Papers, Please! Oregon Now Requires ‘Proof of Vaccination’

submitted by NewsJunkie from thewashingtongazette.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Lmao "They should certainly have a choice between masking, vaccination or isolation."

You don't get to force us to make this choice. Fuck you.

[–]RightousBob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No only do these medical fascists not have the legal right to force ANYONE to take their experimental gene therapy, but they also don't have the intelligence or ability to implement it. Last ditch attempt by a dying paradigm to maintain control that they unknowingly lost decades ago.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

[...] force ANYONE to take their experimental gene therapy [...]

Wow!

I'm hope I'm wrong in presuming that this isn't satire.

I shudder to go in, but I'm guessing that it's vaccinations, not isolation or masks that you think is "experimental gene therapy"... ?

Edit: Oh, it's the dibble guy again who doesn't know or accept that 0 and 13 are different numbers of deaths. This line of questioning isn't going to be enlightening. I withdraw the question.

If you think a vaccine is going to alter your genes, you should definitely take the chance. It's not going to make it worse is it.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Do you think people should be able to kill you, as well as thinking that you should be able to kill other people?

Or is this a one-way right that you have, but other's don't?

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

[deleted]

    [–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Fucking prove that I've killed someone because I haven't worn a mask or gotten vaxxed.

    That could be done in some cases.

    Should killing someone only be illegal if there's proof? What if you were behaving recklessly, and infected 300 people directly or indirectly and 17 of them died. Maybe a few of them might have died anyway. And you can't tell which 12 or so you killed.

    Should that be legal?

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    No, you dipshit, fucking prove that I have killed someone. Do that, then you can try and have this discussion with me.

    Until you do that, you have nothing but theoretical questions and scenarios. Innocent until proven guilty. THAT is what is RIGHT.

    [–]curious2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    That’s a good point. If someone believes we are innocent until proven guilty, then the “sick until proven healthy” approach (which requiring masks implies) would seem to contradict that.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    It's the truth, man. I don't understand how people can just assume that I'm sick, or that I'm a danger, when they have no proof at all that I'm sick or a danger.

    Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean shit in the Empire, doesn't mean shit to the GovCorp. However, the GovCorp doesn't decide what is right. innocent until proven guilty is what is right.