Skarpen
-
Posts
126 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Skarpen
-
-
-
9 hours ago, Maedhros said:
Selfish because the vaccine by far and large prevents hospitalization and death. Why be a bother when it's easily avoided?
So it affects only the person vaccinated. So if you want it then vaccinate yourself. It's someone's personal choice. And there is no proof that vaccine prevents hospitalizations and death of people that would be hospitalized or would die without it when infected.
8 hours ago, Zoraptor said:Vaccines do prevent getting corona, they just don't stop it in all people*. They also do prevent the spreading of the virus in most people,
No they don't. It was proven to be false just like the herd immunity and other "miraculous cure" BS we were fed for months. All claims about vaccines have been steadily retracted and it seems that the current ones will not hold up as well. Just look at Israel and recently Ireland
-
38 minutes ago, Maedhros said:
Difference being nearly all anti-vaxxer deaths could've been prevented with the vaccine. Some die regardless, but they're in the 0,001%. Not getting it is selfish AND dumb.
How exactly is it selfish? Vaccines don't prevent from getting corona and they don't prevent the spreading of the virus which was proven. Also there is no proof of vaccines preventing the deaths for people who would die if not vaccinated. So your statement is complete bollocks.
-
2 hours ago, KP the meanie zucchini said:
Sad how long this list is
https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/
And for a milestone: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/15/health/us-coronavirus-wednesday/index.html
I guess as year two of covid comes on, we're in for even more fun.
Interesting. Is there the same one for provaxers who died regardless of the vaccination?
-
48 minutes ago, BruceVC said:
Skarpie I want to ask you an important question, what would you need to see or believe to convince you to take the Corona vaccine. I am not trying to change your mind based on my reasons I just want to know what will change your mind?
The reason I ask is SA is only at about 30 % vaccination as we have many people who dont want to take and I am trying to see how to change this. Also this is global problem for many counties with the US at about 55 % and Poland more or less the same and we not gaining traction so its time to try something different and ask " how can can help convince people who dont want to take the vaccines " ?
Well if my physician would recommend me to take vaccine based on my health conditions I would do this. Right now he doesn't recommend me to take any of the currently available vaccines as they will not improve my well being in any significant way.
-
1 hour ago, Amentep said:
The government does not require you to buy your groceries at Stokrotka does it? My point is that even if stores want your vaccination information and you do not want to voluntarily surrender it, there is no government requirement making you shop at that store that requires you to give up your vaccine information. If left to their own devices, owners would choose what would be best for them and their clientele and customers would choose where to take their business. If one place requires vaccines, then odds are another will not. Or vice-versa, and if one didn't exist then there would be incentive to create it to cater to the customers who'd use it if a sustainable customer base existed.
Or better yet the law prohibits businesses to require unreasonable things like private medical record which they are not entitled to for any reason ever. I don't get the "you don't have to buy there so the business can basically require you to do anything" mentality at all. Will you be ok with a business requiring customers to literally eat sh*t just because you don't have to shop there? Or would it be unacceptable regardless of you willingness to shop there?
QuoteAlso, there is the issue that public health emergencies are a different thing entirely, anyhow. As has been pointed out in these threads before, we already require proof of vaccinations here in the US for other public health issues (like immunizations for enrollment in public school) which isn't a violation of privacy.
Of course it is. And big time violation.
QuoteFurther, it is completely legal to deny services to customers. No shirt no shoes no service exists because of public safety concerns with germs, if I recall correctly, which is why it is usually a requirement for restaurants. Having to pay to be a member of a store like Sam's Club means stores are only open to members, not just anyone. Most standardized testing companies will deny service if you can't show proof of identity with a non-expired government issued ID with photo and signature. There there are things like requiring a suit jacket and tie for male patrons of an upscale restaurant which might no tbe seen as reasonable in this day of business casual, but also is not illegal. And then you have even more arbitrary situations like Ali “Al” Yeganeh refusing service to anyone who takes too long to order which, again, is not illegal.
All of those examples would fall into reasonable category because of the type of business. Members only, dress code, ID requirement etc. are all reasonable if the business model rely on those things. Which is ok as I previously stated. But personal medical records are completely something else, sorry.
34 minutes ago, BruceVC said:Well thats good news, I have never had a flu shot before
Well, I had got very severe flu's like every flu season and my physician said it's best if I take the vaccines to avoid those. Haven't got a flu since then and it's great. If you don't have flu problems then I envy you.
-
2 hours ago, Amentep said:
You have no legal compulsion to shop at a particular store
Not true in any civilized country. In fact it's mostly illegal for business owners to refuse service to a customer unless there is a reasonable reason like disorderly conduct etc. In civilized society you don't need a special right to be a customer.
