Official live update of spread of COVID19

[The Architect Of Fate]

Stone him!

Did someone say stoned 



The pot brownies are ready

[TaraJo]

Alt right cartoonist Ben Garrison seems to have Covid. Of course he denies Covid is real or that masks or vaccines work. And, of course he’s promoting ivermectin because why wouldn’t he promote a treatment for a disease that isn’t real.


Covid has sense of irony for targeting the disbelievers. Guess it’s Bens turn

[arewethereyet]

Alt right cartoonist Ben Garrison seems to have Covid.  Of course he denies Covid is real or that masks or vaccines work.  And, of course he’s promoting ivermectin because why wouldn’t he promote a treatment for a disease that isn’t real.  


Covid has sense of irony for targeting the disbelievers.  Guess it’s Bens turn

I just read where he says hospitals get extra money for COVID deaths.

You can't fix stupid...not even with Ivermectin.

[TaraJo]

I just read where he says hospitals get extra money for COVID deaths.

That’s also why he says he won’t go to a hospital. Which just means he’ll choke to death without personally contributing to overwhelming hospitals

[brewer]

Some thoughts on evangelicals and vaccine hesitancy

https://www.jwcampbell.org/blog-3/blog-p...-one-rmhdt

Should a religious practice or sincere belief (vaccine exemption) be allowed in our society when it poses a threat or potential harm to others? I think the courts might need to take another bite out of that apple.

[Brian37]

Some thoughts on evangelicals and vaccine hesitancy

https://www.jwcampbell.org/blog-3/blog-p...-one-rmhdt

Should a religious practice or sincere belief (vaccine exemption) be allowed in our society when it poses a threat or potential harm to others? I think the courts might need to take another bite out of that apple.

In general, outside this pandemic, and outside the orange turd's bullshit, NO! One can get a traffic ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, and car companies cannot sell cars without, not only seatbelts but air bags.

[brewer]

Should a religious practice or sincere belief (vaccine exemption) be allowed in our society when it poses a threat or potential harm to others? I think the courts might need to take another bite out of that apple.

In general, outside this pandemic, and outside the orange turd's bullshit, NO! One can get a traffic ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, and car companies cannot sell cars without, not only seatbelts but air bags.

Stop being a fuckwit.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

In general, outside this pandemic, and outside the orange turd's bullshit, NO! One can get a traffic ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, and car companies cannot sell cars without, not only seatbelts but air bags.

Stop being a fuckwit.

Yeah, I think that ship has sailed.

Boru

[Soberman921]

Some thoughts on evangelicals and vaccine hesitancy

https://www.jwcampbell.org/blog-3/blog-p...-one-rmhdt

Should a religious practice or sincere belief (vaccine exemption) be allowed in our society when it poses a threat or potential harm to others? I think the courts might need to take another bite out of that apple.

These are two different questions. A belief should be allowed, but in my view a religious practice should be only be allowed to the extent it does not violate generally applicable laws or create a significant risk of harm to others. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is headed in a different direction, granting certain religious practices protections that allow them to create and perpetuate such risks.

---

I would like to see claims of religious exemption more rigorously subjected to tests of legitimacy. When you have California pastors handing out religious exemptions like candy it is hard to argue that these are truly based on heartfelt beliefs. I strongly suspect few could justify their exemptions with any argument that could not easily be shown inconsistent with other religious beliefs that person claims to hold, revealing the arbitrary non-religious, often more political than religious, bases of these positions.

[brewer]

Should a religious practice or sincere belief (vaccine exemption) be allowed in our society when it poses a threat or potential harm to others? I think the courts might need to take another bite out of that apple.

These are two different questions. A belief should be allowed, but in my view a religious practice should be only be allowed to the extent it does not violate generally applicable laws or create a significant risk of harm to others. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is headed in a different direction, granting certain religious practices protections that allow them to create and perpetuate such risks.

---

I would like to see claims of religious exemption more rigorously subjected to tests of legitimacy. When you have California pastors handing out religious exemptions like candy it is hard to argue that these are truly based on heartfelt beliefs. I strongly suspect few could justify their exemptions with any argument that could not easily be shown inconsistent with other religious beliefs that person claims to hold, revealing the arbitrary non-religious, often more political than religious, bases of these positions.

And there's the rub, what will be a test for legitimacy for belief? From what I can tell they don't have to consistent with any other belief, it just has to be "their" belief.

My opinion, eliminate religious exemptions. If the belief significantly interferes with or endangers the rest of society then they can be excluded from sections of society. If they need to put their belief ahead of the risk to others then the religious should have no problem opting out.