A Timely Warning

Author: Fruit_Inspector

Posts

Total: 52
#31
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
That is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on this site.



Are you seriously, with a straight face, trying to suggest that you believe that “allowing” the government to require people to be vaccinated in certain jobs, and proof of vaccination or negative tests - the former a key health tool that have existed for 200 years - whilst in the middle of a global pandemic of a deadly contagious disease - means that at some point in the future, the government, health professionals, military, the civilian Population; etc, will approve of and help facilitate a mass sterilization program?

And - more specifically - that the only reason that such a government, health system, and military, public, would not oppose such action - is because at some point in the past, we said no to vaccine mandates?


You’re premise, is literally that a manevolent government, in full control of the country, control of the military and all health systems, and has the ability to crush dissent, and enforce such an extreme act on its population; is going to decide that “hey, we had the scalpels and scissors ready, but we can’t implement this policy, because it turns out 100 years ago, it was determined that the government doesn’t have the power to mandate companies that their staff must be vaccinated”.

That’s hilarious.

Absolutely made my day lol.
#32
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I don’t know why you went for forced sterilization: you should have gone with, like, the purge or an ingenious method of killing citizens.

“If you let the government enforce vaccine mandates on people today, it will mean they can install pneumatic flippers in random paving slabs for yeeting citizens across the city at random times to reduce the population tomorrow.”

God damnit people THINK OF THE YEETING.
Topic's author
#33
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
Do you believe that climate change is an imminent threat that will result in a significant human death toll in the next few decades? At least, significant enough to warrant the need for immediate action to try to mitigate the effects of climate change?

Do you believe overpopulation is a significant contributing factor that will accelerate and/or amplify the harm caused by climate change, thus increasing the death toll?

If the answer to both is yes, then why would you be opposed to some form of compulsory sterilization to help mitigate such a catastrophe? Do you want more people to die?

We could even just make sterilization a requirement for federal employees, and some other private companies as decided by the government. That way we're not actually forcing people to be sterilized.
#34
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The answer is actually yes/no. But let’s assume it was yes/yes for a moment.

If the answer to both is yes, then why would you be opposed to some form of compulsory sterilization to help mitigate such a catastrophe?
On what possible basis would you conclude that the answer is not Because it’s forced sterilization.


What planet are you on where you think that mandating people take a safe and effective treatment for an infectious disease, that has been uncontroversial for 200 years, and has almost no negative consequences or impacts to the individual being vaccinated is somehow the same or equivalent, to forcing individuals to have an invasive medical procedure that prevents them from having children.

I mean seriously, one won’t happen because of the other because they are completely and fundamentally different things on every level.

 
Topic's author
#35
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
What planet are you on where you think that mandating people take a safe and effective treatment for an infectious disease, that has been uncontroversial for 200 years, and has almost no negative consequences or impacts to the individual being vaccinated
Could you please cite 2-year safety data for any mRNA vaccine used in humans in the last 200 years?


I mean seriously, one won’t happen because of the other because they are completely and fundamentally different things on every level.
I never claimed that. What I said was that we are empowering the government with the authority to make sweeping mandates in the name of public health and safety. Government officials have claimed apocalyptic outcomes in the near future due to climate change. Whether such fears are legitimate or not, if the government decides overpopulation will significantly increase the death toll of climate change, it seems logical they would enforce some type of compulsory sterilization.  Unless you think that this has not happened in other countries before...
#36
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Could you please cite 2-year safety data for any mRNA vaccine used in humans in the last 200 years?
Why do you think you need 2-year safety data on mRNA vaccines? 

It’s not a medication you take consistently over long periods that may produce subtle damage over time that cannot be detected in the initial trials.

It’s a medication that goes in, is rapidly filtered out of your body; causing whatever specific damage it causes ; and then is gone.


Unless of course you’re trying to tell me that, somehow, for some reason you think mRNA vaccines can cause major or significant immediate damage to the human body which then doesn’t produce any symptoms for up to 2 years?
 

What I said was that we are empowering the government with the authority to make sweeping mandates in the name of public health and safety. Government officials have claimed apocalyptic outcomes in the near future due to climate change. Whether such fears are legitimate or not, if the government decides overpopulation will significantly increase the death toll of climate change, it seems logical they would enforce some type of compulsory sterilization.  Unless you think that this has not happened in other countries before...

