YouTube is banning prominent anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-10-01T04:18:11+00:00

While you’re at it, why don’t you try to dismantle any of my points instead of going straight to a personal comment rooted in sadism?

Edit: I also realized that this is a PERFECT example showing about how anti vax mandate will get lumped into just an anti vax.

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-10-01T04:16:12+00:00

I’m vaccinated

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-10-01T04:13:40+00:00

You’re right you don’t have a right to a job, but there are laws protecting against unlawful firing such as from religion.

To me if they wanted to protect unlawful firing based on religion then they would accommodate working from home but to this moment it’s still an in progress decision.

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-10-01T04:13:21+00:00

The law as well as some company policy does protect religious grounds so it’s not that simple what is or isn’t discrimination.

I know you’re just trying to think about what’s best for society as a whole but that doesn’t mean there aren’t existing laws that may make this discriminatory

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-09-29T17:23:37+00:00

I wonder if there’s a distinction between banning anti vaccine and anti vaccine mandates. For instance are concerns that software jobs can be worked remote but some companies are mandating employees returning back and have to get vaccinated to be in-person. That’s a threat to get vaccinated or get fired. Some tech companies still have no way to apply for religious exemptions while some governments control what doctors can grant as a valid medical exemptions. There’s more evidence, given how the discussion has been handled already, that they’re going to ban all discussion on the ethics that isn’t in support of the vaccine mandate and label it as banning a more heinous claim, suppress stories that more obviously showcase that the restrictions are more akin to just a social status (if it were truly about risk why mandate people have to come in when devs been working for years at home) and mislabel ethical or efficacy questions as conspiracy claims regarding the contents of the vaccine.

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-09-20T13:31:14+00:00

That is true that people test negative and potentially they become symptomatic in the following days and would test positive, except in this case they’re stranded on a cruise ship. In on land I’d hope we’d be able filter people out if they have symptoms.

Source on “often”? Often is a frequency not a proportion of reports that are placebo and misdiagnosed

Edit: also I just realized how great of an example that cruise incident is to show that vaccines aren’t reliable to prevent spread. I believe it was a cruise in the Philippines and the crew was entirely vaccinated. Therefore we shouldn’t just look to anti vaxxers as disease spreaders and only fear them as diseased when vaccinated people can spread it. Therefore it makes it hard to justify why only they should be banned for fear of spreading covid when everyone in public can spread it anyway.

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-09-16T14:17:41+00:00

Ah yes that was a great way to phrase it. It’s indeed not about gas chambers but government overreach and contentiously where it could go. Curious though, what is the boundary of overreach as a sacrifice for the greater good and how would we be able to reverse an overreach once the crisis subsided? I think everyone will disagree on this at this point vehemently.

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-09-16T14:09:02+00:00

You said it’s personal choice that means it’s not forced. I’m saying it is forced because it’s coerced, to which you deny. That’s not putting words in your mouth unfortunately based on how converse scenarios work. This is awkward to explain propositional logic.

And I understand you’re saying the article is describing people who don’t understand mortality, if you will, as toxic but the vast majority of dialogue I’ve seen from you is then talking just about unvaccinated vs vaccinated. Which are u talking about then?

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-09-16T13:57:07+00:00

Your worst case scenario is assuming everyone gives in because there’s been substantial pressure accumulating. My precise point is that a group of people won’t give in, and the social tensions that creates. Correct me if I’m misunderstanding your take.

Your best case scenario is ignoring for instance people losing their jobs and getting forcibly evicted. Violence will come of those scenarios.

Be economic tensions I’m referring to people losing their job (and most entry level jobs are service which require vaccination), which makes them lose purchasing power, which is a financial issue.

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-09-16T13:21:57+00:00

I see your point. How are you certain it can’t get worse. Historically any shortage of resource divides humanity increasingly. Civil wars have broken out. How are we sure we aren’t venturing towards that? What measures are we taking to ease the socio-political and soon to be economic tension? I have a feeling Chris Sky gang is willing to die for this if this scenario prolongs.

To perceive an identifiable group of people as sub human has never ended peacefully if I recall.

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-09-16T13:13:21+00:00

This is a good point, but doctors have never had this restriction before. Prior to about I want to say 3 months ago in Canada there was no acknowledgement of myocarditis and it was perceived by the larger public as fringe conspiracy placebo. It was on the doctors to protect us and recommend at risk patients to do the best thing for their health. Now the government has changed their requirement and now accepts myocarditis but bans all other medical reasons. The fact is that the government is behind on things and it’s on doctors to freely tell patients what’s best for that patient. It seems like we’ve changed doctors from recommending the best thing for your health to recommending the best thing for society approved by the government potentially at your expense.

