Covid-19

[Jazz18]

Let me get this straight: You, personally, as you are vacconated, are fine.

Your opinion that people should have a choice in this, or more accurately your rhetoric that vaccine passports are not what a free, democratic country should be, is not.

Like it or lump it, there's only one way out of this. Vaccinations. COVID isn't going away by itself (clearly!) and anyone who is not doing whatever they can to fight A GLOBAL PANDEMIC is selfish and stupid. And I hope they all die from it. The blood is on their own hands with this.

Oh well I'm glad I'm fine then........

And as far as my opinion is concerned, it's not rhetoric, it's very sincere and genuine, whether it persuades you or not. Not because I agree with someone who doesn't want to take the vaccine (because I think it is selfish but you just haven't been bothered to ask - you've just assumed) but because if we take choice away from people on this issue, where does it stop? I mean, who sets the boundary on where that stops? It's not as simple as you'd make it out to be. Choice and as a result freedom, is at stake here whether you like it or not and who says what defines choice? The Government? You? The people who don't want a vaccination? You're over simplfying something that is extremely complex. Choice is an integral part of freedom and if you have freedom, why shouldn't every other Australian that hasn't broken the law? We don't have a bill of rights like they do in America so we need to be very careful what we wish for in setting precedents because if you trust the Government is going to do the right thing, you only have to look at Victoria and what Daniel Andrews tried to do with ramming through permanent emergency powers for the Government without proper parlimentary discussion on the matter.

You live in a Country that does not mandate vaccines and is constitutionally bound to that, so choosing not to have a vaccine is not against the law. We will see where the employer mandates fall in a legal sense down the track. But if you think it's as simple as shutting out the unvaccinated, have a think for a minute about whether, for example hypothetically, you would put a staff member at risk of confrontation at work if they were left to be in charge of policing a no jab no entry policy if they weren't a security officer or police officer? In a retail store for example. You could easily have a workers compensation claim on your hands from stress or injury. It's just one of many examples of how this is not so cut and dry.

Unless you've had a really bad or direct exeprience with an anti vaxxer in the past (for which I might understand your hateful position more), as I've said before, you're stance that people should do what you think or they deserve to die is absolutely disgraceful. That's fascism/communism (whichever side you want to attribute it to) in a nut shell and has no place in Oz.

What's your opinion on this? Do you think this is over reach on peoples choices/freedoms in Sydney? Couple of different links to the same story from different outlets for balance if you don't trust a certain "media."

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed...-hard-lockdown

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...ddb6e38872d3d5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZpQg4yPVtA

[Yossarian]

No one is being forced to have it? Their choice may/will have consequences.

[LeftyHoges]

Oh well I'm glad I'm fine then........

And as far as my opinion is concerned, it's not rhetoric, it's very sincere and genuine, whether it persuades you or not. Not because I agree with someone who doesn't want to take the vaccine (because I think it is selfish but you just haven't been bothered to ask - you've just assumed) but because if we take choice away from people on this issue, where does it stop? I mean, who sets the boundary on where that stops? It's not as simple as you'd make it out to be. Choice and as a result freedom, is at stake here whether you like it or not and who says what defines choice? The Government? You? The people who don't want a vaccination? You're over simplfying something that is extremely complex. Choice is an integral part of freedom and if you have freedom, why shouldn't every other Australian that hasn't broken the law? We don't have a bill of rights like they do in America so we need to be very careful what we wish for in setting precedents because if you trust the Government is going to do the right thing, you only have to look at Victoria and what Daniel Andrews tried to do with ramming through permanent emergency powers for the Government without proper parlimentary discussion on the matter.

You live in a Country that does not mandate vaccines and is constitutionally bound to that, so choosing not to have a vaccine is not against the law. We will see where the employer mandates fall in a legal sense down the track. But if you think it's as simple as shutting out the unvaccinated, have a think for a minute about whether, for example hypothetically, you would put a staff member at risk of confrontation at work if they were left to be in charge of policing a no jab no entry policy if they weren't a security officer or police officer? In a retail store for example. You could easily have a workers compensation claim on your hands from stress or injury. It's just one of many examples of how this is not so cut and dry.