The entire premise is ridiculous - I explained why in the post you largely ignored above.

Accepting vaccine mandates does not in any way shape or form enable, cause, allow, or otherwise afford a future “government” The will, capacity, ability or support a forced sterilization program. I mean seriously. What planet are you on.

It seems sometimes “the gubernint” arguments treat the government as one guy that can magically make things happen without any other involvement of anyone else.

We can agree that forced sterilization an obviously bad thing, right? That’s your whole point.

But to do something that bad requires the people in power to not think it’s a bad thing, the people carrying out to not think it’s a bad thing, the people supporting the government to not think it a bad thing; or the military  or police who are enforcing it on threat of violence to not think it a bad thing.


This is the reason your argument is so mind boggling ridiculous.

Those things can all happen; absolutely. But whether those things end up happening has nothing - literally nothing whatsoever - to do with whether vaccine mandates are allowed Or not

To be more clear here to spell out quite how cretinous this is.

Imagine Joe Biden suddenly turns around after the Supreme Court ruling saying the mandates are constitutional; he signs an EO mandating forced sterilization.

Are you trying to tell me that it everyone involved will say “damn, I wouldn’t have carried it out, but that vaccination ruling means it’s reasonable”, or the Supreme Court would rule “well, forced vaccination is bad, but that last ruling mean we kinda have to...”

Or conversely, do you seriously think a government that has the capacity, will and power to carry out a sterilization campaign will not do it because the lack of precendent: “well guys, the shock troops were ready to put down protests, we had the army ready to go house to house, loyal medics ready to perform the operations, but Graham just checked a Supreme Court decision about vaccine mandates, so we have to take a rain check.



So in that respect - no - nothing about this could lead to forced sterilization in any way shape or form; as precedent for vaccine mandates being allowed or not do not change any of the fundamental barriers to a government doing that. If the fundamental barriers to a government doing that are removed, the precedent is unnecessary.


I mean, come on. 

Topic's author
#37
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
Why do you think you need 2-year safety data on mRNA vaccines?
Because gathering long-term safety data is standard protocol for evaluating new vaccines of any kind. Two years is a relatively short time for such data.


Unless of course you’re trying to tell me that, somehow, for some reason you think mRNA vaccines can cause major or significant immediate damage to the human body which then doesn’t produce any symptoms for up to 2 years?
Can you provide empirical evidence that mRNA vaccines do not cause any adverse effects up to two years after being administered? This seems like a reasonable request for a brand new technology in terms of widespread use in humans.


It seems sometimes “the gubernint” arguments treat the government as one guy that can magically make things happen without any other involvement of anyone else.
Given that Biden is trying to enact massive vaccine mandates without any laws passed by Congress, I would say that one guy is making quite a bit happen.


We can agree that forced sterilization an obviously bad thing, right? That’s your whole point.

But to do something that bad requires the people in power to not think it’s a bad thing, the people carrying out to not think it’s a bad thing, the people supporting the government to not think it a bad thing; or the military or police who are enforcing it on threat of violence to not think it a bad thing.
You are assuming the government would consider compulsory sterilization to be bad. But let's say government officials are convinced that overpopulation will significantly increase the climate change death toll. They may see it as a public good to save lives through mass sterilization. It wouldn't be the first time that a country has done so. What specific U.S. law would prevent them from using the same compulsory methods for sterilization that they are currently using for vaccination? What would prevent the government from requiring federal employees to be sterilized as a requirement for work if it will help lower the climate change death toll?
#38
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,085
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
A major reduction in the human population would be good for the planet.

But not necessarily viewed as good by human participants.

Survival and procreation are primary drives and not easily suppressed.
#39
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Right, I see what you’re doing; you’re focusing on a really small, unimportant and largely irrelevant part of my argument, so you can ignore the large overarching point I’m making. So I’ll just be quick here. I’m not going to reply on this side track after this.

Medication that is not retained in the body can only have long term effects if it has done damage at the time of administration. We know that applies to mRNA vaccines. Damage done to the body that impacts body function tends to show up rapidly after vaccination.

Because normally - when you’re body stops working - it shows immediately in some way.

