients with weakened immune systems, and quarantine is awful expensive. 

I am not ignoring anything. Again, as in every other time I bring this issue up you avoid responding to the directly related impact of uncontrolled illegal immigration. When dealing with mass medical issues, they use a process called "triage" which is designed to prioritize medical treatment based on the severity of the condition of the patients. Now if there is a group X which needs to be addressed but is in the minority, and a group Y who is in the majority and more severe, it makes no sense to treat group X before addressing the circumstances directly causing the issues of group Y.

I argue that this tiny minority of people only demanding bodily autonomy are simply being used as the scapegoats to cover up for the disease that uncontrolled immigration from the 3rd world with substandard sanitation and healthcare as well as higher infection rates of transmissible diseases. Of course the synthesis of this scapegoating is advancing the continual incremental conditioning of people to losing their rights to everything, including their own bodies.

[SaltySpitoon]

I am not ignoring anything. Again, as in every other time I bring this issue up you avoid responding to the directly related impact of uncontrolled illegal immigration. When dealing with mass medical issues, they use a process called "triage" which is designed to prioritize medical treatment based on the severity of the condition of the patients. Now if there is a group X which needs to be addressed but is in the minority, and a group Y who is in the majority and more severe, it makes no sense to treat group X before addressing the circumstances directly causing the issues of group Y.

I argue that this tiny minority of people only demanding bodily autonomy are simply being used as the scapegoats to cover up for the disease that uncontrolled immigration from the 3rd world with substandard sanitation and healthcare as well as higher infection rates of transmissible diseases. Of course the synthesis of this scapegoating is advancing the continual incremental conditioning of people to losing their rights to everything, including their own bodies.

I don't know enough about the actual non fearmongering statistics regarding illegal immigration, and am not in a position to respond. I'd be happy to point out the CDC's statics that seem to conclude that Mexico has a higher vaccination rate than the U.S, but most of that data is for children, and I have not validated the legitimacy of their data.

I would agree with you if the tiny majority demanding bodily autonomy were absolutely isolated, and had no risk of spreading diseases that they obtained by choice to those that did not make the same choice. I support the choice not to be vaccinated, I do not support the choice to put others at risk because of it though.

Consider the choice to stop bathing. No one can force a person to bathe, but you may find out that you are no longer welcome in public places. Why is that understandable, but when a health risk is at stake, its oppressing a minority group? Again, its all fine and good as long as your choices only effect you when they effect others, it is not acceptable.