Unless you've had a really bad or direct exeprience with an anti vaxxer in the past (for which I might understand your hateful position more), as I've said before, you're stance that people should do what you think or they deserve to die is absolutely disgraceful. That's fascism/communism (whichever side you want to attribute it to) in a nut shell and has no place in Oz.

What's your opinion on this? Do you think this is over reach on peoples choices/freedoms in Sydney? Couple of different links to the same story from different outlets for balance if you don't trust a certain "media."

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed...-hard-lockdown

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...ddb6e38872d3d5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZpQg4yPVtA

You're mistaking rhetoric for rhetorical, but that notwithstanding, it's great to see you drawing the worlds longest bow here between trying to fight a global pandemic with the only effective weapon we have, and a communist / fascist government trying to rule the people with an iron fist Vladimir Putin style.

You'll note at no point did I ever say this should be a "legal thing", but it definitely should be along the lines of "no shoes, no shirt, no jab, no service" style of restrictions, so in effect "a vaccine passport". So I'm not bringing anything constitutional or otherwise into this. The part about anti-vaxxers ****ing off and dying in a fire, that's just a bonus treat for little old me.

In your retail example I'd be much happier having a staff member with a compo claim than having 5 dead staff members who contracted COVID from some phuckwit. How's that for your hypothetical?

I don't have an opinion on the Sydney thing, I'm not going to get drawn into "whaboutisms"...

[Jazz18]

You're mistaking rhetoric for rhetorical, but that notwithstanding, it's great to see you drawing the worlds longest bow here between trying to fight a global pandemic with the only effective weapon we have, and a communist / fascist government trying to rule the people with an iron fist Vladimir Putin style.

You'll note at no point did I ever say this should be a "legal thing", but it definitely should be along the lines of "no shoes, no shirt, no jab, no service" style of restrictions, so in effect "a vaccine passport". So I'm not bringing anything constitutional or otherwise into this. The part about anti-vaxxers ****ing off and dying in a fire, that's just a bonus treat for little old me.

In your retail example I'd be much happier having a staff member with a compo claim than having 5 dead staff members who contracted COVID from some phuckwit. How's that for your hypothetical?

I don't have an opinion on the Sydney thing, I'm not going to get drawn into "whaboutisms"...

Again, I'm not mistaken. You just don't understand the words you're using.

You're suggesting, actually saying, that you'd like a whole section of the community to die (in a fire this time) because they don't agree with you, when they have done nothing wrong by law, they have just made a different choice. If that's not a fascist/communist mindset, then you've re-written the meaning of those terms. Wouldn't be the first time someone tried to do that of late. And I'm not saying the Government has that mindset, I'm saying you do. It doesn't matter what the topic of debate is, you don't get to cherry pick that response, dependant on the topic (unless you're talking about groups that have broken the law, but even then, capital punishment is not legal in Australia). Anytime you think the appropriate action is to wipe out a particular group of people because they disagree with you, that is fascism/communism.

You're saying you're not brining the consitution into this, but that's a cop out. What the Government is doing by lifting restrictions only for the vaccinated is a bullshit cop out too. Let's see if you feel the government isn't mandating something you don't agree with when they tell you, you can't work, you can't go out, you can't go to the shops, your kids can't go to school, you can't leave the country, you can't go to a restaurant, you can't play golf etc etc. If that's not mandating by proxy, you've got your head up your arse.

So you didn't even look at the links? I didn't think you would. They go to my point about choices and freedom. It's a small thing but still, authorities are over stepping the mark. But if you can't be bothered or if you're concerned they might add something to the discussion on choices being taken away, then don't look at them. You might have to make an actual argument on your point of view instead of just swearing and repeating that you want a group of people to die and you're the majority group.

As I've said previously, be careful for what you wish for (Vaccine passports). This is not conspiracy theory stuff, this is necessary caution on complex social policy that should not be over simplfied, which you and your "majority" continue to do.