For there to be long term effects of this vaccine it has to cause some form of body damage so subtle or so rare that it occurs in a similar incidence as the background control population - IE as close to safe as is possible : OR causes damage that somehow doesn’t show symptoms until much later and has not shown in any clinically significant numbers thus far. IE: cancer. Given that mRNA itself has been studied for a decade, and mRNA therapeutics have been studied for many years too; AND given the mechanism of action would be either via  mRNA or spike protein, the former is not an alien substance and has a known and well studied action and behaviour  in the body; the latter is the only unknown - but given that other similar protein structures in similar coronaviruses in other related illnesses and in COVID has shown no apparent long term health consequences, that it’s pretty clear that doesn’t have any longer term impacts; the key point. More critically, imagine the infinitesimally unlikely scenario  that some unknown action, or some unknown behaviour of the spike protein can somehow, via some unknown mechanism cause long term impacts that we haven’t spotted in any of the other studies of other coronaviruses, or in any other mechanism of vaccination; and have not shown up in any meaningful degree so far in anyone - it’s likely to be a large inherent risk of COVID too... meaning that the long term impacts would undoubtedly be much less significant than the illness itself - so yes that can be ruled out as an issue.

This is not necessarily the case with LAVs or other viral vectors  - which are vectors that does something similar to mRNA but have a middle man and may have an unpredictable effect on cells due to them entering them; the mechanism of action has a lot of other potential impacts And a lot of unknowns. So the reality is that mRNA likely needs 2 years to assess long term efficacy; but the long safety can be determined much sooner because of how it works - it’s effectively cutting out the middle man.

A final critical point - is that most vaccines are for endemic conditions. Most of the biggest long term side effects can be related to an immune response do long something bad in the presence of the virus. Dengue fever vaccine for example - to be able to tell you need enough of the participants to be exposed to dengue to have a statistically significant sample: 50,000 in a location with relatively low exposure? That takes a while to build up that confidence. 50,000 in the middle of a raging pandemic? Much quicker.

 
Saying that; this is all really an unimportant side point, which is not worth derailing the key point with: so I won’t be talking about this again.


You are assuming the government would consider compulsory sterilization to be bad.  But let's say government officials are convinced that overpopulation will significantly increase the climate change death toll. They may see it as a public good to save lives through mass sterilization. It wouldn't be the first time that a country has done so. 

If it happened it would DEFINITELY be the first time that forced sterilization was carried out and legally justified because of a law mandating vaccines as opposed to, say, laws that restrict the rights of specific groups of people, or explicitly passed to allow for sterilization.

What specific U.S. law would prevent them from using the same compulsory methods for sterilization that they are currently using for vaccination? 

The exact same ones that do now...

You see, the problem here is that I don’t accept your premise that the two things are the same. I keep pointing this out, you keep ignoring it and arguing as if the premise is agreed. It isn’t. They’re not the same.

Laws, rulings and precedents of vaccines mostly operate under the premise that people in various situations have the right not to be potentially exposed to a potentially deadly or harmful pathogen. Their right to not have someone around them putting them at risk of illness or death trumps the other persons right to make personal choices that put others at risk of illness and death; that’s not absolute, and the calculus would change if a vaccine had greater impacts to the one being vaccinated.

This is the same rationale for why people can be forced to take medication - such as anti-psychotics - if they present a danger to others without it; or people must medically manage their epilepsy in order to be able to drive.



The rulings and laws are not, to any degree a broad general decree that the government may force any action on an individual if it serves some broad utilitarian interest; and frankly, you have to either be a thundering cretin, or intellectually dishonest to try and argue it does.

It’s not how common law precedent works, it’s not how the constitutional system works, it’s not how any of this works.

And again - I don’t understand why I keep having to repeat myself - forced sterilization is not the same. Who’s rights are infringed, and how, by how much?  by you not being sterilized? What’s the legal calculus balancing the rights?

I don’t know, you don’t seem to want to say?

You inability to potentially have kids at some point in the future has no specific direct potential impact on anyone at all; the potential impact if you had a child, on any other individual is minimal; and until there is a ruling that explicitly specifies that the government can significantly curtail rights, or force a medical procedure on a wider group because the cumulative specific impact of those rights has a large overall indirect impact others rights even though each individual has a minimal contribution - it’s going to stay that way. 

