Jump to content

Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss


dogfish78

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Mark1 said:

Agreed.  And for those who joined the military voluntarily and have come to believe that they're entitled to resist orders based on personal opinion and desire; they can fuck right off on their high horse of self-righteousness too.  Snowflakes.

False equivalency. The mil members in your example are concerned about their personal health and not trying to tell anyone else how to conduct their personal health decisions/force an opinion on others. The other side of the argument are trying to force their will on others. Different situations/approaches and not comparable…one side is filled with moral high ground pricks and the other just wants liberty for everyone.

Edited by brabus
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, brabus said:

False equivalency. The mil members in your example are concerned about their personal health and not trying to tell anyone else how to conduct their personal health decisions/force an opinion on others. The other side of the argument are trying to force their will on others. Different situations/approaches and not comparable…one side is filled with moral high ground pricks and the other just wants liberty for everyone.

Concerned about their personal health?  WTF.  Are you telling me it's acceptable to disobey an order if it's a threat to your personal health (which doesn't apply in this scenario, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument)?

Taking Hamburger Hill was a threat to personal health.  Landing at Normandy was a threat to personal health.  Helicopter infil onto Takur Ghar to recover Neil Roberts was a threat to personal health.  Stepping outside the wire for a routine low-risk patrol is a threat to personal health.  Spending countless hours breathing aircraft exhaust, exposed to loud noises and high speed heavy machinery that could end you at any moment, is a threat to personal health.

You mean to tell me every individual military member is empowered to refuse to do all of those things (and literally every other fucking thing the military does) because they might get hurt?  Shit, I must have missed that memo.


The foundation of military service is literally a concept of sacrificing personal well-being for a collective good.  As I said...snowflakes.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mark1 said:

Concerned about their personal health?  WTF.  Are you telling me it's acceptable to disobey an order if it's a threat to your personal health (which doesn't apply in this scenario, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument)?

Taking Hamburger Hill was a threat to personal health.  Landing at Normandy was a threat to personal health.  Helicopter infil onto Takur Ghar to recover Neil Roberts was a threat to personal health.  Stepping outside the wire for a routine low-risk patrol is a threat to personal health.  Spending countless hours breathing aircraft exhaust, exposed to loud noises and high speed heavy machinery that could end you at any moment, is a threat to personal health.

You mean to tell me every individual military member is empowered to refuse to do all of those things (and literally every other fucking thing the military does) because they might get hurt?  Shit, I must have missed that memo.


The foundation of military service is literally a concept of sacrificing personal well-being for a collective good.  As I said...snowflakes.

You can't issue an order (for anything in the military) unless there is a military neccesity for that order. 

A lot of people would disagree that there is a military neccesity for the CV19 vaccine seeing as how it doesn't impact readiness and doesn't provide an intrinsic health benefit to the force. 

Regardless, really no reason to call anyone a snow flake over a philosophical difference of opinion. Especially when you don't understand the nuance of another person's perspective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

You can't issue an order (for anything in the military) unless there is a military neccesity for that order. 

A lot of people would disagree that there is a military neccesity for the CV19 vaccine seeing as how it doesn't impact readiness and doesn't provide an intrinsic health benefit to the force. 

Regardless, really no reason to call anyone a snow flake over a philosophical difference of opinion. Especially when you don't understand the nuance of another person's perspective. 

Why do we get a flu shot every year? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

You can't issue an order (for anything in the military) unless there is a military neccesity for that order. 

A lot of people would disagree that there is a military neccesity for the CV19 vaccine seeing as how it doesn't impact readiness and doesn't provide an intrinsic health benefit to the force. 

Regardless, really no reason to call anyone a snow flake over a philosophical difference of opinion. Especially when you don't understand the nuance of another person's perspective. 

I think you really only need to look at the USS Theodore Roosevelt to invalidate almost all of these arguments. They can just apply the lessons learned from that experience to basically any potential combat scenario and, bam, everyone in the military must be vaccinated.

In this case, does nuance of one's opinion really matter?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, brabus said:

Ah, the old go off on an enraged strawman tirade move. I have no questions on which group you’re in.

I wouldn't expect you to have questions.  I made it clear which group I belonged to in the first word of my first post.

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

You can't issue an order (for anything in the military) unless there is a military neccesity for that order. 

A lot of people would disagree that there is a military neccesity for the CV19 vaccine seeing as how it doesn't impact readiness and doesn't provide an intrinsic health benefit to the force. 

