AusGeoff wrote on Nov 21
st, 2022 at 3:43am:
BTW, I have to congratulate you on actually avoiding addressing the question
of your rights taking precedence over the rights of everyone else. It was a
very clever deflection, covered up largely by a lot of rambling, irrelevant factoids.
I don't ramble, avoid, or deflect sir. I explain. If someone asked you, "When did you stop beating your wife?", how would you answer the question? It assumes that you have beaten your wife. And, asks when you've stopped. If I claim that "I don't beat my wife, and never have", you can claim that I have NOT answered your question(which is what you are doing now). And, if I answer the question in the positive or negative, I would be admitting that your unproven assumptions are true. Thus a loaded question. You just need to rephrase the question without adding these unproven assumptions.
So,
I DISAGREE THAT ANTIVAXXERS ARE ENDANGERING THE HEALTH OF THE INFIRMED AND THOSE WHO ARE IMMUNOCOMPROMISED! And, you provide no evidence that supports this claim. I seriously doubt that roughly 5% of the population would pose much a health threat to anyone.
I DISAGREE THAT ANTIVAXXERS ONLY CARE ABOUT THEIR OWN RIGHTS, AND DON'T GIVE A STUFF ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. Since antivaxxers are NOT stopping, forcing, coercing, or shaming vaxxers for wearing masks, distancing, or vaccinating themselves, exactly what rights do antivaxxer NOT give a stuff about? In fact, it is those who are compliant that don't seem to care about giving up their rights and individual freedoms.
I ALSO DISAGREE THAT ANTIVAXERS REPRESENT THE HEIGHT OF ANTISOCIALISM. This would imply that people who refuse to comply with mandated protocols, must be suffering from an antisocial mental disorder. Non-compliance is not a mental illness. It is a CHOICE! Why should over 90% of Australians who are NOT infected, be treated as though they are? Is this really the kind of paranoid society you really want to live in?
Maybe you can also explain the logic here? If you wear a mask, distance yourself, and have all your vaccinations, then how does any unvaccinated, uninfected person pose any threat to your health? Isn't your health protected by these measures? Or, is it the antivaxxer's non-conformity that is the real source of your dissonance??
AusGeoff wrote on Nov 21
st, 2022 at 3:43am:
Well at least we both agree on those allegations of mine. You are/do/doing each of those things.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Just rephrase the question without all the loaded assumptions. It is intellectually dishonest to make-up unsupported premises, and then ask others to address them(begging the question).
AusGeoff wrote on Nov 21
st, 2022 at 3:43am:
We're not talking about the confines of you home Shell; we're talking
about public spaces—theatres, shopping centres, banks and post offices etc.
And in any/all public spaces, we, all of us, have a duty of care to everyone
else around us. And particularly the immunocompromised, or the aged and
infirm. Apparently you disagree with this?
I doubt that we'll be seeing many of the the infirmed, or the immunocompromised shopping at the mall. I disagree that shoppers have any duty of care to anyone, in the legal sense. I do agree, that if you are symptomatic, or have tested positive for this virus, you should practice all the mandated protocols to the letter. It is your moral obligation. Which most people do practice.
Forum
Pages: 
Australia and NZ numbers for today: (Read 61489 times)
