OT: Covid-19 (Part 55) Cold & Snowy Edition

[Natey]

That's for the courts to decide, but to be clear everything does not circle back to the greater good of the majority.

That's why we have human rights and don't endorse a purely utilitarian framework for our laws.

The whole reason for rights defined in the charter is to prevent a majority from violating the human rights of a minority. The clauses in the charter for exceptional circumstance and threat are what will be debated.

Well I have the right to not be subject to the spread of the virus then. See how ridiculous it sounds?

At the end of the day your human rights are upheld to "reasonable limits." Meaning that trying to end pandemic would fall into that. You can say "it's up to the courts," but we already know the answer.

If the mandates were forced vaccination? You'd have a point. But it's not. It's a choice.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

You missed the point entirely.

1) I made the argument that private companies can do what they want the last time we had an interaction.

2) "And in this case you've got somebody who's helping to spread misinformation on a virus that's killed millions of people." - This is a very authoritarian argument, that pretends that the population is not smart enough for the media to even present contradicting opinions. The limits to free speech are nowhere near what Joe Rogan is doing.

3) "A communist government would've simply yanked him off the air and threw him in jail" - I said communist idea.

I didn't miss a damn thing. You still don't seem to understand that you don't have a right to a show on Spotify.

And you still don't seem to understand the difference between being called out and being cancelled. Not only that, but there's nothing authoritarian about a private company cancelling a show if he's broadcasting misinformation that can lead to people getting hurt. Personally I think Spotify should probably get rid of this guy. Unfortunately, he brings in too many listeners which is why he's still on there. And that's a whole other problem in and of itself...

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Joe Rogan isn't the problem. The problem is treating Joe Rogan's podcast as a science podcast. It's literally a variety podcast with different people at various extremes. It is not meant to be a replacement of science.

Well, yeah.

I mean, I used to think that people who read the Enquirer all knew it was BS. But that's not the case. You've got people taking horse de-wormer right now because they've been told it's a better option than the vaccine. What's become shockingly clear is how far gone people are in terms of what they are willing to swallow.

I get having skepticsm towards what people see on the news. But it should be a healthy skepticsm. The wholesale rejection of mainstream media has gone way overboard. I'd say more here but it would be going off topic.

Bottom line though is that in as far as covid goes, the misinformation has been a serious problem. And Joe Rogan sure as f*** hasn't helped.

 

[Canadienna]

Well I have the right to not be subject to the spread of the virus then. See how ridiculous it sounds?

At the end of the day your human rights are upheld to "reasonable limits." Meaning that trying to end pandemic would fall into that. You can say "it's up to the courts," but we already know the answer.

If the mandates were forced vaccination? You'd have a point. But it's not. It's a choice.

I don't think I've made any argument that's parallel to your example. Simply that the "greater good" does not take precedent over human rights. It's just not how it works.

Whether or not lockdowns and travel restrictions are a violation of those rights within Canada will be decided by the courts, based mostly on the necessity of those measures relative to the risks of not having them.

I'm not claiming they will find them to be violations, I'm hesitant to predict what they'll find.

 

[McGuires Corndog]

Elon Musk will have to be the next one to get cancelled!!

He supports the truckers so according to some, he must also be an antivaxxer.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

1) Authoritarianism is not a state monopoly. Corporate entities can be authoritarian and they are.
2) Talk shows should be able to exist, this is not a bad faith argument lol. The bad faith argument is that no talk show that presents people that are not vetted by the mainstream should exist. This is nonsense. You live in a democracy, alternative political arguments are part of the system.

Believe it or not, objective facts DO exist. Some things are demonstrably false. The earth is either flat or it's not.

If we choose an example of a flat earther, why would this person deserve a platform? Does this person really deserve to be heard? I don't think so. They are not arguing on facts, they are spreading misinformation.

Rogan puts on people who have been thoroughly discredited. Whether he agrees with them or not, he's providing them with a bullhorn to trumpet all kinds of weird shit and people listen to it. That's irresponsible and I don't think it's wrong to call it out and say he shouldn't have a show.

That doesn't mean he can't have his own opinion or speak about it to anyone who asks but Spotify doesn't owe him a spot.

