obesity is killing more people than covid.

but no one is shutting down mac d's or any other fastfood vendors, the gov even sorts out half price food for a couple of weeks.

Why shut down Mac d's or Taco Bell, when it's an individual problem? Plenty of thin people enjoy those places, and they are not contributing to the spread of obesity because they order a burger and fries.

Original Quill wrote:Why shut down Mac d's or Taco Bell, when it's an individual problem?  Plenty of thin people enjoy those places, and they are not contributing to the spread of obesity because they order a burger and fries.

Sotheir health is their choice but vaccines and masks shouldn't be by choice, interesting ideas. so what's your take on drinking, drugs and smoking

inmyopinion wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Why shut down Mac d's or Taco Bell, when it's an individual problem? Plenty of thin people enjoy those places, and they are not contributing to the spread of obesity because they order a burger and fries.

Sotheir health is their choice but vaccines and masks shouldn't be by choice, interesting ideas. so what's your take on drinking, drugs and smoking

Lol...but it's not about me. It's about a disease. Yes, a virus has the unfortunate effect of spreading across a broad swath of a population. Obesity isn't infectious.

Vaccines and masks are about containing the spread, not one-on-one with your own body. That's what I mean when I say obesity is an individual problem.

Original Quill wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:
Sotheir health is their choice but vaccines and masks shouldn't be by choice, interesting ideas. so what's your take on drinking, drugs and smoking

Lol...but it's not about me.  It's about a disease.  Yes, a virus has the unfortunate effect of spreading across a broad swath of a population.  Obesity isn't infectious.  

Vaccines and masks are about containing the spread, not one-on-one with your own body.  That's what I mean when I say obesity is an individual problem.

so should masks and vaccines be mandatory?

Original Quill wrote:Why shut down Mac d's or Taco Bell, when it's an individual problem?  Plenty of thin people enjoy those places, and they are not contributing to the spread of obesity because they order a burger and fries.

You sound almost libertarian. Welcome to the club.

inmyopinion wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Lol...but it's not about me. It's about a disease. Yes, a virus has the unfortunate effect of spreading across a broad swath of a population. Obesity isn't infectious.

Vaccines and masks are about containing the spread, not one-on-one with your own body. That's what I mean when I say obesity is an individual problem.

so should masks and vaccines be mandatory?

There are several possibilities: yes, no, and no reward if you don't. Yes and no are self-explanatory. The no reward theory is that you can't get in if you haven't been vaccinated.

The basic theory of the latter is that you can't fraternize if you don't obey the rules. Schools, for example, have long employed this strategy...children cannot go to school if they haven't been vaccinated. This could be expanded to any facility where large groups congregate, including bars, restaurants, churches, shops, you name it.

It's not really an imposition on individual rights. It’s a condition, not a denial. After all, you can't get into bar unless you wear clothes. You can't drive unless you have a license. You can't pee in public, but must go to the rest room. So, you can get in as long as you meet the conditions. Very common.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Why shut down Mac d's or Taco Bell, when it's an individual problem?  Plenty of thin people enjoy those places, and they are not contributing to the spread of obesity because they order a burger and fries.

You sound almost libertarian. Welcome to the club.  

Freedom and openness, where possible, should be the norm. It's when it conflicts with a public protection or necessity, that the restraints must come out.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You sound almost libertarian. Welcome to the club.  

Freedom and openness, where possible, should be the norm.  It's when it conflicts with a public protection or necessity, that the restraints must come out.

That's more like the commie Quill I know.

"We're doing this for your own good".

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Freedom and openness, where possible, should be the norm.  It's when it conflicts with a public protection or necessity, that the restraints must come out.

That's more like the commie Quill I know.  

"We're doing this for your own good".

Um...Trump's the commie...lol, or it's inherited cousin, the Russian mafia.

You wear pants, doncha? You can't drive without a license. You call an ambulance when you require a hospital? Why do you tolerate those restrictions, and/or services if you're so libertarian? Do away with them...you're on your own cowboy.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That's more like the commie Quill I know.  

"We're doing this for your own good".

Um...Trump's the commie...lol, or it's inherited cousin, the Russian mafia.

