The government forces us to do many things in our personal life; not drinking and driving, having to get a driver license, and even having to finish school to get a job.
But in your opinion, can the government be forcing us to get vaccinated against H1N1? Is it for our own good?
Each time government sets up mandates, it ruins functionality of humanity for that aspect, and affects many other modes of humanity that surrounds it. For instance, they create a law saying you must have a license for X human right (shelter, hunting, transportation, etc.). The moment you're caught without a license, you get fined and/or jailed, creating a criminal out of an innocent person. This causes people to judge you based on whether you followed the law or not. By nature, humans look down upon people not following the conditions they believe in. So now that you have a huge fine to pay and are in jail, you must go get a job that will pay the fine after being released, but nobody will hire you because you broke a law--if you break a common law, employers will think you might break their rules and be insubordinate. Now that you can't get a job, you can't pay the fine. So, you're either forced to fill out a government loan, or borrow from family. So you get the fine paid off, but now you have to pay back relatives and the loan organization. If you manage to get employed, you're stuck making payments back to the loan company. If you never get hired, you now owe the government yet again--you can go to court, get fined again for not being able to pay the loan back, and, you either go to jail again, or end up homeless because you can't pay mortgage/rent. This is why society is so corrupt. This is why it doesn't work. This is how government affects us--one law creates so many problems. The moment a problem is created at any level, it is an unnecessary law. Laws are there to prevent problems. Not create them.
By forcing vaccination, it's violating our rights to protect ourselves and violating our own judgmental capabilities given to us by birthright. When the 2nd amendment was violated, we lost our abilities to protect ourselves if government were to force vaccinations. They can come into your homes and stick you with force, and leave. It's when they use force that you are, by BIRTHRIGHT and INSTINCT, allowed to kill them, whether they have their backs turned or not. With self-defense and the 2nd amendment being violated, we are NOT ALLOWED to defend our bodies and freedoms. When somebody forces you against your will, it is called violence. When somebody forces you to have sex, it is called rape, which is violence. When somebody forces you to get a vaccine, it is violence. You need to protect yourself. You need a gun. But with gun control laws and laws restricting the way in which you protect yourself, you are powerless and can face punishment in the act of defend your right to life, and the enforcer will have the guns and use them at will.
The one with power will always violate their own laws in order to have their way.
With that in mind, there are many natural remedies for illnesses if you just do your research. When a human being resists the mandatory vaccination, he is punished with a fine/jail, which is WORSE than the illness. For one, you lose freedom. With being ill and not being forced to get vaccinated, at least you know you'll recover based on your own judgment, and at least you'll spare your dignity. By failing to comply with the vaccine mandate, it works just like in the scenario above. The stress from the punishments is far worse than the physical disease. Stress creates illnesses by lowering immunity. Did you know that? Not only that, but the body won't be ready to handle strong viruses if vaccinated. The body's immune system will only know a dead/weak virus with a vaccine. It will not know how strong a live virus is, and therefore, when they catch the real, live virus, they won't be prepared for it.
Because herbs can't be patented, they won't be tested on. The FDA does not want to spend money to test something that might reverse a condition. They make too much money from drug companies and vaccine companies. Consider the fact that the U.S.A. is a money-hungry country, and you have the problem. This is why vaccines would be forced. Not to make you better, but to profit. And if you don't think that greed doesn't exist in leaders, then look around at all the scumbags that walk the neighborhood. There's no reason on Earth why our leaders would be any different. This is Earth. Evil and greed exist here.
And another thing--NONE of these vaccines have been tested, and government is putting too many out on the market, overburdening the human body's ability to stay healthy with all these artificial methods.
Basically, the government is telling us how our bodies should operate. Well excuse me, but we have our OWN minds to decide how to move our OWN bodies. If the government could truly control us, it would operate our bodies consciously. We wouldn't have bodies if governmental control over them was necessary. They would have our bodies and be in 100% conscious control over them, and our own consciousness wouldn't exist.
Last edited by Astro Star; 11-16-2009 at 10:19 PM.
I don't like the idea of taking a shot made in less than a year.
thats why i dont trust Tamiflu...its too convient and untested, not to mention that its given to people without a proper diagnosis.
Shots should be given to the Elderly first...not because they are guinea pigsa or anything, but the fact they are most at risk and the least likely to have an effect on society if there are problems.
How does getting a flu shot compare to requiring a license to drive or prohibiting drinking and driving? You have to apply for a license because it's a privilege to be able to drive, sell liquor, etc. And alcohol consumption prior to driving is prohibited as a safety measure.
Besides. You can't FORCE people to take a flu shot, that's an extremist situation that is highly improbable, and would probably be a violation of some form of human rights, consent, etc. Not to mention there are a slew of problems with vaccinations, such as people with immunodeficiencies, allergies and whatnot who wouldn't benefit from a flu shot.
How does getting a flu shot compare to requiring a license to drive or prohibiting drinking and driving? You have to apply for a license because it's a privilege to be able to drive, sell liquor, etc. And alcohol consumption prior to driving is prohibited as a safety measure.
Besides. You can't FORCE people to take a flu shot, that's an extremist situation that is highly improbable, and would probably be a violation of some form of human rights, consent, etc. Not to mention there are a slew of problems with vaccinations, such as people with immunodeficiencies, allergies and whatnot who wouldn't benefit from a flu shot.
tl;dr - never gonna happen.
I was hoping my chain of thoughts would clarify my reasoning for that. I was making the statement that forcing vaccinations is a result of a system-wide problem. (Or that was the idea, I probably missed clarifying that.) If caught driving without a license, you get punished. Creating a license is a violation of some aspect of human rights to free choice and judgment (your capability to learn to drive). If caught walking the streets without proof of vaccination and evidence of intentional vaccine evasion, you get punished. Problems are compound by mandates, and you end up worse off than you started had the law not existed. I was using licenses as an example because these are essentially permission to perform a basic life functions, bringing me to the conclusion that government intervention is unnecessary regardless of the aim. (However, I do agree that there needs to be control on drinking and driving.)
And I do totally agree with your second paragraph. It's unlikely that government will get that bad. People are smart enough in this day and age not to take it lightly. And even if it did come to that, my own personal resistance to it will just prove that you were right. However, I don't remember which state it is, but that state IS forcing vaccines for the swine flu as we speak. I don't know if it was the same one that's currently forcing vaccines for HPV. However, this is a state decision, not federal.
This is just some insight to my way of thinking as to why I brought up licenses:
The way I see it, you can't rule out other problems when debating, because then you miss out on other important points that effect the main topic. I think speaking outside the scope of the subject with the root cause of the main subject in mind actually shines light on it. By sticking to just the main topic, other solutions are ruled out just by that linear way of thinking. The main scope is just a symptom. The root of the problem may lie outside the scope. That is, if no solutions are found within the scope of the debate, then things discussed outside the main topic may be the root of the problem. They're the things not discussed in endless debates, and so we continue debating circles and coming to no conclusions by remaining ONLY inside the scope.
In this case, a symptom of the scope, with licenses, is government intervention and needing to profit off the tax money because of its own debt. (Yeah, I totally missed clarifying that, too.) People will pay for mandated vaccines, and the government will use it to supplement the debt they're getting into, as well as fill drug companies' pockets. The root of the problem is profit.
Last edited by Astro Star; 11-16-2009 at 11:38 PM.
Only Pain awaits Trolls and Burners 
Linear Mode