Regardless, really no reason to call anyone a snow flake over a philosophical difference of opinion. Especially when you don't understand the nuance of another person's perspective. 

Is this Bizarro World?  A lot of people disagree?  Do any of them have CSAF appended to their name?  I wasn't aware that mliitary command structure had shifted to anarchism where everybody just issues their own personal orders based on what they think is prudent.

A person with the authority to determine military necessity has made that call.  Opinions on the validity of that determination from subordinates are meaningless.

I am not, and would not, call anyone a snowflake over a difference of opinion.  Feel free to think whatever you'd like about the order.  I actually hold a person in higher regard who disagrees with an order and carries it out faithfully in service to their duty anyway.  It's when someone disobeys an order based on selfish motives because they think they're entitled to not experience psycological discomfort that they become a snowflake.

I assume that you've told all the E-3s under your command that since you don't understand the nuance of their perspective on showing up to work on a daily basis, that if they personally disagree with the expectation of a 5 day work week, they can just work a few hours here or there as they see fit?

Edited by Mark1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I think you really only need to look at the USS Theodore Roosevelt to invalidate almost all of these arguments. They can just apply the lessons learned from that experience to basically any potential combat scenario and, bam, everyone in the military must be vaccinated.

In this case, does nuance of one's opinion really matter?

Haha that's my case example. The official statement from the DoD is the Roosevelt was never at a state of reduced readiness and could continue to execute it's important mission in the Pacific at all times. Then they fired the guy that said there was an issue. What are we supposed to make of that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Mark1 said:

I wouldn't expect you to have questions.  I made it clear which group I belonged to in the first word of my first post.

Is this Bizarro World?  A lot of people disagree?  Do any of them have CSAF appended to their name?  I wasn't aware that mliitary command structure had shifted to anarchism where everybody just issues their own personal orders based on what they think is prudent.

A person with the authority to determine military necessity has made that call.  Opinions on the validity of that determination from subordinates are meaningless.

I am not, and would not, call anyone a snowflake over a difference of opinion.  Feel free to think whatever you'd like about the order.  I actually hold a person in higher regard who disagrees with an order and carries it out faithfully in service to their duty anyway.  It's when someone disobeys an order based on selfish motives because they think they're entitled to not experience psycological discomfort that they become a snowflake.

I assume that you've told all the E-3s under your command that since you don't understand the nuance of their perspective on showing up to work on a daily basis, that if they personally disagree with the expectation of a 5 day work week, they can just work a few hours here or there as they see fit?

Unfortunately I just understand this better than you sorry. 

Orders must be lawful, period. If someone doubts the lawfulness it's their right to litigate it, case example US Navy SEALS vs Lloyd Austin and The State of Oklahoma vs Lloyd Austin. 

You can hate that as much as you want but you still have an ethical responsibility to do the right thing when you're in uniform, regardless of what you were ordered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Why do we get a flu shot every year? 

The answer would be follow the money.

How many times have you had the flu while getting the shot every year?

I'll bet you a beer that if the flu shot went away it wouldn't change the amount of people that got sick.

My experience has been getting the flu about twice a year. Once because of the shot and once in the off season, for about 23 years. I've been retired 21 years, no flu shot since. Been sick with what may have been the flu twice. My experience, YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, arg said:

The answer would be follow the money.

How many times have you had the flu while getting the shot every year?

I'll bet you a beer that if the flu shot went away it wouldn't change the amount of people that got sick.

My experience has been getting the flu about twice a year. Once because of the shot and once in the off season, for about 23 years. I've been retired 21 years, no flu shot since. Been sick with what may have been the flu twice. My experience, YMMV.

I mean fuck, even Trevor Noah is starting to recognize that all of these pharma CEOs keep recommending more products that cost more money. Weird right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean , even Trevor Noah is starting to recognize that all of these pharma CEOs keep recommending more products that cost more money. Weird right? 

Once the government starts footing the bill, gotta keep the gravy train rolling. Every time the quarterly reports are about to hit investors, have a press conference recommending more boosters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

Unfortunately I just understand this better than you sorry. 

Orders must be lawful, period. If someone doubts the lawfulness it's their right to litigate it, case example US Navy SEALS vs Lloyd Austin and The State of Oklahoma vs Lloyd Austin. 

You can hate that as much as you want but you still have an ethical responsibility to do the right thing when you're in uniform, regardless of what you were ordered. 

