Alan Dershowitz claims you must take vaccination.
- Thread starter Xshot
- Start date
I really and TRULY don't see this going over very well at all.
You just have to laugh........and load magazines
That argument would be better found if science showed the vaccine harmless. That would be if scientists who did science still existed.
wonder what the laundry list of side effect will look like
- Diarrhea.
- Dizziness.
- Drowsiness.
- Fatigue.
- Heart issues (palpitations, irregular heartbeats)
- Hives.
- Nausea and vomiting.
- Rash.
- Constipation.
- Skin rash or dermatitis.
- Diarrhea.
- Dizziness.
- Drowsiness.
- Dry mouth.
- Headache.
- Insomnia.
Every year, as I get older, I gain one of those side effects. By the time I am 80 I should not suffer any of those side effects.
If alan dershowitz and all the other mandatory vaccination crowd get vaccinated they should be safe right? So why worry about someone who doesn't get vaccinated. They pose no threat to you if you got the vaccine.
I'm not against vaccinations. However, I am against MANDATORY vaccinations. He can go fuck off with his beliefs.
I wonder how Alan would feel if all those not vaccinated had to wear a gold star on their chest?
Interesting-
In 1905 the Supreme Court addressed mandatory vaccinations in regard to smallpox in Jacobson v Massachusetts [2]. There the Court ruled that the police power of a state absolutely included reasonable regulations established by legislature to protect public health and safety [2]. Such regulations do not violate the 14th Amendment right to liberty because they fall within the many restraints to which every person is necessarily subjected for the common good [3]. Real liberty for all cannot exist if each individual is allowed to act without regard to the injury that his or her actions might cause others; liberty is constrained by law. The Court went on to determine in Jacobson that a state may require vaccination if the board of health deems it necessary for public health or safety.
journalofethics.ama-assn.org
In 1905 the Supreme Court addressed mandatory vaccinations in regard to smallpox in Jacobson v Massachusetts [2]. There the Court ruled that the police power of a state absolutely included reasonable regulations established by legislature to protect public health and safety [2]. Such regulations do not violate the 14th Amendment right to liberty because they fall within the many restraints to which every person is necessarily subjected for the common good [3]. Real liberty for all cannot exist if each individual is allowed to act without regard to the injury that his or her actions might cause others; liberty is constrained by law. The Court went on to determine in Jacobson that a state may require vaccination if the board of health deems it necessary for public health or safety.
Is Mandatory Vaccination Legal in Time of Epidemic?
Article explains the right granted to state public health agencies by the Supreme Court in Jacobson v Massachusetts to mandate vaccination in the presence of actual or threatened danger to the health of its residents from infectious disease.
Haha, I won't be getting any fucking vaccine.
I'll leave that poison to the good little sheep that do as they're told.
I'll leave that poison to the good little sheep that do as they're told.
Or if when vaccinated, they gave you a serialized tattoo on your wrist.
But...But....But....we don't *HAVE* a fucking vaccine and to get one that is fully tested and vetted as being safe and effective will likely take years.
So when you have a cure we can argue about who has to take it.
VooDoo
So when you have a cure we can argue about who has to take it.
VooDoo
People in the US are already being injected with a trial vaccine. Makes you think how could that be.
Isn't this the same Alan Dershowitz that spent a lot of time on Jeffrey Epstein's plane/island and breathed a big sigh of relief when Epstein (didn't 
) hung himself ?
) hung himself ?
Id rather French kiss some hot chick that has a raging case of Covid 19, take the fever, kick its ass and carry on with immunity.
Making money for Bill Gates and Dr Falsey aint on my schedule.
Making money for Bill Gates and Dr Falsey aint on my schedule.
Anyone ever have a cold?
So why do we need a vaccination?
www.dailymail.co.uk
So why do we need a vaccination?
People who have had a COLD before may be protected against COVID-19
Scientists in California analysed 11 blood samples taken two years ago and found half of the samples contained disease-fighting T cells that recognised SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Well, as a matter of the law and how it currently stands, he's of course correct. He's a lawyer and knows the cases have been decided. Now, whether those cases were decided correctly or whether you agree with those decisions is a different matter.