What would prevent the government from requiring federal employees to be sterilized as a requirement for work if it will help lower the climate change death toll?

  • Workers in the federal government refusing to comply with such a horrifying policy.
  • Workers in the federal government refusing to implement such a horrifying policy.
  • Congress passing laws outlawing the horrifying policy.
  • The executives involved being impeached and removed for such a horrifying policy
  • The justice system striking down such a horrifying policy.
  • Healthcare workers, surgeons, etc - refusing to implement the policy.
  • The military and police intervening to prevent the horrifying policy
  • Popular uprisings and opposition that cripples the federal government prevents and the horrifying policy.

Indeed it’s odd that you ask what would stop the government, as specifying what would stop the government has been the central part of my point over the last who knows how many posts.

Or more specifically - the things that would have to happen in order for such a policy to be enforced on even a single person are so significant and antithetical to liberal democracy that the existence of laws to stop it would not present any actual obstacle.

This other flawed part of your premise is like arguing that if there were an anti-genocide law in 1920s Germany, it would have prevented the holocaust...



Topic's author
#40
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
Right, I see what you’re doing; you’re focusing on a really small, unimportant and largely irrelevant part of my argument, so you can ignore the large overarching point I’m making. So I’ll just be quick here. I’m not going to reply on this side track after this.
If that was your quick response, I'd hate to see what your long response would be (I say this only jestingly in good fun). My point is not small or unimportant though. You could write an entire research paper about what you think will happen in two years with the vaccine. But that's not how we come to scientific conclusions. Until you actually observe two years of trials, you are speculating. If people want to voluntarily take it, great. But don't force people to take a vaccine that has not gone through the standard safety protocols that every other vaccine has to go through.


Damage done to the body that impacts body function tends to show up rapidly after vaccination.
Does it always though? Is it possible, even if extremely rare, that there could be side effects that do not show up rapidly after vaccination? Isn't that why we do multiple years of safety studies as a standard protocol rather than just assuming those things won't happen? Especially when it comes to a new technology that has never been used in humans before?


Their right to not have someone around them putting them at risk of illness or death...
Where can one find this right that you are referring to?


Indeed it’s odd that you ask what would stop the government, as specifying what would stop the government has been the central part of my point over the last who knows how many posts.

Or more specifically - the things that would have to happen in order for such a policy to be enforced on even a single person are so significant and antithetical to liberal democracy that the existence of laws to stop it would not present any actual obstacle.
This was my question:
  • What specific U.S. law would prevent the government from using the same compulsory methods for sterilization that they are currently using for vaccination?
In your whole response, you did not actually cite a law to answer this question. If my premise is as ridiculous as you claim, it should be easy to show exactly how such a policy would be repealed by the Judicial Branch. Not answering my specific question makes it seem like it would be legal for the government to enact such a policy, even if viewed unfavorably by the public.
#41
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I have specifically explained the scientific detail of how we can be certain that there are no long term side effects. From mechanism of action, to long term study of coronaviruses, to talking about how other forms of vaccination vector; or endemic diseases have to spend longer; and finally explains why the infinitesimal room for uncertainty is demonstrably less impactful than COVID itself.

I literally explained to you  - top to bottom - EVERYTHING you are now asking in reply.

What you just did; was systematically ignore everything I said and pretend as if I had said nothing at all.


In your whole response, you did not actually cite a law to answer this question. If my premise is as ridiculous as you claim, it should be easy to show exactly how such a policy would be repealed by the Judicial Branch. Not answering my specific question makes it seem like it would be legal for the government to enact such a policy, even if viewed unfavorably by the public.
Your entire argument here is that allowing vaccine mandates will somehow cause it to legally allowed to enact forced sterilization.

In the several posts above - which you again appear to have systematically ignored - I detail at great length the specific reasons why this is not the case: balance of rights, precedents, indirect vs direct balance of rights etc. I could draw this backs to explicit legal common law precedent such as Roe vs Wade, or interpretation of the 4th amendment privacy Clause - but hey: I have given you a specific and direct reason, why the vaccine mandates will not allow for or caused forced sterilization from both a legal AND social perspective. You have completely ignored it.