You wear pants, doncha?  You can't drive without a license.  You call an ambulance when you require a hospital?  Why do you tolerate those restrictions, and/or services if you're so libertarian?  Do away with them...you're on your own cowboy.  

I'm not wearing pants right now.

I've driven without a license.

And I follow a lot of laws because having broke enough to be arrested at least a dozen times I've decide jail just isn't right for me.

Original Quill wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:
so should masks and vaccines be mandatory?

There are several possibilities: yes, no, and no reward if you don't.  Yes and no are self-explanatory.  The no reward theory is that you can't get in if you haven't been vaccinated.

The basic theory of the latter is that you can't fraternize if you don't obey the rules.  Schools, for example, have long employed this strategy...children cannot go to school if they haven't been vaccinated.  This could be expanded to any facility where large groups congregate, including bars, restaurants, churches, shops, you name it.

It's not really an imposition on individual rights.  It’s a condition, not a denial.  After all, you can't get into bar unless you wear clothes.  You can't drive unless you have a license.  You can't pee in public, but must go to the rest room.  So, you can get in as long as you meet the conditions.  Very common.

So back door forced vaccines then , hidden under the guise of reward. not a fan of freedom of rights then.

It depends on what you mean by forced.  Indecent exposure laws force people to cover up, and prevent "flashing".  No one complains except maybe the naturists.   Drivers must get drivers' licenses, and few object.  There are many examples.

Lots of things have legal conditions precedent, and people getting vaccinations may become one of them.  The common understanding in America is: your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose!  It means, when your actions adversely affect me, the law must step in.

It's an interesting debate but I don't think anyone should be forced to have a vaccination for anything.
If and when a vaccine is found for Coronavirus, and some refuse to be vaccinated, and it still proves to be a deadly contagious disease, education is the way forwards.
I would understand if some countries refused entry for people who were not vaccinated though.
Rights should work both ways.

Syl wrote:It's an interesting debate but I don't think anyone should be forced to have a vaccination for anything.
If and when a vaccine is found for Coronavirus, and some refuse to be vaccinated, and it still proves to be a deadly contagious disease, education is the way forwards.
I would understand if some countries refused entry for people who were not vaccinated though.
Rights should work both ways.

I think that's the argument. A law mandating an outright medical procedure (vaccination) would be unconstitutional in the US.

But a law making vaccination a condition precedent to entry to school, or to restaurants, or other venues where social interaction is expected, makes it a matter of choice...with good reason (life or death) as the justification. It may be a tough choice...but it is still a matter of choice.

As you say, it would be perfectly understandable, and legitimate, on an international level. Common sense.

Original Quill wrote:It depends on what you mean by forced.  Indecent exposure laws force people to cover up, and prevent "flashing".  No one complains except maybe the naturists.   Drivers must get drivers' licenses, and few object.  There are many examples.

Lots of things have legal conditions precedent, and people getting vaccinations may become one of them.  The common understanding in America is: your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose!  It means, when your actions adversely affect me, the law must step in.

Why hide behind your words, are you a politician? If they feel it necessary to penalise you for not complying, that is forcing your behaviour, they will hv you salivating when you hear the dinner bell next.
Civil liberties are being stolen and some do not seem remotely concerned.

Syl wrote:It's an interesting debate but I don't think anyone should be forced to have a vaccination for anything.
If and when a vaccine is found for Coronavirus, and some refuse to be vaccinated, and it still proves to be a deadly contagious disease, education is the way forwards.
I would understand if some countries refused entry for people who were not vaccinated though.
Rights should work both ways.

I agree and the "forced" issue is being carefully embellished in order to hide it's true nature.

inmyopinion wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It depends on what you mean by forced.  Indecent exposure laws force people to cover up, and prevent "flashing".  No one complains except maybe the naturists.   Drivers must get drivers' licenses, and few object.  There are many examples.

Lots of things have legal conditions precedent, and people getting vaccinations may become one of them.  The common understanding in America is: your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose!  It means, when your actions adversely affect me, the law must step in.

Why hide behind your words, are you a politician?