 

[GrandBison]

That's for the courts to decide, but to be clear everything does not circle back to the greater good of the majority.

That's why we have human rights and don't endorse a purely utilitarian framework for our laws.

The whole reason for rights defined in the charter is to prevent a majority from violating the human rights of a minority. The clauses in the charter for exceptional circumstance and threat are what will be debated.

Ideal situation would be to let all kind of businesses owners use or not the vaccinal passport and employees/customers testing, and to clarify employees vaccinal or testing status, for both employees and costumers health and safety. That would lead to less absurdities like we have now. It would give the choice for customers to go to businesses that support what they think is best for them. I don't think unvaccinated are the plague some are calling, but I also don't think they are an oppressed minority neither.

 

[pown]

Well I have the right to not be subject to the spread of the virus then. See how ridiculous it sounds?

At the end of the day your human rights are upheld to "reasonable limits." Meaning that trying to end pandemic would fall into that. You can say "it's up to the courts," but we already know the answer.

If the mandates were forced vaccination? You'd have a point. But it's not. It's a choice.

It is not a choice if not getting it threatens your job, your way of life, treating you as a 2nd class citizen, paying extra taxes, being discriminated against. That is no longer in ANY category of being a choice. Which is why we are seeing whats happening.

 

[GrandBison]

It is not a choice if not getting it threatens your job, your way of life, treating you as a 2nd class citizen, paying extra taxes, being discriminated against. That is no longer in ANY category of being a choice. Which is why we are seeing whats happening.

You are an internet click away from getting an appointment to get your free vaccine. It's not like you are in need for potable water, kidnapped by Boko Haram or dying in a refugee camp at a border.

 

[McGuires Corndog]

It is not a choice if not getting it threatens your job, your way of life, treating you as a 2nd class citizen, paying extra taxes, being discriminated against. That is no longer in ANY category of being a choice. Which is why we are seeing whats happening.

The government has been using the stick for far too long now. It was effective at first in order to get people to vaccinate. At this point there is nothing left to gain with vaxx mandates other than further social segregation and economical instability. The fast majority of unvaccinated people left are unlikely to get it at this point, and the mandates and the division people like our PM is spreading only drives that segment to further radicalize themselves.

There’s nothing left to gain anymore.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

A lot of misinformation is spread on his show though. Bringing in fringe folk legitimizes and normalizes them. A lot of people I know use Rogan’s show as a back up to claims of misinformation.

When you have a large media-based reach you have a certain responsibility to the truth. He routinely invites guests that mock truth and spread verifiably false information.

A large part of Rogan’s appeal stems from the global culture wars right now. He’s a voice for people who dislike “liberal elites” “mainstream media” and the “woke left”. I suspect that in parallel universe where this culture war didn’t exist, his show wouldn’t do so well. A lot of people turn to his show for talking points for their side in the culture war, which again is simply defined as "anti-woke", whatever that means.

He’s also constantly apologizing after the fact for getting stuff wrong on his show. However, by then the damage of misinformation is already out there. That’s the danger of mistruths in any era, once they are out there, they are out there and Rogan contributes to the current crisis on truth.

Apologizing after the fact is useless when the mistruth is out there. If he really cared about accuracy, he’d do his research before the show like any responsible interviewer would. Instead he routinely let's his guest say false shit without any sort of challenge, in fact Rogan is often nodding and in agreement with the false info in the moment.

And it’s entirely ironic that people justify their support for Rogan because he’s an alternative to the misleading mainstream media when he’s equally, or even more misleading with the type of guests he hosts on the show.

i mean, you could argue that mainstream conservatism itself wouldn't exist if not for this manufactured culture war. it shows you why they have such a keen interest in keep it alive. they've literally got nothing else at this point

anyway, nice post

 

[Licou]

i mean, you could argue that mainstream conservatism itself wouldn't exist if not for this manufactured culture war. it shows you why they have such a keen interest in keep it alive. they've literally got nothing else at this point

anyway, nice post

Conservatism would be just fine without the silly culture war thing.

