Austria first country to make Covid vaccine mandatory

[Lacius]

Horrible example from a case that’s been long since overturned. It was also penalising a citizen for his opposition to the draft, in case you’re unaware, which was in fact his civil right. The actual legal standard was set in Brandenburg v. Ohio and only includes speech likely to incite immediate lawless action. Nice attempt, but your camp really needs to refresh their copy pastas, they don’t reflect reality.

I have a right to free speech. I generally cannot lie and shout "fire" in a crowded room. I generally cannot incite a riot. I generally cannot violate laws relating to libel and slander. Demonstrably, my right to free speech is not without restrictions. Why are you wasting my time with irrelevant drivel?

Liberals opposing the sexual revolution, we really do live in perpetual Opposite Day. The actual legal standard broadly is indecent exposure, as in parading naked in public where one can be easily seen by others, although it differs wildly depending on states. Many areas are rather accepting of some degree of public nudity, and if I’m not mistaken, it is the political left that advocates for freeing the nipple, so you’re cutting the branch you’d otherwise comfortably sit on.

I haven't said anything about whether or not I'm in favor of laws against public nudity, nor do I care about exceptions to what's generally the rule, so I suggest you focus on my point instead of continuing to waste my fucking time.

Since a restaurant is a private establishment, all of those things are actually up to the owner of the property. If you feel like opening a nudist restaurant, legally speaking there is nothing prohibiting you from doing so.

At least this part isn't wasting my time.

Restaurants have laws they also have to follow, particularly if the restaurant is open to the public. For example, some restaurants might not be able to allow indoor smoking regardless of whether or not they want to. Restaurants generally cannot discriminate against customers. I can't continue to try to incite a riot, even if I'm in a restaurant and the owners agree with me. Restaurants have health code laws they have to follow, whether they want to or not. Depending on the particular zoning laws, a restaurant might not even be allowed to offer nude dining either.

Rights are unlimited and without restriction, that’s what makes them rights, as opposed to privileges, which are granted by the state. Privileges are selective and conditional, rights are inherent and unconditional.

If you read what I said above, you'll see how laughably ridiculous you're being.

 

[FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR]

Sure, I'll grant you that rights as an idea technically exist - but I'm saying that in the context of what the government actually grants us, it's really just privileges, effectively.

Rules for preventing crime is one category - there are more categories. You and I both know this.

The vaccines aren't experimental. Their functions are well understood and documented, and that's not a matter of opinion. Vaccines have been experimental and riddled with issues in the past, but it's all very well documented for you to look over. The only issues that come from them at this point are extremely rare, and often due to immune responses, not due to the contents of the vaccine itself.

If I were to steelman your argument, I'd instead say that vaccinations come with a risk - now that is true. You just need to understand that the point of issue typically comes from people's immune responses - not the vaccine itself. Same thing happens with, say, peanuts.

So, we know they come with a risk. So why mandate that? Kinda scary, right? Because the risk with COVID is very extreme. We haven't lost this many lives on the planet in a very long time. We have now surpassed World War II with deaths.

And our fix for World War 2? It was sending Americans into battlezones. Talk about some serious risk. And the US banded together to make that fight happen. We were willing to take the odds on, because we knew it was the better of the 2 poisons.

Now, for some reason when we're fighting an "invisible" enemy, we see people wanting to ignore the risk. It's somehow not as obvious as the Nazis were. I think that's due to survivorship bias, personally. It's easy to mentally flip a switch to wanting to be left alone and carry on when you can't actually see bodies dropping.

But - that's the reality. You are suggesting we don't march on the soil, and instead take our chances with an enemy that's far more dangerous than the Nazi party ever was. If we don't actively fight COVID, then you're looking at one of the worst human massacres in history.

I'm honestly shocked there are even people around that don't see this the way I do.

You are totally under trauma based mind control.

 

[Zajumino]

However, a vaccine mandate is no more a violation of one's right to autonomy than a clothes mandate.

I disagree with this. Clothes can be taken off. Vaccinations are more permanent and can be painful.

Sure, I'll grant you that rights as an idea technically exist - but I'm saying that in the context of what the government actually grants us, it's really just privileges, effectively.

This is why in the US we have a bill of rights. The government is literally required to protect certain rights. Sometimes it is difficult to protect every person's rights all at the same time, which is a reason why the judicial system exists.

