Allowing the VACCINATED

Argument by repetition fallacy. Trump is a conservative, not a socialist.


So you're saying conservatives screw Porn Stars, have Playboy Centerfold Bunnies as a mistress while their present wife (in Trump's case his 3rd wife) is pregnant? Conservatives don't go to church? Conservatives have 3 baby Momma's and a kid our of wedlock too? Do all conservatives marry sluts like Melania the Porn Model? If you say yes than you don't know what the word conservative means. Do all conservatives talk like this?

58c2fd1a1d000037037cdc10.png
 
So you're saying conservatives screw Porn Stars, have Playboy Centerfold Bunnies as a mistress while their present wife (in Trump's case his 3rd wife) is pregnant? Conservatives don't go to church? Conservatives have 3 baby Momma's and a kid our of wedlock too? Do all conservatives marry sluts like Melania the Porn Model? If you say yes than you don't know what the word conservative means. Do all conservatives talk like this?

58c2fd1a1d000037037cdc10.png

Pivot fallacy. TDS.

Why are you trying to equate 'conservative' with 'saint'??
 
It makes perfect sense that you don't allow fools who don't get vaccinated to go to school with those who do, WITHOUT WEARING A MASK.:)

View attachment 20353

I suspect we will see more of this sort of thing and it's about time.

Here's the way I see it:
It is widely medically accepted that cigarette smoking is not a healthy activity, but no one (of legal age) is forced not to smoke. One the other hand, because it is proven (you can chose to believe or not) that second hand smoke can also have harmful health effects on those who don't smoke themselves, but would be exposed to second hand smoke. As a result we have numerous rules about where, when, how, etc people that CHOOSE to smoke can conduct themselves in public. I can see no difference in the current conversation about getting or not getting the vaccine. The risk for the population in general would seemingly dictate rules governing behavior in public for those on both sides of this debate.
 
Prove it's fake news....I'll wait.

Attempted force of negative proof. That's a fallacy, dude. It doesn't work that way. YOU have to provide convincing evidence that it is not fake news. Burden of proof fallacy. Holy Links to copies of the same AP story won't work.

You should really learn to think for yourself, instead of cutting and pasting mindlessly.
 
Here's the way I see it:
It is widely medically accepted that cigarette smoking is not a healthy activity, but no one (of legal age) is forced not to smoke. One the other hand, because it is proven (you can chose to believe or not) that second hand smoke can also have harmful health effects on those who don't smoke themselves, but would be exposed to second hand smoke. As a result we have numerous rules about where, when, how, etc people that CHOOSE to smoke can conduct themselves in public. I can see no difference in the current conversation about getting or not getting the vaccine. The risk for the population in general would seemingly dictate rules governing behavior in public for those on both sides of this debate.

The rules are already there.

You cannot use a medical procedure (including vaccinations) as condition of employment. You cannot use one as a condition of attending school.

There is a false equivalence here.
Smoking requires the purchase of a product (although a legal one) and it's use. While it's use does NOT cause cancer (that theory has already been falsified), it CAN cause lung damage. Second hand smoke can do the same thing, though the risk is not as high as it is for the smoker.

Smoking also damages electronic equipment, and smokers do have a problem of carelessly discarding burning material into dry grass alongside roadways.

Smoking has no apparent useful effects on the human body. Vaccines may or may not have a useful effect. BOTH can present risks to health.
 
Back
Top