Lol.  Why does it matter?  Words are the medium by which we reason these things.  Haha...words = reason.
Are you at a loss for words?

inmyopinion wrote:If they feel it necessary to penalise you for not complying, that is forcing your behaviour, they will hv you salivating when you hear the dinner bell next.
Civil liberties are being stolen and some do not seem remotely concerned.

That's the way I feel when states start insisting you have accident insurance on your vehicle to maintain your driver’s license.  I happen to believe insurance is a big gambling scam, where you bet premiums you will get in an accident, and if you do the insurance company loses the pot and pays.  I don't like gambling and believe it is immoral.  If you don't want to bet on automobile accidents that's your business.

But alas, now most states have a state law mandating that you have to carry accident insurance on your vehicle.  Forced gambling!  That's another violation of civil rights.

It’s all in your perspective.

Original Quill wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:
Why hide behind your words, are you a politician?

Lol.  Why does it matter?  Words are the medium by which we reason these things.  Haha...are you at a loss for words?

inmyopinion wrote:If they feel it necessary to penalise you for not complying, that is forcing your behaviour, they will hv you salivating when you hear the dinner bell next.
Civil liberties are being stolen and some do not seem remotely concerned.

That's the way I feel when states start insisting you have accident insurance to maintain your driver’s license.  I happen to believe insurance is a big gambling scam, where you bet premiums you will get in an accident, and if you do the insurance company loses the pot and pays.  I don't like gambling and believe it is immoral.  If you don't want to bet on automobile accidents that's your business.

But alas, now most states have a state law mandating that you have to carry accident insurance.  Forced gambling!  That's another violation of civil rights.

It’s all in your perspective.

You are under no obligation to have a drivers license or a car.

It's different to require people to do certain things to engage in voluntary behavior, than to force them to do something to stay out of a jail cell of simply be a citizen.

One could make an argument that a single mom having too many kids is a burden on society, yet I doubt you would support forced sterilizations like we did in our past.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Lol.  Why does it matter?  Words are the medium by which we reason these things.  Haha...are you at a loss for words?



That's the way I feel when states start insisting you have accident insurance to maintain your driver’s license.  I happen to believe insurance is a big gambling scam, where you bet premiums you will get in an accident, and if you do the insurance company loses the pot and pays.  I don't like gambling and believe it is immoral.  If you don't want to bet on automobile accidents that's your business.

But alas, now most states have a state law mandating that you have to carry accident insurance.  Forced gambling!  That's another violation of civil rights.

It’s all in your perspective.

You are under no obligation to have a drivers license or a car.

It's different to require people to do certain things to engage in voluntary behavior, than to force them to do something to stay out of a jail cell of simply be a citizen.

Indeed. I'm glad you understand. That's the difference in making a law a condition precedent, as distinct from making it an outright mandate. You don't have to wear a mask or become vaccinated, but you can't go into certain venues of social density if you do. The prohibition has to do with density, not what you wear or vaccines, etc.

Maddog wrote:One could make an argument that a single mom having too many kids is a burden on society, yet I doubt you would support forced sterilizations like we did in our past.

Ahh, but you are going right back to laws that directly mandate, where there is a constitutional protection. Remember, you must incorporate the terms of the condition precedent into your law. If "having too many kids" were spreading a life-threatening disease, then keeping the kids socially distant (the condition precedent) would be justified. Still, you cannot prohibit the mom from having the kids, but you make it a condition precedent that they maintain social distance unless they have a vaccination or some sort of protection from spread.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You are under no obligation to have a drivers license or a car.

It's different to require people to do certain things to engage in voluntary behavior, than to force them to do something to stay out of a jail cell of simply be a citizen.

Indeed.  I'm glad you understand.  That's the difference in making a law a condition precedent, as distinct from making it an outright mandate.  You don't have to wear a mask or become vaccinated, but you can't go into certain venues of social density if you do.  The prohibition has to do with density, not what you wear or vaccines, etc.

Maddog wrote:One could make an argument that a single mom having too many kids is a burden on society, yet I doubt you would support forced sterilizations like we did in our past.

Ahh, but you are going right back to laws that directly mandate, where there is a constitutional protection.  Remember, you must incorporate the terms of the condition precedent into your law.  If "having too many kids" were spreading a life-threatening disease, then keeping the kids socially distant (the condition precedent) would be justified.  Still, you cannot prohibit the mom from having the kids, but you make it a condition precedent that they maintain social distance unless they have a vaccination or some sort of protection from spread.