 

[appleburger]

I disagree with this. Clothes can be taken off. Vaccinations are more permanent and can be painful.


This is why in the US we have a bill of rights. The government is literally required to protect certain rights. Sometimes it is difficult to protect every person's rights all at the same time, which is a reason why the judicial system exists.

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that they have been broken in the past. If the situation calls for it, rights can be taken away.

 

[appleburger]

You are totally under trauma based mind control.

Great, well thought out response. Either say something useful, attempt to actually combat anything I said, or we can all continue assuming you're a retard.

 

[Lacius]

I disagree with this. Clothes can be taken off. Vaccinations are more permanent and can be painful.

Many anti-vaxxers think you can undo a vaccine with a Borax bath, for example, so it's difficult to take these kinds of concerns seriously.

Also, none of the vaccine stays in the body after a few days or weeks after the last dose.

 

[Foxi4]

I have a right to free speech. I generally cannot lie and shout "fire" in a crowded room. I generally cannot incite a riot. I generally cannot violate laws relating to libel and slander. Demonstrably, my right to free speech is not without restrictions. Why are you wasting my time with irrelevant drivel?

There’s no legal standard that specifies you cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre - in fact, chances are you would cause more confusion than panic. You cannot incite a riot because it’s immediate unlawful action. That’s not a limitation on your freedom to speak, that’s a limitation on you causing direct harm by means of forming a mob with the intent to cause damage. Slander and libel are not limitations on speech - what’s actually illegal, and prosecuted, is causing damages, which the injured party has to demonstrate in court. I can call you “completely unqualified” for instance, regardless of your level of qualifications - you’re welcome to sue if your fee fees got hurt, but you cannot demonstrate damages, so you’ll be laughed out of court. The only person wasting other people’s time is you, you’re the one posting complete nonsense that does not exist in law.

I haven't said anything about whether or not I'm in favor of laws against public nudity, nor do I care about exceptions to what's generally the rule, so I suggest you focus on my point instead of continuing to waste my fucking time.

I can’t focus on your point since you didn’t make one. There is no legal standard that prevents you from being naked.

At least this part isn't wasting my time.

Anything I post should be considered educational, particularly to people who don’t know the law, and yet still speak with confidence about it.

Restaurants have laws they also have to follow, particularly if the restaurant is open to the public. For example, some restaurants might not be able to allow indoor smoking regardless of whether or not they want to. Restaurants generally cannot discriminate against customers. I can't continue to try to incite a riot, even if I'm in a restaurant and the owners agree with me. Restaurants have health code laws they have to follow, whether they want to or not. Depending on the particular zoning laws, a restaurant might not even be allowed to offer nude dining either.

Sure, government overreach exists on every level of government, but there is no such federal standard. You’re more than welcome to dine naked on my private property, as long as you bring a towel - I don’t know where you’ve been.

If you read what I said above, you'll see how laughably ridiculous you're being.

Slightly less than someone doubling down on being wrong regarding the difference between rights and privileges, and the associated legal distinction between the two. The Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, is a set of principles that the government *cannot* violate. This document can be amended if the overwhelming majority of states agree to ratify a specific change, but it cannot be violated - it is the supreme law of the land. The government doesn’t get to violate any of the rights enumerated within, and that’s that.

 

[smf]

How, then, getting another "top up" of the same vaccine would be effective against this variant in any significant capacity? Simple answer is no one knows. Not the labs, not the specialists not the experts. They are just saying get the third jab in hopes to "boost" your immune system a notch so that it MIGHT be effective.

You're confused. You assume that because it doesn't seem obvious to you, that it couldn't be true.
I heard a good scientific explanation of it the other day and it made sense to me.

They know, you don't know.

 

[smf]

I disagree with this. Clothes can be taken off. Vaccinations are more permanent and can be painful.

Vaccinations are unfortunately not permanent.

Clothes can be painful.

 

[Foxi4]

Honestly, rights don't really exist, imo. They're all privileges, and the US is no stranger to taking those away. Patriot Act, slavery and imprisoning Japanese americans all come to mind. You can be drafted into a war where you're far more likely to be killed than you would by any medicine, as well. These took/take place regardless of the rights people were said to have.

It's just American marketing, in my eyes. But regardless of those semantics, vaccine mandates already exist for schools. That's all small potatoes in the "rights" or "privilege" department. And opting to not save lives in the vain of "freedom" is an easy target for calling people irresponsible, in my book. It's only a matter of discussion due to how dangerous it is.