I don't have much faith that DoD will follow through without exception after injunctions are lifted and religious exemption requests are denied, but hopefully they do, and the U.S. military will be stronger for having purged those that self-identified as having joined under false pretense and having served their entire career only where doing so aligned with their own selfish desires.

Then a decade from now we'll have to endure a few Timothy McVeigh Jr.'s, and after they've offed themselves over delusions of grandeur we can all get on with life.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have much faith that DoD will follow through without exception after injunctions are lifted and religious exemption requests are denied, but hopefully they do, and the U.S. military will be stronger for having purged those that self-identified as having joined under false pretense and having served their entire career only where doing so aligned with their own selfish desires.
Then a decade from now we'll have to endure a few Timothy McVeigh Jr.'s, and after they've offed themselves over delusions of grandeur we can all get on with life.

^also in the holds a grudge when someone separates after their ADSC camp instead of staying beholden to the needs of the Air Force forever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mark1 said:

I don't have much faith that DoD will follow through without exception after injunctions are lifted and religious exemption requests are denied, but hopefully they do, and the U.S. military will be stronger for having purged those that self-identified as having joined under false pretense and having served their entire career only where doing so aligned with their own selfish desires.

Then a decade from now we'll have to endure a few Timothy McVeigh Jr.'s, and after they've offed themselves over delusions of grandeur we can all get on with life.

So is there any order you would refuse? I am interested in your perspective as some of my leadership was very much of this camp. I had a hard time understanding why he thought that every order was legal. I think most people who are “snowflakes” know that the order is likely illegal (there is a legal difference between Comirnaty vs Pfizer, which is being litigated ), and that big pharma has captured the DoD (i.e. the shot is not for your health), so in order to continue to serve they are using a religious accommodation.
 

The risk we should accept are the necessary ones on behalf of the AF mission, no? Do we need jet fuel, then we risk adverse affects from human chemical interaction. Do  people on the ground need support— then we risk pilots lives. Do we need to defend bases— then we risk security forces lives. If the risk is not aligned with the mission, why are we taking it? Seems like we missed the mark on the vaccine mandate.
 

Maybe the fundamental disagreement is that you think the vaccine has overwhelming safety and efficacy data? So any risk of taking the shot is worth it because it’s good for everyone’s health (and thereby the health of the military)?
 

The Oklahoma NG is not against the vaccine, I think the AG is triple vaxxed. Seems that they are strongly against the policy behind it. They will be forced to can a decent chunk of their service members, which will affect their readiness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, arg said:

The answer would be follow the money.

How many times have you had the flu while getting the shot every year?

I'll bet you a beer that if the flu shot went away it wouldn't change the amount of people that got sick.

My experience has been getting the flu about twice a year. Once because of the shot and once in the off season, for about 23 years. I've been retired 21 years, no flu shot since. Been sick with what may have been the flu twice. My experience, YMMV.

So in 23 years of getting the shot, you only got the flu twice?

Seems like an argument FOR the flu vaccine.

But regardless of the motives for the flu shot...did you stand up and scream about bodily autonomy, pharmaceutical company profits, legality...or did you go get the flu shot? And if you think the flu shot isn't a military readiness issue... why were you willing to get that shot but not Covid? 

Edited by pawnman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pawnman said:

So in 23 years of getting the shot, you only got the flu twice?

Seems like an argument FOR the flue vaccine.

But regardless of the motives for the flu shot...did you stand up and scream about bodily autonomy, pharmaceutical company profits, legality...or did you go get the flu shot? And if you think the flu shot isn't a military readiness issue... why were you willing to get that shot but not Covid? 

Politics

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be incapable of fathoming a simple fact for many who are hesitant to get the Kung flu prophylaxis.

I will spell it out for you:

The vaccine, for a virus that isn't species-threatening, is inefficient at best.  

It hasn't been tested rigourisly (sp?) and the data can only capture in the short-term at present.  It is a literal unknown of any long-term effects these shots will have.

The variety of, and number of, side-effects are larger than they should be for a well-tested and deployed vaccine.

For me, having had Covid, the natural anti-bodies produced suffice for my risk mitigation assessment.

You may not like my decision, but that's on you.  I'm not against you getting as many 'vaccines' and boosters as you desire.  Same thing for any children you may have.  You knock yourself out.

Leave me the fcuk alone.  I am quite capable of making my own decisions.

And Trump didn't institute mandates that have cost people their jobs.  Imagine the sturm and drang if he had've.