QuoteI see this as being fairly reasonable
I'm sorry but I find nothing reasonable in sharing my medical records to some schmuck to buy sneakers or headphones. The only business I should disclose any medical information is medical businesses that actually need those to properly provide their services to me.
5 hours ago, BruceVC said:Skarpie have you been fully vaccinated , Im concerned with the levels of vaccine hesitancy we see in most of our countries and how this primarily spreads the virus and mutations
I've had my flu shot last week as I had for years before flu season.
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, Gorth said:
Not necessarily rich.
Typical rich doublespeak
-
7 minutes ago, Amentep said:
Its not even a consistent law, unless they also start fining businesses for requiring shirts and shoes for services and removing the ability of a store to refuse service to disruptive patrons and force them to accept whatever form of payment the customer brings and any of the millions of other determinations business make everyday to run their business as they want under the guise of protecting the customer's 'rights'. Otherwise its just an arbitrary limitation to the business owner's right to determine how best to run their company made to win political points without a real rational basis for being done.
I don't think either inappropriate behavior nor inappropriate clothing is protected right, like anywhere. Quite the contrary even. The right to privacy including medical privacy and so on is a right in most civilized countries. So I don't see your point beyond usual American business owners are our owners routine.
-
3 hours ago, Raithe said:
That fine line of "Stop caring about the plague to becoming Pro-Plague" ?
Best law ever. Fine for violating someone's rights should be standard.
-
11 hours ago, Gorth said:
Edit: Just in case it's necessary, no AOC isn't on the rich list
I'm pretty sure the congress pay puts her in the top 10% in US and even higher worldwide. If being in the top 10% isn't "rich" then who she wants to tax?
Then again even the leftist multimilioners claim themselves not rich.
-
-
-
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, Elerond said:
Actual pro-life movement would actually build social benefits that would ensure that there is no people in poverty and that any child born would have decent place to live, access to good schooling and they don't cause unbearable burden to their parents.
So basically you absolve the pro-choice side of taking care of those things? As pro-choice scream hypocrisy on the other side they don't seem see their own when they use this argument only against pro-life and not actually care about those either.
-
-
1 hour ago, Amentep said:
As I understand it, that's what the Texas statute allows for their anti-abortion law; anyone can sue even if they do not have any connection to anyone else involved, and they can sue anyone in the chain (the doctor, the person who drove them their, the person receiving the abortion, the person who gave them money to get the abortion)
Yeah, I get the notion, but what would be the substance of the lawsuit though? If I understand correctly it would be a civil suit and civil suit needs to have something that the suing side wants from the side they are suing. Mostly it's a monetary compensation for something (like damages), but those need to be accounted in real stuff. For example if a neighbour throws a bottle in my backyard and hits my car and the repair will cost 10k$ I can sue for those 10k$ because that's the cost I would have to pay for repairs. But for me to sue my neighbour if he damages the other neighbour car then this is illogical because he didn't made any damages to me. So this law is a little baffling in that regard.
-
1 hour ago, Elerond said:
Question is state legislative (like New York) to allow to people to sue anyone linked to sale of gun used in crime for damages even if person suing didn't suffer from the crime.
This sounds kinda dumb. What would the lawsuit be about if the person suing have no damages to be covered?
-
1 hour ago, Elerond said:
With same logic you probably will able to ban anything that is protected in constitution without actually banning them.
I think this already happened with most things supposedly protected by US constitution.
-
-
-
On 8/19/2021 at 8:01 PM, Sarex said:
The biggest issue with Civ like games, is the endgame. If someone figures out how to make that interesting they'll take the throne.
As it is for most strategy games be it TB or RTS etc. At some point in the game there is a time where the other side is basically defeated and the rest of the game is just boring jog to the finish line. I think those games should take the chess route and offer surrender when the game is clearly won. In top chess games it is rather rare to see checkmates as the players know when the rest of the game is pointless.
-
46 minutes ago, Gorth said:
Tl;dr; if you play video games you suffer from anxiety and have a hard life that you can’t see your way out of other than escapism (by seeking refuge in something where you’re in control of your situation)
I love when the studies confuse such basic concepts as cause and effect. Sure, you will find people like that playing VG but that's rather because they already suffering from those conditions and are looking for escapism and not because VG causes them.
It's like saying paraolympics cause disability because all participants have one.
-
2
-
-
Treating of women in Islamic countries is something that goes back a long time. Blaming the current narration on Moscow and Beijing is a little dishonest. There already are repression towards women in workplaces.
-
1
-
Funny Stuff: The Funny Unleashed
in Way Off-Topic
Posted