The answer to the question you pose is irrelevant, and I suspect the only reason you’re fixating on it is that you have no answer to the sum of the remainder of my post in which I systematically dismantle everything you said; and you’re rapidly coming off the rails trying to deflect from your utter inability to respond to anything I’m saying.

The reason it is irrelevant; is that if there is currently no law to prevent forced sterilization - then it is currently legal for the government, and your suggestion that vaccine mandates will somehow legally enable something that is already legally allowed - makes literally no sense.

I mean - there’s no explicit law I know of outlawing it, but it’s generally covered by the 4th amendment right to privacy - which vaccine mandates are largely consistent with due to the reasoning willing the post above - which again, you have ignored.

Conversely - if forced sterilization is illegal based on current constitutional interpretation - which I suspect we don’t disagree on; it will remain so, because the precedent of vaccine mandates is not relevant for the reasons I stated in my last few posts - and you have ignored.



My central point is that despite your protest otherwise vaccine mandates will have no legal, social or political Implications on the possibility that at some point in the future will enact forced sterilization; and the premise is ludicrous.

That point is exceptionally well detailed in my posts above: and each key point remains universally unanswered by you.


That central point - that vaccine mandates won’t have any bearing on the Legal, social or political possibility of forced sterilization - is completely unaffected and unchanged by whether or not forced sterilization is already illegal.

That is why my answer to that question was completely valid.

If it’s legal - vaccine mandate can’t make it more legal. If it’s illegal, that legal status won’t be changed by vaccines.

I look forward to seeing exactly what part of this post you decide to completely ignore; or what irrelevant side track you decide to cover instead.




Topic's author
#42
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
I literally explained to you - top to bottom - EVERYTHING you are now asking in reply.

What you just did; was systematically ignore everything I said and pretend as if I had said nothing at all.
All you have done is made an unscientific conclusion.

Have we ever observed a test group of humans two years after being injected with an mRNA vaccine?

If the answer is no, then however confident and reasonable you are in your explanation, it is still speculation. You have not observed, tested, or repeated those results. Unless the scientific method doesn't apply to this situation.


Your entire argument here is that allowing vaccine mandates will somehow cause it to legally allowed to enact forced sterilization.
I never said allowing vaccine mandates will cause forced sterilization. My argument is that the same logic, fueled by fear of climate change predictions, will likely be used to justify compulsory sterilization in the not too distant future.

You have at least vaguely reference a law now, so that's a start. But that doesn't show how sterilization would be judicially blocked, for instance, as a requirement for employees of the federal government.

If it is determined that climate change is an imminent threat to public health in the form of catastrophic weather, famine, and death, how would the 4th Amendment be sufficient in the face of such a dangerous threat?
#43
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
All you have done is made an unscientific conclusion.

Have we ever observed a test group of humans two years after being injected with an mRNA vaccine?

If the answer is no, then however confident and reasonable you are in your explanation, it is still speculation. You have not observed, tested, or repeated those results. Unless the scientific method doesn't apply to this situation.
Incorrect: in post 39 I outlined exactly how and why we can be confident as to that; and explicitly explained the reasons why other vaccines have to wait 2 years - whilst COVID 19 mRNA vaccines specifically do not.

Systematically Ignoring every single argument that I made, and to insist that I’m wrong using an argument I already refuted is just flat out dishonest.


Your entire argument here is that allowing vaccine mandates will somehow cause it to legally allowed to enact forced sterilization.
I never said allowing vaccine mandates will cause forced sterilization. My argument is that the same logic, fueled by fear of climate change predictions, will likely be used to justify compulsory sterilization in the not too distant future.

You have at least vaguely reference a law now, so that's a start. But that doesn't show how sterilization would be judicially blocked, for instance, as a requirement for employees of the federal government.

If it is determined that climate change is an imminent threat to public health in the form of catastrophic weather, famine, and death, how would the 4th Amendment be sufficient in the face of such a dangerous threat?

what you actually said is:

Then don't be surprised when the government mandates sterilization as a mitigation strategy. We are quickly empowering the government with the authority to take such actions when "public health and safety" is at risk.