But dementia Joe, with his "I've got a plan to stop the virus," can't seem to do much at all.  Even his kindly, knows what's best for me get a inefficient vaccine is getting slammed in multiple levels of courts and states that aren't cowering seem to be doing pretty well.

Color me shocked.

As for a military order, it is supposed to be lawful.  Takes a lot of courage to fight an order that one considers unlawful so most don't - lack of financial resources to survive, to fight, etc.  But some do.  If they lose, those folks will face administrative and judicial punishment.  Again, takes a lot of guts to push back.

They should've never been put in that position.  The pool of eligibles isn't that big.  Despite the diversity push, this order probably discourages a not insignificant number of people to not raise their right hand.  It will be interesting to see how many currently serving, but refusing this order, are actually punished/discharged.

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

You seem to be incapable of fathoming a simple fact for many who are hesitant to get the Kung flu prophylaxis.

I will spell it out for you:

The vaccine, for a virus that isn't species-threatening, is inefficient at best.  

It hasn't been tested rigourisly (sp?) and the data can only capture in the short-term at present.  It is a literal unknown of any long-term effects these shots will have.

The variety of, and number of, side-effects are larger than they should be for a well-tested and deployed vaccine.

For me, having had Covid, the natural anti-bodies produced suffice for my risk mitigation assessment.

You may not like my decision, but that's on you.  I'm not against you getting as many 'vaccines' and boosters as you desire.  Same thing for any children you may have.  You knock yourself out.

Leave me the fcuk alone.  I am quite capable of making my own decisions.

And Trump didn't institute mandates that have cost people their jobs.  Imagine the sturm and drang if he had've.

But dementia Joe, with his "I've got a plan to stop the virus," can't seem to do much at all.  Even his kindly, knows what's best for me get a inefficient vaccine is getting slammed in multiple levels of courts and states that aren't cowering seem to be doing pretty well.

Color me shocked.

As for a military order, it is supposed to be lawful.  Takes a lot of courage to fight an order that one considers unlawful so most don't - lack of financial resources to survive, to fight, etc.  But some do.  If they lose, those folks will face administrative and judicial punishment.  Again, takes a lot of guts to push back.

They should've never been put in that position.  The pool of eligibles isn't that big.  Despite the diversity push, this order probably discourages a not insignificant number of people to not raise their right hand.  It will be interesting to see how many currently serving, but refusing this order, are actually punished/discharged.

 

You don't think we'd have had the same mandates under Trump?  I do.  

Again...would you call influenza "species-threatening"?  How about measles?  Rubella?  If "species-threatening" is your bar for vaccine mandates, then surely you're in the streets protesting against all the vaccines required before kids can attend schools, right?

Here's another question for you - which vaccines have exhibited long-term harms that didn't show up short-term?  Which vaccines at any time in our past had zero side effects for 10 years then suddenly manifested something a decade later?

Do you have an issue with the fact that flu vaccines are reformulated every year, so we don't have ten years worth of data on each new one?  Or is it sufficient for you that we have data on the component parts of the vaccines?

What would you rate as an "efficient" vaccine?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in 23 years of getting the shot, you only got the flu twice?
Seems like an argument FOR the flu vaccine.
But regardless of the motives for the flu shot...did you stand up and scream about bodily autonomy, pharmaceutical company profits, legality...or did you go get the flu shot? And if you think the flu shot isn't a military readiness issue... why were you willing to get that shot but not Covid? 

Read it again, Pawn. For comprehension this time…


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, pawnman said:

You don't think we'd have had the same mandates under Trump?  I do.  

Again...would you call influenza "species-threatening"?  How about measles?  Rubella?  If "species-threatening" is your bar for vaccine mandates, then surely you're in the streets protesting against all the vaccines required before kids can attend schools, right?

Here's another question for you - which vaccines have exhibited long-term harms that didn't show up short-term?  Which vaccines at any time in our past had zero side effects for 10 years then suddenly manifested something a decade later?

Do you have an issue with the fact that flu vaccines are reformulated every year, so we don't have ten years worth of data on each new one?  Or is it sufficient for you that we have data on the component parts of the vaccines?

What would you rate as an "efficient" vaccine?

There isnt a political aspect to it. It's a cultural aspect; in regards to the culture war between democrats and republicans. Culturally, Republicans are generally more skeptical of authoritarianism, government, institutions and subversion of individual rights. 