I would even argue that they will be better off once this it's behind them.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

It is not a choice if not getting it threatens your job, your way of life, treating you as a 2nd class citizen, paying extra taxes, being discriminated against. That is no longer in ANY category of being a choice. Which is why we are seeing whats happening.

It's a question of burden.

On the one hand you have people who aren't taking the shot. They spread the delta version when we had effective vaccines that could effectively stop the spread and this small group continues to go to hospitals in overwhelming numbers. They don't want the shot despite the negative consequences to everyone else.

Then you've got people who have gotten vaccinated. And while the new variant is more resiliant in terms of breakthrough/spread there is at least a decent amount of protection. And at the same time they aren't overwhelming healthcare despite being a much larger group.

One of these two groups isn't going to be happy. You may want to fly on a plane or go to a restaurant. It doesn't really bother you if you get others sick or not. Some of these folks aren't even willing to wear masks. However, as a vaccinated person, I don't want you on my plane if you haven't had your shot. I don't want to sit next to you at a restaurant if you haven't had your shots.

One of these two groups has taken steps to protect other people as well as themselves. Moreover, they are helping to stop the hospital surges. And they exist in far greater numbers. I don't see why we should shift the burden to them.

If you don't want to get the shot... cool don't. But that doesn't mean that people want to eat next to you at a restaurant or fly on a plane with you. The burden lies with you. It's a simple shot. Take it if you want to be able to congregate with larger groups. If not, stay at home. Don't try to put this on people who've gone out and taken steps to protect themselves and others.

It's your decision. It IS a choice. And there are consequences that go along with it.

 

[WeeBey]

Elon Musk will have to be the next one to get cancelled!!

I don't have time to cancel him. I'm too busy laughing at his half baked ideas like a "traffic beating" single file underground tunnel.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

In fact, it's the other way around. Letting someone talk tends to illustrate bad ideas when they are presented.

This is very naive. If you think we don't have a serious misinformation problem in 2022, you're being very naive. Misinformation is legitimately dangerous.

I understand the authoritarian tendencies of a lot of people on this forum, they are extremely misguided, but I understand them.

Haha please with the non-stop 'authoritarian' victimhood act

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I have family members that exclusively listen to Joe Rogan's podcast for health and science advise.

That's sad.

I find the daily wire more credible than the mainstream news outlets, who have become masters of gaslighting.

This is the most unintentionally hilarious thing I've read on here in a while.

 

[pown]

It's a question of burden.

On the one hand you have people who aren't taking the shot. They spread the delta version when we had effective vaccines that could effectively stop the spread and they continue to go to hospitals in overwhelming numbers. They don't want the shot despite the negative consequences to everyone else.

Then you've got people who have gotten vaccinated. And while the new variant is more resiliant in terms of breakthrough/spread there is at least a decent amount of protection. And at the same time they aren't overwhelming healthcare.

One of these two groups isn't going to be happy. You may want to fly on a plane or go to a restaurant. It doesn't really bother you if you get others sick or not. Some of these folks aren't even willing to wear masks. However, as a vaccinated person, I don't want you on my plane if you haven't had your shot. I don't want to sit next to you at a restaurant if you haven't had your shots.

One of these two groups has taken steps to protect other people as well as themselves. Moreover, they are helping to stop the hospital surges. And they exist in far greater numbers. I don't see why we should shift the burden to them.

If you don't want to get the shot... cool don't. But that doesn't mean that people want to eat next to you at a restaurant or fly on a plane with you. The burden lies with you. It's a simple shot. Take it if you want to be able to congregate with larger groups. If not, stay at home. Don't try to put this on people who've gone out and taken steps to protect themselves and others.

It's your decision. It IS a choice. And there are consequences that go along with it.

If you don't want to sit beside me because I dont have my shot, then why would you sit beside ANYONE at all? Seems like you are better off staying fenced off from the whole population if this is your argument.

The vaccinated will spread it to you more then the unvaccinated, because you are around them just as much as anyone else in everyday situation, so this argument does not really make any sense at all.

You are protected with your shot aren't you?

 

[Per Sjoblom]

Got a vaccine shot for pneumonia today, now I just need a vaccine for idiots and I should be good.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

If you don't want to sit beside me because I dont have my shot, then why would you sit beside ANYONE at all? Seems like you are better off staying fenced off from the whole population if this is your argument.