[3Puttpete]

Again, I'm not mistaken. You just don't understand the words you're using.

You're suggesting, actually saying, that you'd like a whole section of the community to die (in a fire this time) because they don't agree with you, when they have done nothing wrong by law, they have just made a different choice. If that's not a fascist/communist mindset, then you've re-written the meaning of those terms. Wouldn't be the first time someone tried to do that of late. And I'm not saying the Government has that mindset, I'm saying you do. It doesn't matter what the topic of debate is, you don't get to cherry pick that response, dependant on the topic (unless you're talking about groups that have broken the law, but even then, capital punishment is not legal in Australia). Anytime you think the appropriate action is to wipe out a particular group of people because they disagree with you, that is fascism/communism.

You're saying you're not brining the consitution into this, but that's a cop out. What the Government is doing by lifting restrictions only for the vaccinated is a bullshit cop out too. Let's see if you feel the government isn't mandating something you don't agree with when they tell you, you can't work, you can't go out, you can't go to the shops, your kids can't go to school, you can't leave the country, you can't go to a restaurant, you can't play golf etc etc. If that's not mandating by proxy, you've got your head up your arse.

So you didn't even look at the links? I didn't think you would. They go to my point about choices and freedom. It's a small thing but still, authorities are over stepping the mark. But if you can't be bothered or if you're concerned they might add something to the discussion on choices being taken away, then don't look at them. You might have to make an actual argument on your point of view instead of just swearing and repeating that you want a group of people to die and you're the majority group.

As I've said previously, be careful for what you wish for (Vaccine passports). This is not conspiracy theory stuff, this is necessary caution on complex social policy that should not be over simplfied, which you and your "majority" continue to do.

None of this applies to people employed in healthcare though does it?

[Jazz18]

None of this applies to people employed in healthcare though does it?

It would seem a interesting that doctors and nurses, who slogged it out during the first wave unvaccinated and at risk to their own lives, still had a job then but don't if they choose not to have the Vax now. But in aged care etc (because they are a high risk group from COVID) it seems appropriate that it would be a requirement for employment. But it is also the case the for the flu vaccine so in that setting for example, they already have a precedence for that.

I'm not saying I have all the answers but I'm pretty sure it needs more discussion than, if you don't have the Vax, I hope you die, which is the point I'm trying to make to Lefty, obviously unsuccessfully.

What makes COVID tricky is the lack of symptoms in some people that are infectious. It's a game changer to a degree but it still doesn't mean we need to cast anyone aside because they have a different view. It's needs discussion and consideration what the right course of action is and I'm not sure that's happening.

[Yossarian]

The fact i even need a passport to get on a plane is a ridiculous.

[LeftyHoges]

Again, I'm not mistaken. You just don't understand the words you're using.

I think I'll just leave the argument here.

If simple comprehension isn't your thing.....

[Webster]

You have already comprehensively destroyed him Lefty, no need to urinate on the corpse!

[Jazz18]

I think I'll just leave the argument here.

If simple comprehension isn't your thing.....

There's been no argument. You haven't made an argument, you've just claimed you're right because your opinion is the "majority." That's not an argument, that's a statement and maybe not even in fact.

[Jazz18]

You have already comprehensively destroyed him Lefty, no need to urinate on the corpse!

Hahahaha! You actually said he destroyed me. What are you 6yo?

[Webster]

Like a paraplegic lesbian, you just don’t know when you’ve been licked.

[Jazz18]

Like a paraplegic lesbian, you just don’t know when you’ve been licked.

You can do better than that......

[Johnny Canuck]

I think I'll just leave the argument here.

If simple comprehension isn't your thing.....

You can back out.

I've quite enjoyed Jazz telling me what you are really saying.

There is no need to post.

[Webster]

You can do better than that......

Here you go then....

https://www.theage.com.au/national/v...20-p58t2v.html

[Jazz18]

Here you go then....

https://www.theage.com.au/national/v...20-p58t2v.html

That's no fun. I thought you were going to abuse me again.