Is it right to force an unwanted medical procedure on someone because of the net effect to society as a whole if individuals are allowed to refuse such treatment? What if the treatment has a 100% record of 0 side effects (not that that's a real thing)? What if 1% of those getting the treatment die outright, but the treatment prevents a highly transmissible disease that is 90% fatal? What if its something like polio? Can the state force you to get a vaccination against Hep C?
This is an interesting question and difficult to answer, what is the balance between a free society and the rights of it's citizens and the powers granted to government to insure the safety/security of that society? All government is force, when can that force be applied to an individual to the benefit of the whole?
We incarcerate those who commit murder. We take their freedom by force to the benefit of the rest of the people. Clearly most all people would agree this is a reasonable use of force by the state. So, we've established that the state can use force to punish someone for their effect on society. Can they use it to PREVENT damage to society. Conspiracy to commit murder will get you a prison sentence even if no actual harm was done. Is that reasonable?
Somewhere a line gets drawn where the state no longer has a right to interfere in the activities of the individual. Some of that is codified in the Bill of Rights (not that it's not constantly abused). Some we need to make up as we go along. Since vaccinations are a fairly recent creation, this is one we need to examine, as it's not actually covered in the BoR.
If Ebola became airborne and spread with a sneeze, they are going to strap you down and give you the cocktail, like it or not. Failing to get vaccinated would be tantamount to murder. Is COVID-19 tantamount to murder? Hardly. We don't make everyone get a flu shot, and while this is certainly more lethal that the average flu, I don't see how this could legitimately rise to the level of state force.
Of course I don't sit on the Supreme Court, so my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it.
Is it right to force an unwanted medical procedure on someone because of the net effect to society as a whole if individuals are allowed to refuse such treatment? What if the treatment has a 100% record of 0 side effects (not that that's a real thing)? What if 1% of those getting the treatment die outright, but the treatment prevents a highly transmissible disease that is 90% fatal? What if its something like polio? Can the state force you to get a vaccination against Hep C?
This is an interesting question and difficult to answer, what is the balance between a free society and the rights of it's citizens and the powers granted to government to insure the safety/security of that society? All government is force, when can that force be applied to an individual to the benefit of the whole?
We incarcerate those who commit murder. We take their freedom by force to the benefit of the rest of the people. Clearly most all people would agree this is a reasonable use of force by the state. So, we've established that the state can use force to punish someone for their effect on society. Can they use it to PREVENT damage to society. Conspiracy to commit murder will get you a prison sentence even if no actual harm was done. Is that reasonable?
Somewhere a line gets drawn where the state no longer has a right to interfere in the activities of the individual. Some of that is codified in the Bill of Rights (not that it's not constantly abused). Some we need to make up as we go along. Since vaccinations are a fairly recent creation, this is one we need to examine, as it's not actually covered in the BoR.
If Ebola became airborne and spread with a sneeze, they are going to strap you down and give you the cocktail, like it or not. Failing to get vaccinated would be tantamount to murder. Is COVID-19 tantamount to murder? Hardly. We don't make everyone get a flu shot, and while this is certainly more lethal that the average flu, I don't see how this could legitimately rise to the level of state force.
Of course I don't sit on the Supreme Court, so my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it.
The fearful can take the vaccine. In theory no longer will they be infected. Their “rights” as you say will bot be in jeopardy any longer. Problem solved. Its the same concept of the fearful sheep should have quit their job and bankrupted themselves while everyone else carries on with life. Keep licking boots.
I did. You mentioned it doesn’t rise to the level of state force. We agree. Where we disagree is that you think that something like this could reach that level. This is the bootlicker part considering I know your stance by some of your other posts.
PS. This virus is no worse than the flu. Even less so if you are under 55.
So in your opinion there is no level at which the state can use force? So conspiracy to commit murder is not, in your opinion, a crime that can be punished?
Good grief. This isnt the discussion. Why you people have to deflect and push for your agenda is beyond me.
It seems to be exactly the discussion. I have no agenda here. As stated, it's an interesting problem. It also seems you are unwilling to consider the possible answers.
