Executive Order on Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees

[acidfly]

Aitrus

When it comes to 1st amendment rights, there are limits still in the context of a civil society, American or not. One cannot be allowed to yell 'fire!' in a movie house for obvious reasons (threat to life if a stampede results)...unless of course there is an actual fire.

Also, and I say this semi-fsceriously, I cannot believe you just mentioned the theory of relativity right next to flat earthers. It's as if you think the inferences drawn from Einsteins and his peers' extensive scientific rigor and vetting on the matter carry no more weight as the meth-addled peudo-science of a bunch of crackpots who have never ventured past their zip code in their lives to realize that you won't fall off the edge of planet if you travel in a straight line long enough.

I say that semi-facetiously, of course

Reading the 1st amendment I haven't seen the phrase "cannot be allowed" can you point it out to me?

You couldn't find it? Well its probably because you're looking at the wrong place. Here's a link to the Cliff Notes version:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... exceptions

Can you find an actual reliable source, Wikipedia is not credible.

[Aitrus]

Aitrus

When it comes to 1st amendment rights, there are limits still in the context of a civil society, American or not. One cannot be allowed to yell 'fire!' in a movie house for obvious reasons (threat to life if a stampede results)...unless of course there is an actual fire.

Also, and I say this semi-fsceriously, I cannot believe you just mentioned the theory of relativity right next to flat earthers. It's as if you think the inferences drawn from Einsteins and his peers' extensive scientific rigor and vetting on the matter carry no more weight as the meth-addled peudo-science of a bunch of crackpots who have never ventured past their zip code in their lives to realize that you won't fall off the edge of planet if you travel in a straight line long enough.

I say that semi-facetiously, of course

I agree - there are limitations to speech, but they are few (and IMO, rightly so). Inciting to imminent unlawful action is illegal (ex: ANTIFA member in front of a police line: "Let's kill these pigs!") is the prime example, as is your example of inciting to unreasonable panic (if there is an actual fire, then somebody should absolutely shout "Fire" instead of saying nothing). However, there are no limits placed on private individuals like MJ who own a public platform that does not function as a piece of social infrastructure a-la Section 230. He can run the site as he wishes, and will reap the financial consequences of his decision, whether good or ill. We all have a right to an opinion - informed or not - but none of us has a right to not be offended by speech we don't like or disagree with. (Facebook et al are a different story, and their censorship is a whole other conversation)

When I mentioned flat earth, I was referring to the commonly held belief of the ancients who were afraid to sail too far for fear of sailing off the edge of the ocean, not the modern day flat earthers. There's even debate among modern scholars as to whether there was widespread belief of a flat earth at all among our ancestors in the first place, or if it was just a superstition and most educated people believed in a round earth, making my inclusion of "flat earth" doubly applicable.

[KTSPcalc]

While I personally think a lot of the anti-vax language here and elsewhere is dangerous and will lead to additional and unnecessary covid-related deaths, nothing here meets a Brandenburg threshold (the speech would need to be directed to "inciting or producing imminent lawless action and likely to incite or produce such action").

I take heart in the idea that the pro-vax folks on this site are probably just quieter and don't feel the need to constantly defend their position. And why should we bother, really? No one on either side of this argument on TSPcenter is going to see a comment and change their mind and the folks that don't want to get a shot are looking for solidarity - so of course they will be the loudest.

This does lead to one problem. If your only datapoint was this thread, you would assume most Americans are outraged by vaccine mandates. But that is not the case.

The majority of Americans are supportive of vaccine mandates, according to recent polling (you of course don't have to trust polling and likely won't if you already believe the media is out to get you).

https://www.businessinsider.com/most-am ... lls-2021-9

From the story linked above:
CNN poll - 51% support vaccine mandates (2000 adults, September)
Axios/Ipsos poll - 60% support vaccine mandates (1000 adults, September)
Fox News poll - 54% support vaccine mandates (1000 adults, September)

--

The bottom line is this: if you got the shot (good job, good decision in my opinion) and find this thread frustrating because it is predominantly anti-vax, don't sweat it. You're probably just in the the relatively silent majority of pro-vax Americans.

[KTSPcalc]

Reading the 1st amendment I haven't seen the phrase "cannot be allowed" can you point it out to me?