I don't think you have the right to make the decision for me. You may be cool blowing smoke all over my food at a restaurant, but I'm not. What you're suggesting here is that your rights should supercede mine. I should be the one to stay home... I don't think so. Smoke your cigarette somewhere else.

Like I said, one of us isn't going to be happy.

Who should be inconvenienced? The larger group who was responsible enough to get the shot? Or the smaller one who doesn't care enough about others to do it?

 

[Andy]

This is the most unintentionally hilarious thing I've read on here in a while.

Right up there with Alex Jones was probably drinking heavily when he harassed the parents of Sandy Hook victims for years and that it’s okay because he apologized for what he did.

 

[Canadienna]

Like I said, one of us isn't going to be happy.

Who should be inconvenienced? The larger group who was responsible enough to get the shot? Or the smaller one who doesn't care enough about others to do it?

I'd say that should depend on the level of "inconvenience". And whether that inconvenience is violating either party's individual rights. Not on the size of the groups.

 

[GrandBison]

It's a question of burden.

On the one hand you have people who aren't taking the shot. They spread the delta version when we had effective vaccines that could effectively stop the spread and this small group continues to go to hospitals in overwhelming numbers. They don't want the shot despite the negative consequences to everyone else.

Then you've got people who have gotten vaccinated. And while the new variant is more resiliant in terms of breakthrough/spread there is at least a decent amount of protection. And at the same time they aren't overwhelming healthcare despite being a much larger group.

One of these two groups isn't going to be happy. You may want to fly on a plane or go to a restaurant. It doesn't really bother you if you get others sick or not. Some of these folks aren't even willing to wear masks. However, as a vaccinated person, I don't want you on my plane if you haven't had your shot. I don't want to sit next to you at a restaurant if you haven't had your shots.

One of these two groups has taken steps to protect other people as well as themselves. Moreover, they are helping to stop the hospital surges. And they exist in far greater numbers. I don't see why we should shift the burden to them.

If you don't want to get the shot... cool don't. But that doesn't mean that people want to eat next to you at a restaurant or fly on a plane with you. The burden lies with you. It's a simple shot. Take it if you want to be able to congregate with larger groups. If not, stay at home. Don't try to put this on people who've gone out and taken steps to protect themselves and others.

It's your decision. It IS a choice. And there are consequences that go along with it.

What was not explained enough is that with free of charge health care, we also have a responsibility to do whatever it takes to contribute to the ease of access. What could apply in US does not necessarily suit our system.

 

[Andy]

What was not explained enough is that with free of charge health care, we also have a responsibility to do whatever it takes to contribute to the ease of access. What could apply in US does not necessarily suit our system.

The one thing I do think should be asked of the government is if they expect 100% vaccine compliance. If they don’t think that’s possible, than what threshold are they looking to reach. Id like to know

 

[GrandBison]

The one thing I do think should be asked of the government is if they expect 100% vaccine compliance. If they don’t think that’s possible, than what threshold are they looking to reach. Id like to know

There are 15-20% of the population that won't vote, won't get the news, won't protest, they are basically not participating and they don't care. It's already really good to get to 90% of adults in Quebec. Access to restaurants probably was the motive for 5 to 10%. They will get their booster when it will be needed for the passport.

 

[pown]

I don't think you have the right to make the decision for me. You may be cool blowing smoke all over my food at a restaurant, but I'm not. What you're suggesting here is that your rights should supercede mine. I should be the one to stay home... I don't think so. Smoke your cigarette somewhere else.

Like I said, one of us isn't going to be happy.

Who should be inconvenienced? The larger group who was responsible enough to get the shot? Or the smaller one who doesn't care enough about others to do it?

"I don't think you have the right to make the decision for me"

SO much irony in this post.

Yeah definitely, alot of people are not happy and trust me, it is not the pro mandate people.

My argument stands, you have no reason to be more afraid of a unvaxxed individual over a vaccinated, if you want to hate on them, that's fine, but the virus does not give a horses ass if you are vaccinated or not. That is my point.