What will be the end game?

[Guy F.]

23 hours ago, OnMyWay said:

That is the big question.  Where do you draw the line?  Voter ID?  You really don't need any of those physical objects because the technology exists to have all the information about you encoded  in a microchip which is then implanted in you.  The implant is safe and effective, without unsightly tattoos and barcodes.  The government(s) will know exactly where you are at all times, in case they need to "reach out and touch you".  Criminal history, voter registrations, medical history, registered weapons, family info, etc., on and on.  Instead of having to ask you if you are vaccinated, a resto will have a red light and siren go off if you walk thru the door unvaccinated.

Public safety is a good place to draw the line. There are no microchips in vaccines. Your phone, which has an actual microchip, allows the government to keep track of your location if they want to.

Don't be a vax avoider. I don't want people driving without insurance, and vax avoidance amounts to the same thing.

[OnMyWay]

 

5 minutes ago, Guy F. said:

Public safety is a good place to draw the line.

You can't draw the line with a broad term like public safety.  Who defines where that begins and ends?  In the long run, the courts do, on individual issues.  We have hundreds if not thousands of public safety laws that the courts have upheld.  Where it starts to get tricky is when it comes to one's own body.  My body, my choice, as some women like to say.

14 minutes ago, Guy F. said:

There are no microchips in vaccines. Your phone, which has an actual microchip, allows the government to keep track of your location if they want to.

I was just using the chip as an example of taking government control and intervention too far.  If you are vaccinated, how do you prove it if places like New York require proof?  This is also gets very tricky.

2 minutes ago, Guy F. said:

Don't be a vax avoider. I don't want people driving without insurance, and vax avoidance amounts to the same thing.

I am not anti-vax and I am fully vaccinated.  I am trying to show why some people do not want to get vaccinated so that others can perhaps understand some other viewpoints.  You are more likely to win them over by understanding them, as opposed to calling them names and taking a "my way or the highway" approach.

 

[Jack Peterson]

1 minute ago, OnMyWay said:

I am trying to show why some people do not want to get vaccinated

 Let's not forget where we are ! 

[hk blues]

10 minutes ago, OnMyWay said:

I am not anti-vax and I am fully vaccinated.  I am trying to show why some people do not want to get vaccinated so that others can perhaps understand some other viewpoints.  You are more likely to win them over by understanding them, as opposed to calling them names and taking a "my way or the highway" approach.

It's certainly true that you can catch more flies with sugar than vinegar but sometimes the sugar doesn't work so the vinegar is the last resort.

[Mike J]

11 hours ago, hk blues said:

It's certainly true that you can catch more flies with sugar than vinegar but sometimes the sugar doesn't work so the vinegar is the last resort.

Or a fly swatter.  

[Guy F.]

14 hours ago, OnMyWay said:

 

You can't draw the line with a broad term like public safety.  Who defines where that begins and ends?  In the long run, the courts do, on individual issues.  We have hundreds if not thousands of public safety laws that the courts have upheld.  Where it starts to get tricky is when it comes to one's own body.  My body, my choice, as some women like to say.

I was just using the chip as an example of taking government control and intervention too far.  If you are vaccinated, how do you prove it if places like New York require proof?  This is also gets very tricky.

I am not anti-vax and I am fully vaccinated.  I am trying to show why some people do not want to get vaccinated so that others can perhaps understand some other viewpoints.  You are more likely to win them over by understanding them, as opposed to calling them names and taking a "my way or the highway" approach.

 

The ol' Slippery Slope arguments don't hold water, except in Afghanistan and the like. I remember when an old friend tried to tell me that when gay marriage was legalized it wouldn't be long before we'd have people marrying their pets, houseplants and so on. Haven't really seen any of that, other than a crazy woman who wanted to marry a tree a while back.

It is what it is, but enough is enough.

[hk blues]

3 hours ago, Guy F. said:

The ol' Slippery Slope arguments don't hold water, except in Afghanistan and the like. I remember when an old friend tried to tell me that when gay marriage was legalized it wouldn't be long before we'd have people marrying their pets, houseplants and so on. Haven't really seen any of that, other than a crazy woman who wanted to marry a tree a while back.

It is what it is, but enough is enough.

People who marry their dogs and/or trees are mostly barking mad IMO!

[jimeve]

21 hours ago, hk blues said:

People who marry their dogs and/or trees are mostly barking mad IMO!

Or barking up the wrong tree.