You couldn't find it? Well its probably because you're looking at the wrong place. Here's a link to the Cliff Notes version:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... exceptions

Can you find an actual reliable source, Wikipedia is not credible.

@Acidly, I think this Atlantic article does a good job of explaining the Supreme Court's take on incitement vs. free speech. It also takes on the origin of "yelling fire in a theater." Bottom line, as Aitrus notes, you can really say almost anything in America and nothing here comes even close (even though I disagree with most of it).

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... te/264449/

[bloobs]

Reading the 1st amendment I haven't seen the phrase "cannot be allowed" can you point it out to me?

You couldn't find it? Well its probably because you're looking at the wrong place. Here's a link to the Cliff Notes version:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... exceptions

Can you find an actual reliable source, Wikipedia is not credible.

Umm...let's see Mr. Acid...umm...if you look at the bottom of said non-credible Wikipedia "Cliff Notes" page, you will detect footnotes under its References section that direct you to the actual credible legal references you seek. There are 80 of them.

Also, please direct your attention to another section titled "False statements of fact", which may be relevant to some of the pseudo-science posts I see here in this forum.

Let me know if there is anything else you seek.

[acidfly]

The misconception here seems to be that everyone is "Anti-Vax" if we don't want this vaccine. I cannot speak for others but my position is not one of "anti-vax" I have had many vaccinations... I am anti mandate for an untested new age chemical that is unconstitutionally forced on myself and my family, to which we know nothing of the long term affects. We now know that the vax does not prevent the spread and does not help if you have secondary conditions (Colin Powell), even more so that natural immunity is superior to this vax hence why they are now touting booster shots.

[KTSPcalc]

The misconception here seems to be that everyone is "Anti-Vax" if we don't want this vaccine. I cannot speak for others but my position is not one of "anti-vax" I have had many vaccinations... I am anti mandate for an untested new age chemical that is unconstitutionally forced on myself and my family, to which we know nothing of the long term affects. We now know that the vax does not prevent the spread and does not help if you have secondary conditions (Colin Powell), even more so that natural immunity is superior to this vax hence why they are now touting booster shots.

This is thoughtful and well organized so I will engage if we can be civil. I'll go point by point.

"I am anti-mandate for an untested new age chemical..." - The vaccines used in the US have been tested and approved by the FDA. Calling the vaccine a "new age chemical" is pejorative and unhelpful. How about saying a "new type of vaccine only recently introduced and without testing for long term health effects."

"that is unconstitutionally forced on myself..." - The Supreme Court has ruled that vaccine mandates are constitutional repeatedly. See: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/cur ... e-mandates

"to which we know nothing of the long term affects." - This is absolutely true. No argument from me.

"We now know that the vax does not prevent the spread..." - Most vaccines do not provide "sterilizing immunity," which is what the scientific community calls vaccines that make infection impossible. This vaccine, like most vaccines, work by reducing the spread and reducing the symptoms if you are infected. In the spring, we didn't yet know if the covid vaccines provided sterilizing immunity, but I never heard anyone from this administration or the last, or any credible scientists say that the vaccines would provide sterilizing immunity. What about "We know that the tax only reduces, but doesn't eliminate, the spread."

"and does not help if you have secondary conditions..." - Immunocompromised people are at increased risk of dying from a host of ailments and the goal of vaccines is to reduce this risk, but it's not a guarantee. Maybe you could say, "and does not guarantee protection if you have secondary conditions."

"even more so that natural immunity is superior to this vax..." - I think the jury is still out here, but preliminary studies suggest that vaccination provides greater protection against infection than previous sickness does against re-infection. Here are a few examples:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/ ... mm7032e1_w
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0829 - (this one suggests that infection + vaccination is best).

"hence why they are now touting booster shots." - I tackled this one earlier in the thread. Pfizer efficacy against infection wanes over time even as it remains mostly protective against hospitalization. The booster is meant to address that, but I am not sure why that is a surprise because it's well precedented. People need to get a new tetanus shot after several years; you get flu shots yearly (partly because of new variants).

