On 2021-12-10 19:33:55 JP82 said:
On 2021-12-10 19:11:31 oraljim said: If it works then YOU take it and YOU are safe, and the unvaxed are unsafe and can spread it around as much as they like amongst themselves and you can laugh at them safe in the knowledge that you are vaccinated.



This sentence right here is your mistake. if I take it I am *safer*, not *safe*. If I wear a seatbelt I am *safer* (not *safe*) so even though I buckle up, I'm not ok with people driving drunk. No-one is safe until the disease is effectively eradicated - and that requires "herd immunity" i.e. making the spread of disease from person to person unlikely. (remember that phrase? before vaccines people on the right were dead keen on getting to herd immunity through infection by letting covid run wild, regardless of the fact that health systems would be overwhelmed and there would be substantial loss of life. Now that there's a safer and quicker way to achieve herd immunity they seem remarkably less enthusiastic about getting there).

JP, herd immunity occurs even without vaccines. Take the Spanish flu that killed 50 million people in its day. Herd immunity eradicated that virus without anyone needing a vax

On 2021-12-10 19:43:23 oraljim said:
On 2021-12-10 19:33:55 JP82 said: This sentence right here is your mistake. if I take it I am *safer*, not *safe*. If I wear a seatbelt I am *safer* (not *safe*) so even though I buckle up, I'm not ok with people driving drunk.

You are conflating too many things and too many metaphors and examples. Nothing in life - NOTHING - not even breathing in your own home - is perfectly safe. If that is the criteria you are aiming for then on this point (and ONLY this point), I would be forced to agree with wild_one - you ARE an idiot. However, if you are rational, you know that life brings with it some inherent risks and that the rational thing to do is mitigate those risks. So again, YOU take the vaccine to mitigate YOUR risks. That's fair. But requiring everyone else to do something they believe is risky, just to make you feel better, isn't rational at all. If you want to keep the seatbelt analogy going - you wearing a seatbelt makes YOU and people in your car safer. It is an exceptionally rare accident that you wearing a safety belt makes ME safer. Also, the government's reaction to you not wearing a safety belt is telling - a R250 fine. The government's reaction to you not taking the vaccine? Cant work cant shop cant live must be jailed must be kept away from everybody else danger danger danger! Can you spot the difference between those two?

Lets deal with this bit by bit -

"Nothing in life - NOTHING - not even breathing in your own home - is perfectly safe. If that is the criteria you are aiming for then on this point (and ONLY this point), I would be forced to agree with wild_one - you ARE an idiot."

- Nobody is aiming for a perfectly risk free life - but what you're saying is equivalent to saying "we can't mitigate ALL risk anyway, so why bother mitigating ANY risk?". And then you want to suggest that I'm the idiot? What I'm aiming for is "As safe as is reasonably possible". (a lot of the debate over vaccines is actually over what constitutes "reasonable" - which is why pro-vaxxers keep asking for evidence from anti-vaxxers that isn't anecdotal. If there is evidence that the vaccine is inherently unsafe, then there really is a discussion to be had on whether pushing them is "reasonable". So far that evidence just does not exist. (when I say "the debate" I mean in the wider world. The "debate" on these pages has been a shit-show of conspiracy theories))

"It is an exceptionally rare accident that you wearing a safety belt makes ME safer."

- Oh dear lord. Do I really need to explain how analogies work? Just because I'm saying one aspect of a particular situation is analogous to another doesn't mean all aspects of the two situation are. The point of the seatbelt was to illustrate the difference between being *safe* and being *safer*.

"But requiring everyone else to do something they believe is risky, just to make you feel better, isn't rational at all."

- But that's the point about herd immunity. Its not about "making me feel better, it's about ACTUALLY REDUCING RISK. For everyone.

"The government's reaction to you not taking the vaccine? Cant work cant shop cant live must be jailed must be kept away from everybody else danger danger danger! "

- I'm not sure which country you're living in, but that's not happening where I live, so I'm not going to waste my time defending hypothetical scenarios that you've made up and are now angry about.