I think the freedom/rights/privilege angle is just a bunch of hot air when it comes to this argument. People are free to feel it's not fair - but having a right? Yeah, that doesn't mean much in this context. There are a lot of people dying, and the collective best minds we have agree that vaccinating will save many lives. Due to there being enough stupid people to hinder this, I don't blame folks for arguing for a mandate that will save lives. I don't think it will be a foot in the door for total authoritarianism like some people seem to be fantasizing about.

”Rights don’t exist” is the equivalent of saying “might makes right”. We absolutely have inherent rights which continue to function even in the absence of government. For instance, you have a right to life. If someone wants to deprive you of life, you can demonstrate damage to your person. From that you can derive your right to self-defense - since you have a right to life, you automatically have a right to protect yourself from harm. This is a bit philosophical and beyond the scope of this conversation, but the broader point here is that just because a given party doesn’t have the power to defend their rights does not mean that said party is not aggrieved if their rights are violated.

 

[smf]

Care to name these studies? At least I pointed to the oxford research.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...dy-suggests-but-boosters-help?t=1639781856196

The oxford vaccine is not used as a booster in the UK, only moderna and pfizer are being used. Which is kinda embarrassing for the government, so I believe they are doing it based on science.

 

[appleburger]

”Rights don’t exist” is the equivalent of saying “might makes right”. We absolutely have inherent rights which continue to function even in the absence of government. For instance, you have a right to life. If someone wants to deprive you of life, you can demonstrate damage to your person. From that you can derive your right to self-defense - since you have a right to life, you automatically have a right to protect yourself from harm. This is a bit philosophical and beyond the scope of this conversation, but the broader point here is that just because a given party doesn’t have the power to defend their rights does not mean that said party is not aggrieved if their rights are violated.

I agree with you. I had said in another comment that while I understand there is a point to be made about rights existing (and you're right about this being a philosophical point), I was attempting to point out that the government effectively makes privileges that can be taken away, and has done so in the past.

The only reason I bring that up, is because people are saying the government can't make you get vaccinations. And I'm over here saying that if they can make you go to war and tap your phone without you knowing it, then we can concede those "rights" have already been breached.

 

[Zajumino]

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that they have been broken in the past. If the situation calls for it, rights can be taken away.

What exactly was broken in the past?

Rights enumerated in the Constitution cannot be taken away without an amendment, which does not happen often. There are unenumerated rights protected by the 9th Amendment, but I don't really know how that works.

For clarification, privileges are granted, while rights are protected. You cannot really give or take rights, because a right is an idea. You can however, deny them (by not giving certain privileges), which is what I think you mean.
I agree with your statement that what the government effectively grants us are privileges, because that is what it does. I was pointing out that there are certain rights that the government cannot deny, which means, basically, that there are certain privileges that are required.

Many anti-vaxxers think you can undo a vaccine with a Borax bath, for example, so it's difficult to take these kinds of concerns seriously.

Also, none of the vaccine stays in the body after a few days or weeks after the last dose.

But your body is (semi-)permanently changed in at least one way, one of which is the point of a vaccine.

Vaccinations are unfortunately not permanent.

Clothes can be painful.

more

Not all clothes are painful.

 

[smf]

Sometimes it is difficult to protect every person's rights all at the same time, which is a reason why the judicial system exists.

And any mandates that you disagree with should be handled in court.

 

[Lacius]

There’s no legal standard that specifies you cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre - in fact, chances are you would cause more confusion than panic. You cannot incite a riot because it’s immediate unlawful action. That’s not a limitation on your freedom to speak, that’s a limitation on you causing direct harm by means of forming a mob with the intent to cause damage. Slander and libel are not limitations on speech - what’s actually illegal, and prosecuted, is causing damages, which the injured party has to demonstrate in court. I can call you “completely unqualified” for instance, regardless of your level of qualifications - you’re welcome to sue if your fee fees got hurt, but you cannot demonstrate damages, so you’ll be laughed out of court. The only person wasting other people’s time is you, you’re the one posting complete nonsense that does not exist in law.
I can focus on your point since you didn’t have one. There is no legal standard that prevents you from being naked.
Anything I post should be considered educational, particularly to people who don’t know the law, and yet still speak with confidence about it.
Sure, government overreach exists on every level of government, but there is no such federal standard. You’re more than welcome to dine naked on my private property, as long as you bring a towel - I don’t know where you’ve been.
Slightly less than someone doubling down on being wrong regarding the difference between rights and privileges, and the associated legal distinction between the two. The Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, is a set of principles that the government *cannot* violate. This document can be amended if the overwhelming majority of states agree to ratify a specific change, but it cannot be violated - it is the supreme law of the land. The government doesn’t get to violate any of the rights enumerated within, and that’s that.