[tspwizard1]

How is all this anti-vax conspiracy theory and misinformation posted on this site allowed to stay up? Pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

>700,000 Americans dead and counting

The site owner has decided that allowing conversation of topics such as this are fine as long as they 1) don't devolve into political gripe-fests and 2) don't involve Twitter-like immature name calling. He is fine with both sides presenting their arguments, so long as its done so in a way that isn't insulting, degrading, or slanderous. What you label conspiracy theory and misinformation others (and not just a few people, but a wide swath of the American population) view as legitimate concerns worthy of discussion.

For example, regarding your stated statistic of 700k deaths - State Senators in Oregon have filed a Grand Jury peitition alleging that CDC and FDA intentionally inflated the numbers based in part on findings in on a peer-reviewed article from Oct 2020. Source: https://standforhealthfreedom.com/wp-co ... nopsis.pdf

There's precedent to be concerned about that kind of manipulation of statistics because either of money: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4897385/ ... eath-count

Or because inflated numbers (either of deaths or of the number of hospitalizations) doesn't give us a full picture of what's going on: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arc ... ng/620062/

All of which could indeed inflate the numbers and leads to questionable decisions made by our leaders.

I'm not meaning to pick on you, tspwizard. I used the example and my rebuttal to show that there are many things in this thread that are worthy of discussion, and they can't be offhandedly dismissed as conspiracy theory or misinformation just because they don't easily fit the government's (or social media's) approved narrative.

It's true that there is information - on both sides - that is questionable. But we don't know whether it's questionable or legitimate until it's presented, dissected, discussed, and debated. The questionable data might even be re-presented with a different nuanced approach or clarifying support, and thus be re-argued yet again. That's how progress is made because open debate is a progressive idea, while censorship is a regressive idea. For historical examples of ideas that have been re-argued in the face of the "status quo", see: Copernicus, flat earth, Einstein's Relativity, global warming, communism, social contract theory, monetary theory, etc.

Although he might personally disagree with something that's being said (MJ and I are on different sides of the political aisle, so I know for a fact that he doesn't agree with everything posted on the forum), MJ wants space for people to say it as long as it's done in a mature way. In other words, as long as we behave like decent humans to each other, he's cool with it. He's very pro-First Amendment like that, and so am I. If he weren't, then I wouldn't be willing to be his moderator.

Wow. Just wow... I thought more of you I really did.

[tspwizard1]

I cannot wait to see all the new job opportunities when all these anti-vaxers quit the federal workforce! Good riddance too.

[acidfly]

The misconception here seems to be that everyone is "Anti-Vax" if we don't want this vaccine. I cannot speak for others but my position is not one of "anti-vax" I have had many vaccinations... I am anti mandate for an untested new age chemical that is unconstitutionally forced on myself and my family, to which we know nothing of the long term affects. We now know that the vax does not prevent the spread and does not help if you have secondary conditions (Colin Powell), even more so that natural immunity is superior to this vax hence why they are now touting booster shots.

This is thoughtful and well organized so I will engage if we can be civil. I'll go point by point.

"I am anti-mandate for an untested new age chemical..." - The vaccines used in the US have been tested and approved by the FDA. Calling the vaccine a "new age chemical" is pejorative and unhelpful. How about saying a "new type of vaccine only recently introduced and without testing for long term health effects."

"that is unconstitutionally forced on myself..." - The Supreme Court has ruled that vaccine mandates are constitutional repeatedly. See: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/cur ... e-mandates

"to which we know nothing of the long term affects." - This is absolutely true. No argument from me.

"We now know that the vax does not prevent the spread..." - Most vaccines do not provide "sterilizing immunity," which is what the scientific community calls vaccines that make infection impossible. This vaccine, like most vaccines, work by reducing the spread and reducing the symptoms if you are infected. In the spring, we didn't yet know if the covid vaccines provided sterilizing immunity, but I never heard anyone from this administration or the last, or any credible scientists say that the vaccines would provide sterilizing immunity. What about "We know that the tax only reduces, but doesn't eliminate, the spread."

"and does not help if you have secondary conditions..." - Immunocompromised people are at increased risk of dying from a host of ailments and the goal of vaccines is to reduce this risk, but it's not a guarantee. Maybe you could say, "and does not guarantee protection if you have secondary conditions."

"even more so that natural immunity is superior to this vax..." - I think the jury is still out here, but preliminary studies suggest that vaccination provides greater protection against infection than previous sickness does against re-infection. Here are a few examples:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/ ... mm7032e1_w
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0829 - (this one suggests that infection + vaccination is best).

