Are the COVID choices you're being offered ACTUALLY choices??

Poor Richard Saunders said:
Inversion fallacy?


Or is it just another example of your continued use of -

Fallacy fallacy. The fallacy fallacy occurs when a poster, almost always Into the Night, in order to avoid addressing the topic and to try make themselves look more intelligent then they really are claim other posters are using fallacies without explaining how the poster created a fallacy.
Click to expand...

Continued mockery, trolling, spamming, denial of logic.
 
AProudLefty said:
Another point you have not considered. Wouldn't the government forcing the companies to accept employees because reasons be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
You are all over the place and have lost sight of what this thread is even about. Re-read the OP and this time FOCUS...
 
gfm7175 said:
You are all over the place and have lost sight of what this thread is even about. Re-read the OP and this time FOCUS...
Click to expand...

Your OP is clear.

These are the three "choices" that are being offered to many people across the States of America at the moment:

1. Take the jab
2. Get tested
3. Get an exemption (religious or medical)

But are these ACTUALLY choices???

1. Undergo an invasive medical procedure against your will.

You claimed that those are not a choice.
 
gfm7175 said:
These are the three "choices" that are being offered to many people across the States of America at the moment:

1. Take the jab
2. Get tested
3. Get an exemption (religious or medical)

12/09/2021 EDIT: ALTHOUGH, #3 gets combined with #2, so essentially there are only two "choices" being presented:

1. Take the jab
2. Get tested

end 12/09/2021 EDIT


But are these ACTUALLY choices???

With regard to pure identities, they are. Taking a jab isn't the same as getting tested isn't the same as getting an exemption.

HOWEVER, when logically and philosophically extended, there isn't any choice being presented at all, as follows:

1. Undergo an invasive medical procedure against your will.
2. Undergo an invasive medical procedure against your will, and then once ol' Joe "loses his patience" again, #1 will be required under this option as well.
3. Undergo an invasive medical procedure against your will, since #2 is still required under this option, and then once ol' Joe "loses his patience" again, #1 will be required under this option as well.

Additionally, #2 and #3 aren't always being presented to people as options, which if not then just leaves #1 (which is not a choice even in the sense of pure identities). And, like I just outlined above, #2 and #3 both flow right back to #1 after ol' Joe "loses his patience" again.


So, ARE choices actually being allowed with regard to COVID?? My take is NO, effectively no choices are being allowed, thus my choice in response to such egregious violation of a basic human right is civil disobedience.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

You would likely get a lot out of this:

The geographies of the Pharma genocide
https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/the-geographies-of-the-pharma-genocide
 
AProudLefty said:
Your OP is clear.

These are the three "choices" that are being offered to many people across the States of America at the moment:

1. Take the jab
2. Get tested
3. Get an exemption (religious or medical)

But are these ACTUALLY choices???

1. Undergo an invasive medical procedure against your will.

You claimed that those are not a choice.
Click to expand...
... as every one of those "choices" can be logically extended to "undergo an invasive medical procedure against your will".
 
gfm7175 said:
... as every one of those "choices" can be logically extended to "undergo an invasive medical procedure against your will".
Click to expand...

How so?

Let's assume this person works for a company.

1. The person works for this company.
2. The company adds a new policy or a rule.
3. Everyone agrees.
4. This person disagrees.
5. It is against this person's will.
 
AProudLefty said:
How so?
Click to expand...
RQAA... within my OP itself, amongst numerous other posts in this thread.

AProudLefty said:
Let's assume this person works for a company.
Click to expand...
Okay.

AProudLefty said:
1. The person works for this company.
Click to expand...
Okay.

AProudLefty said:
2. The company adds a new policy or a rule.
Click to expand...
The company didn't add the policy; the federal government forced the company to add the policy. See my OP.

AProudLefty said:
3. Everyone agrees.
Click to expand...
Who is "everyone"? What are [these people, whoever they are] agreeing to? Why do you get to speak for [these people, whoever they are]??

AProudLefty said:
4. This person disagrees.
Click to expand...
Your #3 and #4 form a paradox.

AProudLefty said:
5. It is against this person's will.
Click to expand...
Okay. (continued paradox from above)


Your point????
 
gfm7175 said:
Your refusal to quote me, since you're a mindless parroting pussy, is noted...


