Will You Take The Vaccine?

Are you going to take the corona virus vaccine?

  • No.

  • Yes.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I know you think this is clever but it’s really just fucking stupid.
I'm interested more in your defense of why democracy works, given that I showed an example of where it can victimize. (Gang rape)

Democracies can and do reduce individual rights to the point of immense victimization and the gang rape example is just one.

I know you're not fucking stupid, but I doubt your rebuttal will address my assertion. Have a good day ma'am.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Are you in favor of mandatory dietary restrictions for overweight people, lard ass?
The number of people who die from obesity related causes is staggering.

"If we can save just one life"
I'm not looking to make the world or the people in it perfect, just protect them from people like you who are too stupid to protect themselves and others. You being fat never killed anybody else, but you can kill others if you catch covid because yer a fucking idiot who believes bullshit.
 

CunningCanuk

Well-Known Member
I'm interested more in your defense of why democracy works, given that I showed an example of where it can victimize. (Gang rape)

Democracies can and do reduce individual rights to the point of immense victimization and the gang rape example is just one.

I know you're not fucking stupid, but I doubt your rebuttal will address my assertion. Have a good day ma'am.
Studies have shown that 100% of stupid people say stupid things.

Have a good day yourself, jackass.
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
I'm interested more in your defense of why democracy works, given that I showed an example of where it can victimize. (Gang rape)

Democracies can and do reduce individual rights to the point of immense victimization and the gang rape example is just one.

I know you're not fucking stupid, but I doubt your rebuttal will address my assertion. Have a good day ma'am.
What's funny is that "sarahJane211" liked your post...the post where you attempted to use the female gender as an insult.

And show us where any system, or lack of system, has ever "worked".
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
if any of you had been raped as brutally and often as Robert, you guys wouldn't stop making endless shitty rape analogies either
 

sarahJane211

Well-Known Member
What's funny is that "sarahJane211" liked your post...the post where you attempted to use the female gender as an insult.

And show us where any system, or lack of system, has ever "worked".
Democracy only works where the voters contribute to the system.
If you don't own land or don't earn money, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Welfare recipients just vote for people who will give them more free stuff.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Democracy only works where the voters contribute to the system.
If you don't own land or don't earn money, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Welfare recipients just vote for people who will give them more free stuff.
In 30 years perhaps very few will be working, so then only a small elite would be able to vote. I mean what's gonna happen to all those unemployed good old boys, those uneducated white males? Maybe disenfranchising them would be for the best, since they seem to fuck themselves and their country by voting for republicans. Jesus Christ, only a fucking moron and a traitor would vote for Trump!

Democracy works best when people don't have their heads filled with racist bullshit that causes them to fuck themselves and their country. When they aren't controlled by hate and fear, while being lead around by a psychopathic moron blowing a dog whistle like the pied piper. Republicans are racist traitors to the country and constitution, every one is a moral failure and a fucking idiot. Yep, republicans should definitely be disenfranchised.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Democracy only works where the voters contribute to the system.
If you don't own land or don't earn money, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Welfare recipients just vote for people who will give them more free stuff.
And how would you enforce that one? What would the time range be for someone to prove that they were landowners/employed before they could vote, would it be revoked from someone if their company went out of business. Or how about old people who retired to a community?

Ridiculous. It is sad that you believe this kind of nonsense (assuming you are not just back to troll for a bit on this sock puppet).
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Democracy only works where the voters contribute to the system.
If you don't own land or don't earn money, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Welfare recipients just vote for people who will give them more free stuff.
people who move to asia to buy little boys to rape (you) shouldnt be allowed to vote either.
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
Democracy only works where the voters contribute to the system.
If you don't own land or don't earn money, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Welfare recipients just vote for people who will give them more free stuff.
Gotta disagree. Democracy only works with decent people and accumulation of wealth ≠ decency.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
I get my second Pfizer in August 105 days after the first jab, but there's talk it might be sooner here in NS. We are doing this out of necessity because of supply issues, but it seems to be working out quite well. The first jab can give up to 90% protection and that's OK by me!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delay in giving second jabs of Pfizer vaccine improves immunity | Immunology | The Guardian

Delay in giving second jabs of Pfizer vaccine improves immunity
Study finds antibodies against Sars-CoV-2 three-and-a-half times higher in people vaccinated again after 12 weeks rather than three

The UK’s decision to delay second doses of coronavirus vaccines has received fresh support from research on the over-80s which found that giving the Pfizer/BioNTech booster after 12 weeks rather than three produced a much stronger antibody response.

A study led by the University of Birmingham in collaboration with Public Health England found that antibodies against the virus were three-and-a-half times higher in those who had the second shot after 12 weeks compared with those who had it after a three-week interval.

Most people who have both shots of the vaccine will be well protected regardless of the timing, but the stronger response from the extra delay might prolong protection because antibody levels naturally wane over time.