Which is nonsense 

I said was that we are empowering the government with the authority to make sweeping mandates in the name of public health and safety. Government officials have claimed apocalyptic outcomes in the near future due to climate change. Whether such fears are legitimate or not, if the government decides overpopulation will significantly increase the death toll of climate change, it seems logical they would enforce some type of compulsory sterilization. 
and

Then don't be surprised when the government mandates sterilization as a mitigation strategy. We are quickly empowering the government with the authority to take such actions when "public health and safety" is at risk.

If you recall, in the part of my post that you ignored I specified: 

My central point is that despite your protest otherwise vaccine mandates will have no legal, social or political Implications on the possibility that at some point in the future will enact forced sterilization; and the premise is ludicrous.
Which is almost exactly what you said...

Your entire argument here is that allowing vaccine mandates will somehow cause it to be legally allowed to enact forced sterilization.
In this respect; I mean the specifics of the legal side (which given that you were talking about the laws) being empowered by the vaccine mandate.

Interestingly; in post #39 and prior I have already deconstructed and refuted even your corrected premise; but you have ignored it.

So really this accusation seems to simply be an attempt to dodge the question.

Either way: I’ve shown this line of questioning is completely irrelevant in post #41 - a point you have ignored.

At this point you seem solely intent on ignoring everything being said. This is not just intellectually dishonest; you’re inability to even acknowledge -that I am making Key arguments - leave alone present a counter - means that this is no longer an intellectual discussion on your part; it’s just you trying to find ways to skip over the parts that can’t argue with.


Topic's author
#44
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
Incorrect: in post 39 I outlined exactly how and why we can be confident as to that; and explicitly explained the reasons why other vaccines have to wait 2 years - whilst COVID 19 mRNA vaccines specifically do not.
It doesn't matter how confident you are. The fact is that we have no observable, testable, repeatable long-term safety data for a technology that has never before been used in humans.

You claiming that mRNA vaccines don't have to follow the same standard as other vaccines is simply that - a claim. You cannot back up your statements with scientific test results to prove what you are saying is true.

But let's try a different angle. How many months worth of safety data would be sufficient to consider an mRNA vaccine safe? And can you cite the publicly available data that shows this amount of time has been adequately studied for any of the available vaccines?


At this point you seem solely intent on ignoring everything being said. This is not just intellectually dishonest; you’re inability to even acknowledge -that I am making Key arguments - leave alone present a counter - means that this is no longer an intellectual discussion on your part; it’s just you trying to find ways to skip over the parts that can’t argue with.
You have failed to answer the fundamental question I asked.

What specific U.S. law would prevent the government from using the same compulsory methods for sterilization that they are currently using for vaccination?

You have referenced a "right to not have someone around them putting them at risk of illness or death," which you have not shown to exist. You also made a vague reference to the 4th Amendment, but made no further comment when simply asked how that would apply to a sterilization requirement for federal government employees.

Again, if my premise is as ridiculous as you claim, it should be easy to show exactly how such a policy would be repealed by the Judicial Branch. Not answering my specific question makes it seem like it would be legal for the government to enact such a policy, even if viewed unfavorably by the public.

#45
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Post #39 explains in detail why we can confident the lack of long term health impacts without waiting two years.

Post #39 completely dismantles your claim that the vaccine mandates empower the government in some way to.

Post #41 and #43 explain in detail why this line of questioning is stupid.

All other previous posts detail why your premise is absolutely stupid.

If you want to pretend this is an intelligent discussion, please go back and actually deal with the arguments I have made; instead of repeatedly ignoring every single point, rebuttal and counter argument.

I’m not going to go through and continue to refute everything you’re saying - only for you to ignore every single last point. If you want to be intellectually dishonest - I’m just going to refer you back to the posts where I have made the arguments.

Topic's author
#46
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
You have not told us how many months of long-term safety data would be sufficient to consider mRNA vaccines safe.

You have not shown any observable, testable, repeatable results showing we have met this level of safety data research.

You have not shown what specific U.S. law would prevent the government from using the same compulsory methods for sterilization that they are currently using for vaccination.

You can say, "I've already dismantled those points," as many times as you want but it doesn't make it so. If you aren't specifically addressing those points, then we are having two different conversations.
#47
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The details of specifically why mRNA can be considered safe after a short time is covered in detail post #39. Continuing to ignore the argument that addresses your point - whilst repeating your point is intellectually dishonest. Please Address the argument I made.