On 2021-12-10 19:50:40 triton242 said:


JP, herd immunity occurs even without vaccines. Take the Spanish flu that killed 50 million people in its day. Herd immunity eradicated that virus without anyone needing a vax

Erm, ja... but 50 MILLION PEOPLE DIED before we got there. Those 50,000,000 people and their families probably "needed a vax"

repost deleted

repost deleted

repost deleted. Apologies. Not sure what happened there

On 2021-12-10 20:37:57 JP82 said:
- Nobody is aiming for a perfectly risk free life - but what you're saying is equivalent to saying "we can't mitigate ALL risk anyway, so why bother mitigating ANY risk?". And then you want to suggest that I'm the idiot? What I'm aiming for is "As safe as is reasonably possible".

No sir, absolutely not. I have said absolutely nothing of the kind. What I am saying is that it is fine to do anything you damned well please to mitigate YOUR risks - but what you seem to be championing is controlling *EVERYBOIDY ELSE'S BEHAVIOUR TOO* - you are NOT just living your best life you are wanting to, and more sadly believe it is morally acceptable to, dictate actions *FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD* just to make yourself and people who think like you be safer.

The key difference between your view and mine is one of ideology. I believe in *INDIVIDUAL* freedoms and rights. You seem to believe in GROUP rights. I don't believe that *ANY* law, custom, policy, tradition, opinion, habit or preference that is granted to a group but not to an individual is at all valid. Individual rights are the absolute cornerstone of the enlightenment, and modern society. It is the basis of both Roman-Dutch and American jurisprudence. Your attitude is handily dismissing the last 250 years or so of sociological and political progress.

On 2021-12-10 20:55:43 oraljim said:
On 2021-12-10 20:37:57 JP82 said: -

No sir, absolutely not. I have said absolutely nothing of the kind. What I am saying is that it is fine to do anything you damned well please to mitigate YOUR risks - but what you seem to be championing is controlling *EVERYBOIDY ELSE'S BEHAVIOUR TOO* - you are NOT just living your best life you are wanting to, and more sadly believe it is morally acceptable to, dictate actions *FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD* just to make yourself and people who think like you be safer.....

Mr oraljim...u are one of those posters on this forum that holds my attention 100%.

Well said...the hypocrisy of it all.

Maybe one day, even though u no fan of mine u might consider to come share of yourself again and entertain me with your presence.

x.

On 2021-12-10 20:37:57 JP82 said:
- Oh dear lord. Do I really need to explain how analogies work? Just because I'm saying one aspect of a particular situation is analogous to another doesn't mean all aspects of the two situation are.

Then frankly, yes, you do need to explain how you THINK analogies work, because the way *I* think they work is different. According to the Cambridge English dictionary, an analogy is "a comparison between things that have similar features."

I admit it's been 3 months since I got the jab but thus far life, the universe and everything has SPECTACULARLY failed to exhibit any features or similarities between those jabs and a seatbelt. So, your smarminess aside, me dismantling your argument based on accepted and commonly understood meanings of simple words is perfectly valid, despite the discomfort that causes you.

On 2021-12-10 21:27:49 Russian Bridgitte said:
Mr oraljim...u are one of those posters on this forum that holds my attention 100%.

Well said...the hypocrisy of it all.

Maybe one day, even though u no fan of mine u might consider to come share of yourself again and entertain me with your presence.

I am genuinely flattered that I hold your attention. Also, where did you get the idea that I don't like you? I don't care for your writing style (you never did bother asking why BTW :-)) but I have absolutely no issue with you as a person, or as a provider. I am just not at all into massage, and I don't actually punt terribly frequently (and when I do I tend to have moods and specific ladies to scratch the itch of that mood). Will happily have lunch or coffee though if you just want a Platonic chat? At which point this should probably move to PM :)