Either you think we should have a government or not.
If you think we need some kind of government and not anarchy, then we need to decide what the limits of that government are.
As it stands, within the current system, the state could legally decide to enforce vaccination. In this case, I would disagree. In the imaginary Ebola case, I'd have to say they would not be wrong.
Either you think we should have a government or not.
If you think we need some kind of government and not anarchy, then we need to decide what the limits of that government are.
As it stands, within the current system, the state could legally decide to enforce vaccination. In this case, I would disagree. In the imaginary Ebola case, I'd have to say they would not be wrong.
Let's imagine you are a typhoid carrier and there was no treatment for typhoid at the time. Can you be locked up? Can the state usurp your liberty even though you yourself are not even sick? Or do they just let you spread the disease and kill an unknown number of people in the name of your liberty?
You realize that untreated typhoid kills about 15-20% of people infected, right? And you have no answer so far to any of the questions asked.
Cory - consider the following. Let's say the government mandates that everyone must take a vaccine to protect themselves from infection.
Those individuals that willingly take the vaccination will be protected from the disease, and consequently cannot infect anyone not vaccinated. I would think they would also knowingly accept the risk of possible side effects and/or other unknowns that come with the vaccine.
Those individuals that reject/avoid taking the mandatory vaccine will do so fully knowing they could become infected and possibly die. They would also know they could possibly infect others, having similar beliefs as their own, that rejected/avoided the mandatory vaccination and they could die.
I would seem everyone would know the risks in either scenario. It can't be murder in you accept the risk of not being vaccinated.
Last edited:
Dersh doesn't really practice much these days and makes money via speaking engagements and teaching a class or two a year. He needs the occasional splash like this to stay relevant, doesn't really matter if it's right or is even what he believes--imo he'd be likely to take the opposite side if this came about and he actually did get involved in the litigation. It'd be tricky legally and I'm not sure which way courts would go. Likely the circuits would split and it'd eventually make it to SCOTUS, but that takes a long time and the outcome would be highly dependent on minutia and details not yet known. My guess is that the govt couldn't get by with flat out forcing everyone to get it, but they could probably get by with making life really inconvenient for those who don't.
Why is there a class of "citizen" that does not have to meet the demands placed on the rest of the "Citizens" if this is your argument?
thank you for a well thought out, rational, and reasoned explanation That tries to balance a lot of competing values.
for god sake‘s let’s try to solve this problem with Memes and bumper stickers.
it is a well thought out and explained argument, but it is not the reality of how vaccines work. Vaccines don’t give 100% immunity to those who receive it. For various reasons it they are not effective in some people, and some people for health reasons cannot receive them. That is why we vaccinate everyone with the idea that if it doesn’t become effective in everyone that those people will be protected by herd immunity. You get people dropping out of vaccinations and you start to lose that heard immunity and you put people at risk.
in this case I don’t know what the answer is. We don’t know how effective the vaccine would be, we have a pretty good idea on how lethal this is, but we really don’t know for sure. We don’t know what the obvious side effects will be vaccine. If you have something like airborne AIDS it gets a little bit clearer on the morality of insisting on universal vaccination. But life for better or worse is never as clear-cut as that.
would I get the vaccine? Probably. I get the flu shot every year.
Cory isn't arguing really....the fact that it is legal/Constitutional for the Government to force you to be immunized has *long* ago been settled in court. When I was a kid if you didn't have your immunization schedule completed for measles, polio, tuberculosis, etc, you didn't get into school.
I'm not a fan of bigger/more oppressive Government than anyone else and I certainly don't care for Dersh the Dick anymore than I care about Mitch the Bitch, Pelosi, Shumer, Trump, blah, blah, blah. Maybe it'll go to the Supreme Court and the Conservative Justices can change the rule but as of right fucking now it is completely legal for the Government to make you get immunized.
Do I like that? No, but Dershowitz is not lying or making it up.
VooDoo
I'm not a fan of bigger/more oppressive Government than anyone else and I certainly don't care for Dersh the Dick anymore than I care about Mitch the Bitch, Pelosi, Shumer, Trump, blah, blah, blah. Maybe it'll go to the Supreme Court and the Conservative Justices can change the rule but as of right fucking now it is completely legal for the Government to make you get immunized.