I'm glad you're glad.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You are under no obligation to have a drivers license or a car.

It's different to require people to do certain things to engage in voluntary behavior, than to force them to do something to stay out of a jail cell of simply be a citizen.

Indeed.  I'm glad you understand.  That's the difference in making a law a condition precedent, as distinct from making it an outright mandate.  You don't have to wear a mask or become vaccinated, but you can't go into certain venues of social density if you do.  The prohibition has to do with density, not what you wear or vaccines, etc.

Maddog wrote:One could make an argument that a single mom having too many kids is a burden on society, yet I doubt you would support forced sterilizations like we did in our past.

Ahh, but you are going right back to laws that directly mandate, where there is a constitutional protection.  Remember, you must incorporate the terms of the condition precedent into your law.  If "having too many kids" were spreading a life-threatening disease, then keeping the kids socially distant (the condition precedent) would be justified.  Still, you cannot prohibit the mom from having the kids, but you make it a condition precedent that they maintain social distance unless they have a vaccination or some sort of protection from spread.

This is part of a historic problem, doing something evil can often be vindicated as "the greater good", if put through enough tinted lenses any idea can be shown to be positive, if we look a the Georgia guidestones it wants 75% of the world population to be wiped out so we can sustain ourselves and the planet, on paper it sounds good, unless you happen to be in the 75% who would be culled, not to mention the careful control of births and further cullings that would be required.

Sugar has always been the most addictive drug and the cheapest.


(I am moving this thread to “Body Science”.)

inmyopinion wrote:This is part of a historic problem, doing something evil can often be vindicated as "the greater good", if put through enough tinted lenses any idea can be shown to be positive, if we look a the Georgia guidestones it wants 75% of the world population to be wiped out so we can sustain ourselves and the planet, on paper it sounds good, unless you happen to be in the 75% who would be culled, not to mention the careful control of births and further cullings that would be required.

Fortunately, we're not talking about "evil". What we are talking about may be hard--as in "hard work"--but it's a minor difficulty given the reward. I liken it to pulling today, so you can relax tomorrow.

After all, is wearing a mask or keeping your social distance, to curtail a pandemic, all that hard? Nonsense.

Original Quill wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:This is part of a historic problem, doing something evil can often be vindicated as "the greater good", if put through enough tinted lenses any idea can be shown to be positive, if we look a the Georgia guidestones it wants 75% of the world population to be wiped out so we can sustain ourselves and the planet, on paper it sounds good, unless you happen to be in the 75% who would be culled, not to mention the careful control of births and further cullings that would be required.

Fortunately, we're not talking about "evil".  What we are talking about may be hard--as in "hard work"--but it's a minor difficulty given the reward.  I liken it to pulling today, so you can relax tomorrow.

After all, is wearing a mask or keeping your social distance, to curtail a pandemic, all that hard?  Nonsense.

Allowing gov the power to force rushed, untested, administered by non professional vaccines is dangerous, stupid and evil..
the face masks and distancing are more about the removal of civil liberties than health.

inmyopinion wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Fortunately, we're not talking about "evil".  What we are talking about may be hard--as in "hard work"--but it's a minor difficulty given the reward.  I liken it to pulling today, so you can relax tomorrow.

After all, is wearing a mask or keeping your social distance, to curtail a pandemic, all that hard?  Nonsense.

Allowing gov the power to force rushed, untested, administered by non professional vaccines is dangerous, stupid and evil..

the face masks and distancing are more about the removal of civil liberties than health.

Nonsense.  The tests to detect the Trump-virus are non-invasive, and they are only about detecting the symptoms.

You are borrowing arguments that speak to rushing vaccinations.  There, it is a real danger to rush circulation.  Remember the polio virus, rushed into circulation without adequate study?  The mistake produced 120,000 doses of polio vaccine that contained live polio virus. Of children who received the vaccine, 40,000 developed abortive poliomyelitis (a form of the disease that does not involve the central nervous system), 56 developed paralytic poliomyelitis—and of these, five children died from polio.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html