You couldn’t point to a single soul that you’ve protected save for yourself.



A poll or appeal to majority is no repudiation of rights being violated, I’m afraid. Neither is it an example of democratic policy. But you’re right. There is no reason to think they’ll change so long as they are bolstered by public opinion and motivated to retain political power.

You couldn’t point to a single soul that you’ve protected save for yourself. — NOS4A2

Are you talking about Covid, or generally? In terms of Covid, it's all about probabilities. By vaccinating myself at the earliest opportunity, I've reduced the probability of passing the illness onto others. True, I don't know who those others are, but that wouldn't ever be the point for me. Of course, I might not have saved anyone, by sheer luck. But I can't take responsibility for luck. I can fort my own actions.

If you mean generally, I think I've spent a well above average proportion of my life helping others.

By vaccinating myself at the earliest opportunity, I've reduced the probability of passing the illness onto others. — Kenosha Kid

I think you're probably genetically predisposed to behave that way.

I got vaccinated because I hate being sick. NOS got vaccinated and then whined about it: all aspects of the human potential. Each could be beneficial to the species in the right circumstances.

A socialist, an individualist and a fanatic walked into a thread...

I whined about forced covid vaccines and their shit efficacy.

Let’s get those facts straight, pal.

I whined about forced covid vaccines and their shit efficacy — NOS4A2

You poor thing.

I whined about forced covid vaccines and their shit efficacy. — NOS4A2

Perfection is the enemy of the good. Our emission control technology for automobiles and factories is not 100%. Should we just trash it and go back to pumping billions of tons of poison into the atmosphere, until such time as we can satisfy every individual :cry: on the planet? I don't think so.

It’s easier to ask instead of making things up. Just looking out for you.

If your emissions control technology for automobiles worked for 3 to 6 months only you might think of a better solution.

I also don’t think democratic policy change should entail the violation of basic human rights. — NOS4A2

Maybe out of context, but it is not at all clear to me that you understand that rights-in-theory can and do conflict with rights-in-practice and rights in a community. Your basic need - right - to take a dump does not mean anywhere you like. But it seems you do not grasp this concept.

Do you need an authority to tell you when and where to shit, or are you an adult?

If your emissions control technology for automobiles worked for 3 to 6 months only you might think of a better solution. — NOS4A2

If you had even the remotest understanding of the science of emissions control technology, you'd know that the initial efforts lasted less than 3 to 6 months. You'd also know the normal turn-around time for vax development (can you say "years"?). You would also understand what a miracle science hath wrought with the imperfect RNA vax. I suspect science is working on an even better solution; not me, and not you, but REAL scientists who do REAL research.

But yeah, let's pretend to have critical thinking skills without any analytic thinking skills.

Do you need an authority to tell you when and where to shit, or are you an adult? — NOS4A2

You miss, or evade, the point. Why am I not surprised? Yours the red-herring non sequitur.

But tell us, do you know what human rights are, basic or not? And what do you propose if they conflict?

Yeah, I know nothing about emissions control tech, but any tech that lasts for mere months ain’t worth it.

Yeah, I know nothing about emissions control tech, but any tech that lasts for mere months ain’t worth it. — NOS4A2

The lesson you obviously failed to learn is about learning. :roll:

No you miss and evade my point, Tim.

No you miss and evade my point, Tim. — NOS4A2

And what would that point be Mr. NOS4A2?

I don’t think democratic policy change should entail the violation of basic human rights.

I don’t think democratic policy change should entail the violation of basic human rights. — NOS4A2

They don't. You're just paranoid.

"The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949).

I don’t think democratic policy change should entail the violation of basic human rights. — NOS4A2

So NOS42A2,

Which article does fighting a pandemic that has killed millions violate? Which article from 1 to 30? See the articles at the UDHR page of the UN

Or is a declaration by the UN too pinko-liberal and not your human rights? :smirk:

I don’t think democratic policy change should entail the violation of basic human rights. — NOS4A2

Please translate into English. What basic human right is violated by what democratic policy change?

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Everyone has the right to education.

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Hm. I presume that you thinking of more than Covid vaccinations?

Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Human rights are not absolute or inherent but granted, in any case, by states and really just exists in wealthy counties that can afford it. Inequality and corruption are predictors of bad human rights practices. There are no weak or failed states with adequate human rights protections.

I don’t like that view because it limits application of rights, and makes them subject to abridgement or suppression by the authority that confers them. But all men can grant rights.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary i

I don’t like that view because it limits application of rights, and makes them subject to abridgement or suppression by the authority that confers them. — NOS4A2

It's okay that you don't like that view. You have the right to be wrong. But the state, whether you like it or not, retains the right, by force if necessary, to determine what is arbitrary and what is not. It is NOT arbitrary to deprive you of your most sacred right if there is a compelling state interest to do so, and if there is no lesser way of achieving the same end, and etc. (lots of case law). In other words, all rights have limits and the law will decide what those limits are. Not you or your subjective dislike of some view.

I’m well aware of that. Might makes right. The state can do no wrong. We’ve seen countless examples of it.k throughout history.

Might makes right. — NOS4A2

Might is sometimes right, might is sometimes wrong, but might does not create right. I suspect might only cares whether or not it is right to the extent being right smooths the way for it. But regardless, might is and always has been the way things are.

The state can do no wrong. — NOS4A2

Well that is clearly not true. I mean damn, the state sits around on it's hands all the time, protecting the rights of individuals to harm other individuals because they think it is their right to do so, and the state doesn't have the balls to stand up to them.

It's not a view, it's factual. The human rights regime allows for laws to suspend human rights. The necessity for this is obvious.

You are now also arguing against the fact that well organised states are good at protecting human rights. Must be fun being so ideologically blinkered that you get your very own Orwellian world where good things are really bad.

I don’t like that view because it limits application of rights, and makes them subject to abridgement or suppression by the authority that confers them. — NOS4A2

States exist, no matter how benevolent they are. You don't live with without your beloved Canada even you don't need it to assist in your breathing, Nos.