If Trump were President, there could have been a minor effect but that would have been more due to a hard line republican generally trusting another republican slightly more than a democrat. Otherwise I think the data would be very close. As it is Trump has publicly endorsed the vaccine on several occasions but had little effect. 

So I think your understanding to what is happening in regards to hesitance is mistaken. A general every day person/republican has nothing to gain by bucking Biden's mandate. The vast majority of the country is already vaccinated. 

In regards to your later questions, there is no data on an mRNA vaccine causing long term effects because there's never been a study on the long term effects of an mRNA vaccine. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

Edited by FLEA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, glockenspiel said:

I think most people who are “snowflakes” know that the order is likely illegal (there is a legal difference between Comirnaty vs Pfizer, which is being litigated ), and that big pharma has captured the DoD (i.e. the shot is not for your health), so in order to continue to serve they are using a religious accommodation.

Yep.  The legal filings are totally in good faith, and not a litigious stall tactic that skirts the actual issue.  And since they imply that even the plaintiffs agree the order is lawful in principle, as long as Comirnaty labeled doses are offered, I would pay large money to see the government show up to court with nurses ready to administer shots to the plaintiffs out of vials with that divine piece of paper stuck to them that makes all the difference.  It'd be a sight to see that courtroom clear as if somebody fumbled a live grenade onto the floor.  Mere seconds before nothing but the dignity of the plaintiffs was left behind.

4 hours ago, glockenspiel said:

Maybe the fundamental disagreement is that you think the vaccine has overwhelming safety and efficacy data? So any risk of taking the shot is worth it because it’s good for everyone’s health (and thereby the health of the military)?

Outside of stating that I oppose public mandates, I've made no mention of the vaccine.  This has nothing to do with a vaccine and everything to do with a group of people that has made clear they only follow orders when it serves them personally.  That's a cancerous thing in military command structure, and if they don't have the integrity to self-eliminate from the service, then they should be forcibly removed.

4 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

^also in the holds a grudge when someone separates after their ADSC camp instead of staying beholden to the needs of the Air Force forever

Interesting take given I'm in that group.  Damn, I'm like a self-hating black man.  Always wondered how that dissonance could develop and now I'm living it.  You got me.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, FLEA said:

There isnt a political aspect to it. It's a cultural aspect; in regards to the culture war between democrats and republicans. Culturally, Republicans are generally more skeptical of authoritarianism, government, institutions and subversion of individual rights. 

If Trump were President, there could have been a minor effect but that would have been more due to a hard line republican generally trusting another republican slightly more than a democrat. Otherwise I think the data would be very close. As it is Trump has publicly endorsed the vaccine on several occasions but had little effect. 

So I think your understanding to what is happening in regards to hesitance is mistaken. A general every day person/republican has nothing to gain by bucking Biden's mandate. The vast majority of the country is already vaccinated. 

In regards to your later questions, there is no data on an mRNA vaccine causing long term effects because there's never been a study on the long term effects of an mRNA vaccine. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

You can make that case for every flu shot every year since it’s always new. If everyone had been up on arms about having to take an unproven vaccine every year since they joined the military for a low success vaccine against a disease that doesn’t kill lots of people of military age this would all make more sense to me.

And this is because republicans are for pro liberty and individual rights like allowing families to personally make the call on abortion?To be clear, I’m against mandates and abortion personally I just understand how politics help form our opinions and make us all slight hypocrites, good or bad.

I’m for your choice to do what you want. It just seems like some people, not everyone, are only against the vaccine to prove they can be. I’m for businesses making their own rules and not having authoritarian restrictions, but I bet most people who are anti vaccine and face mask immediately drop the mask even if the business says no masks for vaccinated. I’m for your right to choose, I just hope you don’t choose to be a dick. Follow what the businesses ask or just don’t give them your business if you are that angered.

I got the vaccine not for me but because I hoped to limit the spread so I didn’t accidentally kill someone’s grandma. For some of you your health is more important then your buddies grandma, which is fine but that’s where some of the differences come from. And I don’t mean that as a shot, I understand the reasoning. Part of this is from knowing a few people, some our age that weren’t fat, that died of COVID.

Finally, I don’t think there is anything illegal about the military making you get a vaccine. Tons of precedent for it. Even if the virus doesn’t kill you, keeping whole units from going down at the same time from an illness I think is a reasonable argument for readiness whether you agree or not, IE the flu shot. BIG jump to illegal order. I can understand not liking it and disagreeing with it but I don’t understand how it’s illegal.

Edited by MCO
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • M2 locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...