Do I like that? No, but Dershowitz is not lying or making it up.
VooDoo
So again why do we allow the importation of people that subtract from that herd immunity and making that argument is considered a non starter.
Confusing two issues here but when an argument is so strongly stated to be "settled science" only a "denier" could not see it these shades of hypocrisy really confuse me.
I've been around a long time. I try to keep a low profile and contribute to the Hide where I can.
My post addressed risk assessments made by individuals as to whether, or not, to be vaccinated. Efficacy of a vaccine is a different subject, which I didn't address.
Yes, legal precedent does support mandatory vaccinations. However, times have drastically changed the past 30 years. There has been significant push back on mandatory vaccinations for years now and it's still not settled. Now add the total lack of trust in all forms government and the exposure of how deeply corrupt it has become. I believe a federally imposed mandatory vaccination could be the spark that starts multiple fires nationally. I would argue that the aforementioned is the real and current reality we face today.
Lastly, about your point on herd immunity. Good luck selling mandatory vaccinations, to the entire population, based on the principle that "you" must be vaccinated, because mine may not provide me total immunity.
Last edited:
Anyone attending a school will be forced to get the vaccine. You'll need your shot records to attend. Anyone joining or in the Military when a vaccine is approved will be getting it. Depending on where you work you will be getting it. So it looks like a lot of people will be getting it. Of course if you're retired you have a choice in the matter, but you're in the high risk category. Me personally if I don't have to get it for work I probably wont get it. I wait to see how well it works first, then think about getting it.
A vaccine for the virus responsible for most "common colds".
It took TDS to cure the common cold.
Oh, and put me in the 'fuck your vaccine' camp.
Ill take my chances with something now shown to have a <1% chance of killing you over some bullshit that we have no idea about the long term effects of. Sounds like typical government where the fucking fix is worse than the problem. And we all know when its found out the vaccine causes cancer, dementia and all sorts of shit down the road, .gov will take full responsibility and take care of you, right? RIGHT??
Are we done overreacting to this shit yet? Are we all going to panic and shut down next year when people start getting the flu again?
Ill take my chances with something now shown to have a <1% chance of killing you over some bullshit that we have no idea about the long term effects of. Sounds like typical government where the fucking fix is worse than the problem. And we all know when its found out the vaccine causes cancer, dementia and all sorts of shit down the road, .gov will take full responsibility and take care of you, right? RIGHT??
Are we done overreacting to this shit yet? Are we all going to panic and shut down next year when people start getting the flu again?
Nah, they are not done. There is too much pushback, even if minimal,. They will increase the BS.
As far as round one of CV-19, it looks like we are starting down the backside of this thing and opening back up. However, there's an election coming up and all the screwballs will be out with gas cans and roadflares come about early to mid August. And, since round one has worked so well, we're going to see CV-20, 21, 22.....etc., etc., etc.
I don't know, I don't see a lot of the panic crowd this time giving a shit next time short of total armageddon.
People have now lived through this and have seen how obscene it is let alone the effects it's had. Those that are still riding the 'Im poor and make more money on unemployment' train will come to that conculsion as soon as their free shit runs out, they saved absolutely $0 of it and there are no openings at Ruby Tuesday.
I think the thing we're actually getting immunity towards is giving a shit if this happens again.
eta - Think about it. What do you think most peoples' initial reaction would be if the MSM all of a sudden announced there was a new 'pandemic'? I honestly think most would say 'what the fuck ever' and resist any kind of shutdown.
Last edited:
I'm with you on that. But........I've seen so much unbridled stupidity running around loose since this whole shitshow started. I live in the greater Seattle area. King County just yesterday made it mandatory to wear masks in public. Uhhh......a little late to the party aren't you, hitler ?
I think the fires are going to be re-stoked mid to late summer and joe citizen is going to buy back into it again. However, I think it will be at a lower level of acceptance/agreement, which supports your argument. I do agree with you that this bullshit can only be slung so many times before everyone just tunes it out.
Similar threads
