NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

More than you know.....................................................................................................

It is okay...

Shhh you can't type anything here anymore.

Word...

Yesh.

NEVER!!!!! I will annoy you to the end!!!!

Bzzzzzzzzz :smirk:

What are the arguments for and against the responsibility that individuals might be thought to bear to accept a Covid 19 vaccine? What are the arguments for and against the right that individuals might be thought to enjoy to refuse a Covid 19 vaccine? — Janus

In an argument for the vaccine, one might point to times in history that vaccines decreased or at least substantially reduced the spread of a given disease. In hopes of stopping the pandemic, one might presume that everyone ought to join in an experimental effort.

On the other hand, refusing a vaccine also has valid points. People who have had COVID can repeatedly come down with it. The coronavirus is that of the common cold and will continue to mutate; research likely will not be able to keep up nor predict the next strain. Those with some autoimmune disorders find that building immunity is impossible. In some cases, vaccines bring out even worse health issues from a previously existing autoimmune disorder.

Forcing the vaccine on everyone would be disastrous, mainly because it does put other's health at risk. It leads to the question, who's life is more valuable? Should the authorities, who do NOT know us nor our health problems, have the right to create havoc and anxiety in some, otherwise healthy, individuals' lives in order to POTENTIALLY save other sick people for a season? Should people be put at risk to soothe the rampage of the masses? Covid still seems to target the elderly, those with lung issues, or other similar issues, namely, those who are prone to other illnesses such as influenza.

Perhaps a better alternative to advocating for vaccines is to promote healthier lifestyles, which significantly reduce your chances of contracting not just COVID, but also a slew of other diseases. I have not seen one advertisement promoting exercise, reduction of sugar intake, or a balanced diet to help prevent COVID. Instead, I see people taking the easy way out by only wearing masks or promoting vaccinations instead of changing their unhealthy habits. If the authorities wanted to stop COVID, soda should be illegal, along with fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, candy, and other things that clearly impale our immune function.

Shhhhh.

Beep beep beetle bug.

Beep

Beep.

People need to be responsible for themselves. In the case of the merchandise, it should be the responsibility of the one purchasing the food to clean it properly, not the government or the store, although thorough cleanings on the part of the store help reduce exposure. Consumers ought to be provided with information regarding the spread of the virus, but the responsibility is largely up to them to take precautionary measures.

No

I think this is slightly in a grey area. If the employees are in a higher risk factor for contracting the illness and wish to work from home, then yes, I think it is rather unethical due to the possibility of causing emotional distress for the employees when it is avoidable. For the physical aspects of the job that need to be performed in the office, it would not be that big of a deal to just have on or two people come in for a bit to complete those jobs.
On the more practical side, it would be inefficient to require those people to come in. They would be stressed out and thus less productive, which would harm the company anyway. Therefore it is more practical to have them work from home for the time being.

What kind of God would allow His people to believe a lie? If there is really only one true God and people are worshipping false gods, then he would not be a God of truth and would allow his people to be subjected to a delusion.

Some say that other gods are actually demonic beings, existing in opposition to God. One cannot serve two masters. Either serve truth or don't. One can't do both. They will always be in conflict with the other.

Is having people brought together the most important thing? Are relationships more of a priority than truth? The conflicts between ideals of different religions will never cease as long as the truth remains relative to an individual's perspective. In order to obtain a sense of uniformity, there must be a degree of objective truth to bind them together, otherwise, they will always be in conflict over who's "god" or ideas are superior. We might look at the contradictions between the Roman Catholics (from the authority/governing position, not necessarily all those who adhered to that church) and Protestants during the time of the Reformation. Although they both claimed to worship the same God and both proclaimed Christianity, one clearly was not in accordance with Scripture which is the foundation of the Christian religion. Therefore it was almost as if they were not even serving the same God at all, because they did not hold the same things to be objectively true.