You don't seem to understand that if I'm not allowed to cause you financial damages with my speech, then my right to free speech is limited. Lol.

There is definitely a legal standard that prevents me from being naked, generally, in most public places, and since you've decided to give up on reading, my point was that this is precedent for people being prevented from entering certain public spaces without being vaccinated.

I agree one of us is doubling down on being wrong, but it should be pretty obvious it isn't me.

 

[Foxi4]

I agree with you. I had said in another comment that while I understand there is a point to be made about rights existing (and you're right about this being a philosophical point), I was attempting to point out that the government effectively makes privileges that can be taken away, and has done so in the past.

The only reason I bring that up, is because people are saying the government can't make you get vaccinations. And I'm over here saying that if they can make you go to war and tap your phone without you knowing it, then we can concede those "rights" have already been breached.

The existence of unjust law does not justify it. People have an inherent right to bodily autonomy and if they do not wish to ingest or otherwise introduce a substance into their body, for whatever dumbass reason, strapping them to a chair and forcing them to do so, or otherwise coercing them by prohibiting their otherwise lawful activity, is a violation of their rights. The government isn’t God, it’s just a bunch of old folks people voted in to work as janitors of the state. The land belongs to the people, not the government - the rule of a government is conditional on the support of the people. If a government becomes authoritarian, it is encumbent on the people to remove it from power, and there are appropriate mechanisms to do so in most democracies. Failing that, it can also be done by force, and has been done that way in the past. There can be no tolerance of tyranny.

 

[Zajumino]

And any mandates that you disagree with should be handled in court.

either that or in Congress

 

[Lacius]

But your body is (semi-)permanently changed in at least one way, one of which is the point of a vaccine.

Assuming that's true, it doesn't really matter.

 

[Lacius]

The existence of unjust law does not justify it. People have an inherent right to bodily autonomy and if they do not wish to ingest or otherwise introduce a substance into their body, for whatever dumbass reason, strapping them to a chair and forcing them to do so, or otherwise coercing them by prohibiting their otherwise lawful activity, is a violation of their rights. The government isn’t God, it’s just a bunch of old folks people voted in to work as janitors of the state. The land belongs to the people, not the government - the rule of a government is conditional on the support of the people. If a government becomes authoritarian, it is encumbent on the people to remove it from power, and there are appropriate mechanisms to do so in most democracies. Failing that, it can also be done by force, and has been done that way in the past. There can be no tolerance of tyranny.

Is it your opinion I should be able to walk around as naked as I want wherever I want (without forcing myself on anyone else's private property)?

 

[appleburger]

What exactly was broken in the past?

Rights enumerated in the Constitution cannot be taken away without an amendment, which does not happen often. There are unenumerated rights protected by the 9th Amendment, but I don't really know how that works.

For clarification, privileges are granted, while rights are protected. You cannot really give or take rights, because a right is an idea. You can however, deny them (by not giving certain privileges), which is what I think you mean.
I agree with your statement that what the government effectively grants us are privileges, because that is what it does. I was pointing out that there are certain rights that the government cannot deny, which means, basically, that there are certain privileges that are required.



But your body is (semi-)permanently changed in at least one way, one of which is the point of a vaccine.


more

Not all clothes are painful.

This is why I had said earlier that I'm really getting into semantics here, but an example I provided was the imprisonment of Japanese americans.

The semantic aspect is that I'm addressing what some here have called rights - like mandating a vaccine. I'm saying that's falling in line with other "rights" that have been breached. You can be sent to war, have your phone tapped, be imprisoned for your race (in the past), and that's a larger breach than mandated vaccines, imo.

When we get into the weeds of what rights vs. privileges really are, and the Bill of Rights, how they all work, etc. I think that's all fair to bring up, but I'd like to level the playing field and roll this back to the original point - which is that mandating a vaccine, at least in my opinion, does not fall into a category or rights that cannot be touched by government.