What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why is FLAT EARTH such a threat?

King Dan of Great the 1st said:
As the article said

“What is needed for control is essentially universal vaccination and masking..."

So it's power and control.
Click to expand...
I already read it, but anyone with any sense at all would know what the Supreme Court was talking about. Here it is, with the context restored and without your insertion of "power."

“As the Supreme Court made clear in a 1905 decision, the liberty we enjoy in this country does not give us the right to act to the detriment of others in all circumstances,” Beyrer and Corey wrote. “One of those circumstances is when personal decisions threaten the health and well-being of others. COVID-19, like smallpox, is colorless, invisible, and even more contagious. Talking, eating, singing, and shouting are major modes of transmission; one cannot identify who is infected, and one cannot discern who to avoid.

“What is needed for control,” they added, “is essentially universal vaccination and masking, and even then, the results will not likely provide complete eradication. But our society and economy will be able to fully recover.”

Did you really think we wouldn't read it for ourselves?
 
Barbarian said:
I already read it, but anyone with any sense at all would know what the Supreme Court was talking about. Here it is, with the context restored and without your insertion of "power."

“As the Supreme Court made clear in a 1905 decision, the liberty we enjoy in this country does not give us the right to act to the detriment of others in all circumstances,” Beyrer and Corey wrote. “One of those circumstances is when personal decisions threaten the health and well-being of others. COVID-19, like smallpox, is colorless, invisible, and even more contagious. Talking, eating, singing, and shouting are major modes of transmission; one cannot identify who is infected, and one cannot discern who to avoid.

“What is needed for control,” they added, “is essentially universal vaccination and masking, and even then, the results will not likely provide complete eradication. But our society and economy will be able to fully recover.”

Did you really think we wouldn't read it for ourselves?
Click to expand...

If the vaccine gave immunity, that being it prevents people from getting or spreading the virus, then I could understand a vaccine mandate.

Basically everyone i know who has been fully vaccinated has had covid, it didnt stop people getting infected.

If the vaccine helped those vulnerable as they were encouraged to take it then that's great.

Like I have always said I never argued the vaccine I don't know enough about it but if they said it can possibly help those who get hit the hardest then that's great.

If they said the vaccine was fully tested and proven and prevented someone infected from spreading the disease then I would have got it because that would be the right thing to do.
 
The other thing is the companies are private and profit. I'm not sure how people can be forced to consume a private company who profits product against there choice. Its like you can choose from this, that is apporoved, or this that is approved, no other option is recognised and acceptable. What if people don't like that company or there product or need and wa t more informtaion first?. That's just normal.
 
And if something does go wrong if someone is influenced to consume a product, who is held responsible?. Basically everyone consented at there own choice anyhow so that's there problem.

I mean everytime someone takes a medical procedure they usually sign papers consenting, if they purchase products to consume at there own choice they consent to it. Force is not consent.

If I was forced to consume a product against my choice I would want it in paper that any side effects i may have or feel they are held responsible.
 
Some people were fully jabbed and still didn't want to be around the unvaccinated.

They obviously didn't trust the jab because they were still afraid that a scary unvaccinated person could infect them.

It's weird because the virus is still running rampant and people are still getting sick and dying. It's not going away.

It's amazing how twisted it is. At first it was all about protecting the most vulnerable, and now the most vulnerable would be the unvaccinated because they apparently not protected from the great jab, yet it's not stay home to protect the most vulnerable anymore is it.
 
I'm not paranoid going around saying the vaccinated could maybe possibly give me 19 and im not protected with a vaccine so im vulnerbale and they should stay home while I go put and enjoy a succulent chinese meal.

I tell you for a time the double standards were out the gate.
 
Barbarian said:
I already read it, but anyone with any sense at all would know what the Supreme Court was talking about. Here it is, with the context restored and without your insertion of "power."

“As the Supreme Court made clear in a 1905 decision, the liberty we enjoy in this country does not give us the right to act to the detriment of others in all circumstances,” Beyrer and Corey wrote. “One of those circumstances is when personal decisions threaten the health and well-being of others. COVID-19, like smallpox, is colorless, invisible, and even more contagious. Talking, eating, singing, and shouting are major modes of transmission; one cannot identify who is infected, and one cannot discern who to avoid.

“What is needed for control,” they added, “is essentially universal vaccination and masking, and even then, the results will not likely provide complete eradication. But our society and economy will be able to fully recover.”

Did you really think we wouldn't read it for ourselves?
Click to expand...

The jab was not mandated on me anyhow so I have done nothing wrong.

There was a case with the Supreme Court one example where citizens complained they were in a lottery system to enter there own country , i think because there was not enough room in government supplied quarentine facilities.

Now the government has all the right in Law and biosecurity to make anyone they want quarentine when entering the country be they citizen or not, thats good bio security, of everyone has to quarentine for 2 weeks so be it that's lawful yet because the system couldn't handle the pressure, people were denied entry to there own home. The High court ruled that was a violation of Rights. Could of allowed people to go to there own residence and quarentine of that was the case.