"hence why they are now touting booster shots." - I tackled this one earlier in the thread. Pfizer efficacy against infection wanes over time even as it remains mostly protective against hospitalization. The booster is meant to address that, but I am not sure why that is a surprise because it's well precedented. People need to get a new tetanus shot after several years; you get flu shots yearly (partly because of new variants).

"I am anti-mandate for an untested new age chemical..." - The vaccines used in the US have been tested and approved by the FDA. Calling the vaccine a "new age chemical" is pejorative and unhelpful. How about saying a "new type of vaccine only recently introduced and without testing for long term health effects."

Yes they have been approved for Emergency use only, let's not talk about the Comirnaty vax that still is not out for use. Have they been tested or are they currently being tested? Trials are set to being in 2022 hence why they are emergency use only. Referring to this as a new age chemical is 100% what it is. mRNA technology is relatively new and is indeed a chemical.

""We now know that the vax does not prevent the spread..." - Most vaccines do not provide "sterilizing immunity," which is what the scientific community calls vaccines that make infection impossible. This vaccine, like most vaccines, work by reducing the spread and reducing the symptoms if you are infected. In the spring, we didn't yet know if the covid vaccines provided sterilizing immunity, but I never heard anyone from this administration or the last, or any credible scientists say that the vaccines would provide sterilizing immunity. What about "We know that the tax only reduces, but doesn't eliminate, the spread."

They have repeated used the line "to stop the spread" and 100% elimination of covid by vaccination.

"hence why they are now touting booster shots." - I tackled this one earlier in the thread. Pfizer efficacy against infection wanes over time even as it remains mostly protective against hospitalization. The booster is meant to address that, but I am not sure why that is a surprise because it's well precedented. People need to get a new tetanus shot after several years; you get flu shots yearly (partly because of new variants)."

ok after several years.. not a couple of months. also people get a flu shot every year because of new strains with new vaccines, these covid vaccines were created for the original strains not delta, Mu, and the other identified types that have mutated. Also the flu vaccine has been around since 1945.

Asfar as the constitutionality of this mandate goes, Biden ruled by decree, other such mandates went through the proper channels of our government. With as many lawsuits that are going on right now in regards to this mandate it is only a matter of time till we have a clear decision.

"A lot of times people may feel it's a rare event that fully vaccinated people die. I happen to be the senior advisor to Governor Hogan in the state of Maryland. In the last 6-8 weeks, more than 40 percent of people who died in Maryland were fully vaccinated," Redfield said, responding to the death of former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavl ... ailsticky1

[PhilJohn]

So talking about natural immunity and other legitimate concerns about health and liberty is akin to yelling fire in a crowded building? What a strange world we live in now a days.

[bloobs]

So talking about natural immunity and other legitimate concerns about health and liberty is akin to yelling fire in a crowded building? What a strange world we live in now a days.

Literally no one made that analogy, except perhaps you just now.

Strange indeed. Do you know much about echo chambers?

[acidfly]

I cannot wait to see all the new job opportunities when all these anti-vaxers quit the federal workforce! Good riddance too.

This says it all. The amount of disgust I hold for people with this view, pathetic.

[tspwizard1]

I cannot wait to see all the new job opportunities when all these anti-vaxers quit the federal workforce! Good riddance too.

This says it all. The amount of disgust I hold for people with this view, pathetic.

You likely haven't lost anyone close to you to covid I'm guessing. Take a guess how people that have lost loved ones, care about others feel, and really more than anything want this damn pandemic to end feel about people with your 'view'. We have had enough waiting for your side to find its courage. You couldn't even wear a damn mask in the fight! Worthless. Worthless from the start.

[acidfly]

I cannot wait to see all the new job opportunities when all these anti-vaxers quit the federal workforce! Good riddance too.

This says it all. The amount of disgust I hold for people with this view, pathetic.

You likely haven't lost anyone close to you to covid I'm guessing. Take a guess how people that have lost loved ones, care about others feel, and really more than anything want this damn pandemic to end feel about people with your 'view'. We have had enough waiting for your side to find its courage. You couldn't even wear a damn mask in the fight! Worthless. Worthless from the start.