Post #39 fully refutes your entire premise, in detail. Continuing to ignore the argument that addresses your point whilst repeating your point is intellectually dishonest. Please Address the argument I made.
.

Post #41 explains in detail why your line of questioning here is completely irrelevant. Continuing to ignore the argument that demonstrates why the question is irrelevant and need not be answered - and repeating the question is intellectually dishonest. Please Address the argument I made.
Topic's author
#48
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
You have not told us how many months of long-term safety data would be sufficient to consider mRNA vaccines safe.
The details of specifically why mRNA can be considered safe after a short time is covered in detail post #39.
So, you're not going to say how many months? I did not find that number in post #39.


You have not shown any observable, testable, repeatable results showing we have met this level of safety data research.
Post #39 fully refutes your entire premise, in detail. 
So, you're not going to cite any publicly available safety data? Post #39 did not contain a citation that would qualify as observable, measurable, repeatable test results.


You have not shown what specific U.S. law would prevent the government from using the same compulsory methods for sterilization that they are currently using for vaccination.
Post #41 explains in detail why your line of questioning here is completely irrelevant.
So, you're not going to cite any laws? Because that should be the easiest part of an argument if my claim is as ridiculous as you have claimed. 

But I think you know it's actually not that ridiculous after all.
#49
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
At this point, it’s clear you’re unwilling or unable to engage in an intelligent discussion. 

In previous posts I’ve provided a full and rigorous explanation of why you’re wrong on all counts; instead of replying to them, or providing a counter argument; you have simply chopped them out of your responses, and answered everything but the arguments I’ve provided. It’s clear at this point you’re unable to defend your point, and you know it: resorting to this petulant repetition of questions I’ve already explained as irrelevant, or answered in detail. 

It’s clear that theres’s no point in me trying to drag you kicking and screaming back into an argument you clearly aren’t able or willing to have. 

Simply asking the same questions over and over again, in some weird intellectually dishonest attempt at making you feel better about having lost the argument is ridiculous at this point:

I’m not going to answer because a) as I have explained in detail within previous posts - which you have ignored - the questions are not relevant. They have no bearing on the conversation whatsoever. B.) you have cut out vast swathes and entire posts I have made previously - so I’m not going to spend more time and energy constructing a more detailed response to an argument you clearly don’t want to have, and aren’t capable of engaging in. C.) they’re already broadly covered in previous posts.


It seems fairly evident your just going to ignore this; and repeat the same questions again, but frankly if you’re so rooted in denial that you think that’s a valid strategy - I’m just going to leave you to it.

If at any point you wish to actually engage in the substance of what’s being debate: I will refer you back to posts #39 and #41 and prior where my substantive points lie, and remain unanswered.

I do not await your response; which is clearly going to completely ignoring the accusations, and remaining in staunch denial about the critical issues with your questions ; and simply ask the questions again, hoping that in asking these irrelevant questions again, whilst failing to acknowledge anything said will somehow give the appearance that you haven’t comprehensively failed to defend the things you’ve said.
Topic's author
#50
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
You can continually repeat yourself but I have pointed out three fundamental issues that you have failed to address.

You have assured me the vaccine is safe, but you can't tell me what "safe" means. You told me mRNA vaccines require less time to verify they are safe in the long term, but you can't tell me what length of time is sufficient.

You also have failed to actually show me that publicly available safety data exists that verifies we have performed clinical trials for the necessary length of time.

Any claims that the vaccine is safe without those two pieces of information is nothing but speculation.

You have failed to show how any U.S. law would prevent the government from requiring all federal employees to be sterilized as a requirement for employment.

Any claim that the Judicial Branch would repeal such a policy without citing a law is worthless.

Those are my main points that you have failed to address. You have tried to jump down every little rabbit hole you can find to avoid these main points, and then baselessly claimed you already addressed them. But you also cannot show how you have addressed them. Because you haven't. You are the one who is ignoring what I have said.

So can you specifically show how you have already addressed this 3 main points?
#51
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I accept your concession.
Topic's author
#52
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
"Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!"