Dr Helen Parry, a senior author on the study at Birmingham, said: “We’ve shown that peak antibody responses after the second Pfizer vaccination are really strongly boosted in older people when this is delayed to 11 to 12 weeks. There is a marked difference between these two schedules in terms of antibody responses we see.”

In the first weeks of the vaccine programme the UK took the bold decision to delay administering booster shots so that more elderly and vulnerable people could more quickly receive their first shots.

The move was controversial because medicines regulators approved both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines on the basis of clinical trials that spaced out the doses by only three or four weeks.

Researchers from Oxford University showed in February that antibody responses were more than twice as strong when boosters of their vaccine were delayed for 12 weeks. But the latest study is the first to compare immune responses after different timings with the Pfizer/BioNTech jab.

The scientists analysed blood samples from 175 over-80s after their first vaccine and again two to three weeks after the booster. Among the participants 99 had the second shot after three weeks, while 73 waited 12 weeks. After the second dose, all had antibodies against the virus’s spike protein, but the level was 3.5 times higher in the 12-week group.

The researchers then looked at another arm of the immune system, the T cells that destroy infected cells. They found that T cell responses were weaker when the booster was delayed, but settled down to similar levels when people were tested more than three months after the first shot. Details are published in pre-print form and have yet to be peer reviewed.

“This study further supports the growing body of evidence that the approach taken in the UK of delaying that second dose has really paid off,” said Dr Gayatri Amirthalingam, consultant epidemiologist at Public Health England.

“Individuals need to really complete their second dose when it’s offered to them because it not only provides additional protection but potentially longer lasting protection against Covid-19.”

The findings come as new data from Public Health England suggested that the vaccination programme had prevented 11,700 deaths by the end of April 2021 in those aged 60 and over, and at least 33,000 hospitalisations in those aged 65 and over in the same period.

“Overall, these data add considerable support to the policy of delaying the second dose of Covid-19 vaccine when vaccine availability is limited and the at-risk population is large,” said Eleanor Riley, professor of immunology and infectious disease at the University of Edinburgh.

“Longer term follow-up of this cohort will help us to understand which vaccine interval will be optimal in the future, once the immediate crisis is over.”
 

sarahJane211

Well-Known Member
Gotta disagree. Democracy only works with decent people and accumulation of wealth ≠ decency.
Where did I suggest only the wealthy should be allowed to vote?
Would also like to point out there are few 'decent people' in the world, I'm certainly not a decent person.
(Always interesting to discuss who's 'decent' on a drug growing/taking forum)

I would agree with you if you had stated only 'decent people' could stand for office.
Sadly, I don't vote as there are never any suitable candidates (decent people) standing.
 
Last edited:

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Where did I suggest only the wealthy should be allowed to vote?
Would also like to point out there are few 'decent people' in the world, I'm certainly not a decent person.
(Always interesting to discuss who's 'decent' on a drug growing/taking forum)

I would agree with you if you had stated only 'decent people' could stand for office.
Sadly, I don't vote as there are never any suitable candidates (decent people) standing.
Not voting is probably a good choice for you. Keep up the good work.
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
Where did I suggest only the wealthy should be allowed to vote?
Would also like to point out there are few 'decent people' in the world, I'm certainly not a decent person.
(Always interesting to discuss who's 'decent' on a drug growing/taking forum)

I would agree with you if you had stated only 'decent people' could stand for office.
Sadly, I don't vote as there are never any suitable candidates (decent people) standing.
To continue the digression from vaccination...

You said that only people who own land or earn money should be allowed to vote, so you're tying a person's rights to their wealth, but if a person wanted to connect rights to something other than citizenship, that's probably the worst connection one could possibly make. If we just look around us, it's easy to see that money is our god and money is the reference to truth. If you were to make the change that wealth(i.e. land/income) = rights, then you'd only be reinforcing one of the worst aspect about ourselves today.

Growing and using cannabis is in no way a window into anyone's soul and has no bearing on a person's decency.

There should be some requirements to be in congress. All these regular assholes off the street are literally practicing law without any education in law whatsoever. You or I couldn't go whimsically practice law tomorrow if we wanted to, but apparently if enough people say you can, then a new skillset magically appears inside your brain. I wish all jobs were like that. I'd vote for Trump to be a pilot in an instant.
 

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
There should be some requirements to be in congress. All these regular assholes off the street are literally practicing law without any education in law whatsoever.
Which is exactly what the framers wanted.

They wanted a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

They did not want a government of the upper echelon, highly educated, manipulative legal expert, by the upper echelon, highly educated, manipulative legal expert, for the upper echelon, highly educated, manipulative legal expert.

Just take a look at Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Michael Cohen, Lin Wood.

THAT is who you want to be the only ones serving in congress? Seriously?
 
Top