Businesses do have the right to allow or not allow whoever they want as long as it's lawful. That's THEIR CHOICE but Governments should not be mandating is or making those requirements law.

Government mandates of such rules not only removes the choice of the unvaccinted by proxy (in essence making vaccines mandatory) but also the choice of the business owner to do whatever they want. They must implement that regulation or they get fined as well. They are not free to make that choice for their own business.

The problem here is the more regulated everything becomes, the more government controls the process. And after the cluster **** of a way ALL government's in Austrlia have ****ed the management of this up at various times and left us lagging behind, I don't trust them to run a piss up in a brewery, let alone figure out what to do with this problem.

They won't get it right.

I think you'll also find that I was trying to make the point that while you might disagree with unvaccinated people on their decision and thinks it's selfish (as do I), it's a large leap to get to the point where you want them dead. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you get to treat them like a piece of shit like you and lefty do.

[Jazz18]

You can back out.

I've quite enjoyed Jazz telling me what you are really saying.

There is no need to post.

Tell me where I've got it wrong. Lefty hasn't. He's just kept telling me he wants the unvaccinated dead, in a fire preferably.

[WBennett]

I can't believe that to visit an abattoir for work, I had to have Q Fever inoculations. How dare they tell me what to do.

[Webster]

I think you'll also find that I was trying to make the point that while you might disagree with unvaccinated people on their decision and thinks it's selfish (as do I), it's a large leap to get to the point where you want them dead. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you get to treat them like a piece of shit like you and lefty do.

At no stage have I said any such thing, you are making stuff up.

And thankfully the Age article puts completely to rest your nonsensical argument about unvaccinated people being discriminated against.

[Captain Nemo]

Glad I stared this thread now….

[Jazz18]

At no stage have I said any such thing, you are making stuff up.

And thankfully the Age article puts completely to rest your nonsensical argument about unvaccinated people being discriminated against.

You've got a short memory on the insults you have thrown at me and others with opinions that differ to yours just on this forum. Can't imagine it would be any different anywhere else, unless you're just a keyboard warrior.

And no it doesn't really. Liam might be able to read the law and recite law books and quote the legal jargon, but I doubt given his experience is pretty much all academic, I doubt he'd be able to make an argument in a court room on a matter before he wet his pants.

Besides there is a difference between illegal discrimination and legal discrimination.

Everyone discriminates every day.

[Webster]

"Liam Elphick is a discrimination law expert at the Monash University Faculty of Law."

No offence, but I'll take his educated and respected opinion over yours, his credentials are impeccable.

Where do you teach law?

[Steve57]

"Liam Elphick is a discrimination law expert at the Monash University Faculty of Law."No offence, but I'll take his educated and respected opinion over yours, his credentials are impeccable. Where do you teach law?

Took the words right out of my mouth!

[LeftyHoges]

You've got a short memory on the insults you have thrown at me and others with opinions that differ to yours just on this forum. Can't imagine it would be any different anywhere else, unless you're just a keyboard warrior.

And no it doesn't really. Liam might be able to read the law and recite law books and quote the legal jargon, but I doubt given his experience is pretty much all academic, I doubt he'd be able to make an argument in a court room on a matter before he wet his pants.

Besides there is a difference between illegal discrimination and legal discrimination.

Everyone discriminates every day.

Jazz, in all seriousness mate, you'd be best advised to just step aside here. You're digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole, with no valid support from anyone.

Maintain your beliefs, fine, no problems, but you're getting zero traction and convincing NO-ONE.

[Jazz18]

"Liam Elphick is a discrimination law expert at the Monash University Faculty of Law."

No offence, but I'll take his educated and respected opinion over yours, his credentials are impeccable.

Where do you teach law?

Took the words right out of my mouth!

Yep, you're right. He has impecable credentials for teaching law, but not practicing it. Matters pertaining to discrimination law are not heard in a lecture theatre, they're heard in a court room.

If you had a matter to be heard in court, would you prefer the person who teaches it or the person who practices it, to make your argument? I know which I'd prefer.......