It is a fundamental human right everyone has the right to enter there own country without hindrance.

I believe the government had good intentions, but there are boundaries, and i think not all policies were the best way of going about things or rhey went the right way about it. Lots of double standards and things that didn't make any logical sense. But can learn from it. No one was prepared so everyone panicked and freaked out.
 
One thing I didn't appreciate was that I always followed the rules if i liked them or not, yet if I didn't agree with policies and spoke out I was looked at like a trouble maker. You can disagree with whatever you like, as long as you follow the rules you ain't doing nothing wrong or get in trouble. I never went out protesting in lockdown just to try prove a point, that's just asking for trouble, even if peaceful protest is a right, there are other peaceful paths one can take of they have a complaint. Like the example above in the post, people who were refused entry into the country got together and took it to court for the highest of Authorties to decide.
 
Saying everyone who enters the country must quarentine for 7 days. Ok that's fine and understandable, but then to come out and say if they don't take a test after that 7 days they have to be locked up for another 7 days thats just taking the piss.

Yiu just make it 14 days quarentine for everyone.
 
And when i said i was happy to take a test before i go out everywhere or visit people to prove im not infected, it was not accepted. Lol.
 
Turn up to a bar when it was vaccinated pass only. Stand there and take an approved test, wait for results, negative result, show security guard, no access allowed.

7 days in quarentine regardless, take an approved test, negative result, access permitted, you can now leave.
 
Barbarian said:
But it wasn't about "power" at all, was it?
Click to expand...

Not for me anyhow because I live as a free spirit and I'm not locked in with anything and I don't own anything.

But when someone tells you if you don't consume a private companies product then your not allowed to go to work anymore that pays for a roof over your head, and food to survive, and provide for your family, no jab no job, then yea, that's power and control. I wasn't in that situation.

I do know people who took the vaccine not because they wanted it but basically out of force because one she had 3 children to house and feed and basically if she didnt take it she probably be living out a car and dumpsters with 3 kids like many are these days due to other situations. She wouldnt be able to pay rent anymore to house her children and to feed her children and she obviously thinking of her children. It's not easy for someone with a stable job to just get another one.
 
I heard there are some products that are good and healthy for people and boost there immune system yet they are not mandated, it's not like you have to consume this specific product from there companies because it's good for you in the name of your health.

No people can go the store and consume as much sugar as they want, what doesn't have sugar in it. Aside from going past the fresh fruit and vegetable isle im trying to find something that's not processed. Why is there so much obesity?, why is the biggest cause of death heart disease?. Why are cigarettes still legal when its a fact it kills people?. Why is alcohol with facts it causes so much destruction and problems in society legal?. Free choice for people of age to consume?. It's all about health and safety right?.
 
Hows this going from an official governemnt site.

"Overseas studies suggest that between 50 - 70 per cent of all police work is associated in some way with dealing with alcohol-fuelled incidents,"

So is alcohol a problem?. Seriously?. At least half of police work is alcohol related?

I drink im not going to deny it and be hypocrite, but its my faith in God now how I can control myself and relax and be calm and respectful and not be drunkard idiot in any given situation. I used to be a animal when I drunk alcohol. It got me into trouble many times.
 
Yet a virus comes along and suddenly everyone cares about there own and everyone else's health and wellbeing?
 
The governments plan to make the country smoke free is laughable. I mean the way they set up, in a few years like a 18 year old will not be allowed to serve a 50 year old cigarettes as they will be classed as under age. Lol.

Tobacco cannot be sold to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009.

So someone now who is now 14 when they like 50 years old, a 18 year old behind the counter at a store will have to ask them for ID and refuse them service for being underage. Lol. Sorry 50 year old adult your too young to purchase cigarettes, but that 80 year old they are legal.
 
But it wasn't about "power" at all, was it?
King Dan of Great the 1st said:
Not for me anyhow because I live as a free spirit and I'm not locked in with anything and I don't own anything.
Click to expand...
More importantly, not for the Supreme Court. By editing the statement and adding "power", it was made to appear that the Court ordered something it did not. The unedited version:

“As the Supreme Court made clear in a 1905 decision, the liberty we enjoy in this country does not give us the right to act to the detriment of others in all circumstances,” Beyrer and Corey wrote. “One of those circumstances is when personal decisions threaten the health and well-being of others. COVID-19, like smallpox, is colorless, invisible, and even more contagious. Talking, eating, singing, and shouting are major modes of transmission; one cannot identify who is infected, and one cannot discern who to avoid.

“What is needed for control,” they added, “is essentially universal vaccination and masking, and even then, the results will not likely provide complete eradication. But our society and economy will be able to fully recover.”
Did you really think we wouldn't read it for ourselves?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top