This choice is not being recognized by federal (and some state/local) government regarding the 100+ million people of whom my OP is about... please pay attention.


An unvaccinated person is not diseased. One cannot spread a disease that one doesn't have. You know this full well, so stop pretending that you don't.
Click to expand...

Then the choice is to quit the federal (and some state/local) government job, and given that the overwhelming majority of those 100+ million people of whom your OP is about have decided to get vaccinated it seems your question is mute if not inane from the jump
 
gfm7175 said:
... as every one of those "choices" can be logically extended to "undergo an invasive medical procedure against your will".
Click to expand...

Getting a test for a disease is an invasive medical procedure?

Does that mean that blowing your nose is an invasive medical procedure? Spitting is an invasive medical procedure? I do have to question the what you consider "invasive". If getting a Covid test is invasive then having to submit to a drug test would also be invasive under you definition. Having your hearing checked would also be invasive it seems. (Hearing tests are required for employees when working under certain conditions.)
 
gfm7175 said:
RQAA... within my OP itself, amongst numerous other posts in this thread.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Into the Night for that wonderful comment. As usual it is completely meaningless and doesn't provide any support to show what your silly acronym RQAA even means.




The company didn't add the policy; the federal government forced the company to add the policy. See my OP.
Click to expand...
Under your argument all OSHA rules would be unconstitutional. OSHA requires respirators. OSHA requires hard hats. OSHA requires safety shoes. OSHA requires drug testing. OSHA requires safety training. OSHA requires reporting of accidents. OSHA requires safety harnesses for high work. OSHA requires ongoing hearing tests for employees that work in loud environments. OSHA requires many things that companies have to add to their policies. Either they must all be unconstitutional or your attempt to claim requiring testing is unconstitutional is suspect and not supported by any real evidence..




Your #3 and #4 form a paradox.
Click to expand...
Gosh, Into the Night, another example of you claiming something without any support or evidence. How are they a paradox in your clouded mind? Simply claiming something is a paradox doesn't make it so. In fact your failure to provide evidence would indicate you are simply attempting to avoid addressing the issues raised. Something Into the Night does constantly. You seem to be an Into the Night sycophant.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't vaccinated people spreading covid??????
Click to expand...

Yes, but think about it, if you are vaccinated, you are less likely to get Covid, and if you are less likely to get Covid doesn't that mean you are also less likely to spread a virus you do not have?
 
gfm7175 said:
These are the three "choices" that are being offered to many people across the States of America at the moment:

1. Take the jab
2. Get tested
3. Get an exemption (religious or medical)

12/09/2021 EDIT: ALTHOUGH, #3 gets combined with #2, so essentially there are only two "choices" being presented:

1. Take the jab
2. Get tested

end 12/09/2021 EDIT


But are these ACTUALLY choices???

With regard to pure identities, they are. Taking a jab isn't the same as getting tested isn't the same as getting an exemption.

HOWEVER, when logically and philosophically extended, there isn't any choice being presented at all, as follows:

1. Undergo an invasive medical procedure against your will.
2. Undergo an invasive medical procedure against your will, and then once ol' Joe "loses his patience" again, #1 will be required under this option as well.
3. Undergo an invasive medical procedure against your will, since #2 is still required under this option, and then once ol' Joe "loses his patience" again, #1 will be required under this option as well.

Additionally, #2 and #3 aren't always being presented to people as options, which if not then just leaves #1 (which is not a choice even in the sense of pure identities). And, like I just outlined above, #2 and #3 both flow right back to #1 after ol' Joe "loses his patience" again.


So, ARE choices actually being allowed with regard to COVID?? My take is NO, effectively no choices are being allowed, thus my choice in response to such egregious violation of a basic human right is civil disobedience.

Discuss.
Click to expand...


I call that a false trichotomy and do none of the above. :dunno:
 
archives said:
Yes, but think about it, if you are vaccinated, you are less likely to get Covid, and if you are less likely to get Covid doesn't that mean you are also less likely to spread a virus you do not have?
Click to expand...

The most vaccinated countries seem to have the most COVID....fantasies and guesses fall with real world data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top