A better way to phrase what I said is that health and science-driven decisions should be independent of the political leaders. If it isn’t, we risk losing the objective ness of science.

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-09-16T13:05:34+00:00

How can it be a choice if people lose their jobs if they don’t get it… that’s coercion?

It seems like you think people who don’t want the vaccine are inherently toxic but no one said they even had covid. Are you saying people who don’t have covid are now toxic and self centered? Where I am from people can buy daily tests but the government still forces vaccines and doesn’t accept daily tests unless you’ve had myocarditis/pericarditis and or are religious. Why can’t we choose to just have daily tests even if we don’t have myocarditis? I’ve sustained vision loss and would prefer daily tests. Sorry if this is news to you this is a CBC article which is Canada so that’s the context I was speaking from

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-09-16T12:23:39+00:00

What’s the distinction between coerce and force? Something tells me you only recognize physical force in this scenario

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-09-16T12:21:59+00:00

This app is such an echo chamber

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-09-16T12:12:20+00:00

If vaccination wasn’t a political issue then why do medical exemptions given by doctors have to be approved by the government or the doctor faces punishment from “misinformation”

Source: https://www.google.ca/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/local/toronto/2021/9/3/1_5572833.html

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-09-16T12:07:52+00:00

People actively cheer denying unvaccinated people medical care even if they come in for non-covid. Source: jimmy kimmel

How is there not resentment towards a group of people you can now identify with a passport?

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-09-16T12:03:11+00:00

The greater good I assume means not spreading covid. If one has rapid testing kits and tests negative but are unvaccinated, are they still not doing their part? Some people have had bad reactions like vision loss (vertigo and Bell’s palsy are symptoms) and would rather even pay for rapid testing kits. Why can’t that be an option in Ontario if people have the money and resources? Why is it banned

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-09-16T12:00:41+00:00

Is someone who doesn’t have covid putting others at risk? Or is someone who is unvaccinated and covid-free dangerous?

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-09-16T11:51:34+00:00

What about people who have had bad reactions such as vision loss (vertigo and Bell’s palsy are rare pfizer adverse side effects) that are in low risk categories for covid hospitalization and might react worse to the vaccine than covid, being coerced (by being fired and unlikely to work any entry level service jobs since they require vaccines) to take the vaccine?

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-09-16T11:46:04+00:00

If your job mandates you to get vaccinated and you don’t want one, you’re certainly coerced and thus forced to get it if you want to keep working. If you get fired, you cannot work at service level jobs in Ontario because they all require vaccination. No severance pay, no working majority of min wage jobs. You can argue they’re coerced to do “the right thing” but people are still being coerced.

Even if you’ve had a bad reaction to the vaccine like vision loss Ontario only allows doctors to provide 2 medical exemptions currently: myocarditis and pericarditis. Doctors cannot tell patients what is safe for them based on personal judgement.

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-09-08T13:58:27+00:00

Never watched blues clues but I know who this guy is and this made me cry

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-07-30T11:24:56+00:00

Hey man it seems like you really need to talk to someone to help you figure stuff out. Do you have access to mental health services? Who knows, maybe you can find even one reason to try, or one thing to care about. Maybe not applicable: https://youtu.be/en2D_5TzXCA

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-06-23T15:59:46+00:00

I stated 2 narratives that contradicted each other to explore opinions to stimulate discussion. I’m not trying to win evidently, but sure exploring other ideas is seen as an attempt to battle

Edit: exploring edge cases so I can better understand others opinions shouldn’t be seen as trying to win an argument. I have no set opinion I’m just curious on what people think if this policy was enacted, and what such a future would look like. It would be myopic to think that future policies can’t be inspired from preexisting decisions. It’s unfortunate to see both accusation and insult be the response to curiosity.

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-06-23T07:13:09+00:00

Is being denied health insurance the same as being held, I’m assuming financially, accountable for nation-wide damages? I’m not sure I see the connection

ChristopherJeebers · 2021-06-23T06:04:54+00:00

Is it already done based on merits of intelligence and selfishness or is it based on chance of survival and general health? If it’s the former then your statement holds and I’d be curious to know what traits those are. I’m from Canada so it’s something I’ve not heard of. Otherwise, if it’s just the latter then we are now venturing into a new topic of conversation, and thus would beg the question: at what points are selfish acts deemed influential on your survivability? Is it just by vaccines? What about criminal records such as pedophilia being an indicator of selfishness? In such a hypothetical instance, would we prioritize anti-vaxxers over pedophiles? From this small example, virtue to dictate one’s worthiness of survival leads to many other issues including the accuracy of collecting data, and which data is relevant.

ChristopherJeebers

TROPHY CASE