Germany announces lockdown for the unvaccinated

[ARTPOP 3,096]

1 hour ago, ceminay said:

I can’t support this. I wish everyone got vaccinated, but this is just against human rights. You could come up with a lot of arguments showing its benefits, but it’s still wrong and unconstitutional in many countries.

This could be the beginning of a slippery slope. Who can guarantee a government in the near future could show this as precedent, and decide to segregate and disregard human rights of a minority for the “greater good of public”?

I know people are sick of anti-vaxxers, but having no discussion about the future implications of this dangerous.

Anti-vaxxers have a choice to protect not only themselves but also the public from a deadly virus. If they WILLINGLY make a CHOICE, while acknowledging that may risk the public's health then they should face the consequences. It is like someone walks down the street holding a machete and argues that they shouldn´t be arrested and banned from the public since it is their choice. Please.....

How is this segregation Maám  ? Being an Anitvaxxer is a race / religious group? Somethings white people do not know. 

No offence but why are Americans so obsessed with constitution and ´freedom´while ignoring effective direct actions. Why does a constitution written ages ago is held as untouchable while it obviously has almost nothing to do with today´s reality 

[HuffsAhoy 7,433]

1 hour ago, ceminay said:

I can’t support this. I wish everyone got vaccinated, but this is just against human rights. You could come up with a lot of arguments showing its benefits, but it’s still wrong and unconstitutional in many countries.

This could be the beginning of a slippery slope. Who can guarantee a government in the near future could show this as precedent, and decide to segregate and disregard human rights of a minority for the “greater good of public”?

I know people are sick of anti-vaxxers, but having no discussion about the future implications of this dangerous.

This is not a human rights violation

 

9 minutes ago, ARTPOP said:

No offence but why are Americans so obsessed with constitution and ´freedom´while ignoring effective direct actions. Why does a constitution written ages ago is held as untouchable while it obviously has almost nothing to do with today´s reality

I understand this point of view. However, generally speaking, the US Constitution is "obsessed" over because it guarantees quite a few  landmark rights to its citizens. If we didn't "obsess" the document, we wouldn't have things such as Brown vs Board of Education, The 1964 Civil Rights Act, Roe vs Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, among countless other articles and amendments that not only protect citizens but also keep government powers in check. Could you imagine how even more determinantal the Trump administration would have been had that series of checks and balances not been in play? Yes, the Constitution is not a flawless document but without it the very nature of our country would be rocked. And, for the record, it's not untouchable; it's been revised 27 times.  

[ceminay 1,122]

30 minutes ago, SwissMonster said:

This is not against human rights. This is not only wrong, it’s dangerous to say that.

Freedom is not limited to yourself. If you are a threat to society, there must be consequences, period. Unvaxxed people are a threat, nothing else. They willingly choose to take the risk to kill people (which in theory is even illegal if you wanna be very picky) and taking important spots in hospitals. A government has to follow the “human right” to protect their citizens, and if thats the price for it, then so be it.

You can live in your own freedom BUT only until it takes away the freedom and safety from others.

This is NOT against human rights

It's not dangerous to say this because we have never ever had a time in history where people were allowed or refused entry to public spaces just because of their immunization record. Yes, it's a thing in schools, or jobs, but not shops, restaurants or even public transportation like in Canada.

I'm not saying everyone shouldn't get vaccinated, they should. Please read my post again, my point is obvious, this has never been done before, and allowing this to happen without debating the future consequences is dangerous. How do we know whether this could be used as a precedent in the future for something else that is bad intentioned? I brought up a very valid concern and the knee jerk reactions I'm getting just show that there isn't enough healthy debate on this.

17 minutes ago, ARTPOP said:

Anti-vaxxers have a choice to protect not only themselves but also the public from a deadly virus. If they WILLINGLY make a CHOICE, while acknowledging that may risk the public's health then they should face the consequences. It is like someone walks down the street holding a machete and argues that they shouldn´t be arrested and banned from the public since it is their choice. Please.....

How is this segregation Maám  ? Being an Anitvaxxer is a race / religious group? Somethings white people do not know. 

No offence but why are Americans so obsessed with constitution and ´freedom´while ignoring effective direct actions. Why does a constitution written ages ago is held as untouchable while it obviously has almost nothing to do with today´s reality 

Please read my post again and see that I bring up a very valid point about precedent. What does white people/ being American have to do with this? I'm Turkish, and I only know Turkey's constitution good enough.

Every day in my country, people are thrown into jail due to "being a threat to national stability". Those who are not Erdogan supporters cannot find jobs in the public sector, if you don't show your allegiance to Erdogan, you're a "traitor" and a "threat to public well-being", so you are limited to employment opportunities, this gets worse by day. Turkey almost joined the EU 20 years ago, now it's like this, no country is immune to such stuff.

It's pretty reasonable for me to warn that setting a precedent for this could cause worse things to happen. Populism is already so widespread around the world, do you really think a fascist government who thinks you're a threat to society won't use this as an excuse? All I advocate is for reason and a good discussion on the future complications. Attacking people for being "white" or "American", and belittling freedom while so many in my home country want their free Turkey back helps nobody.

2 minutes ago, HuffsAhoy said:

This is not a human rights violation

There has been no precedent for this. No pandemic before needed this, nor did we have vaccines before, so there is nothing written about it explicitly. A healthy discussion is needed to make sure that such things don't spiral out of control in the future.

[Queen Bitch 10,513]

30 minutes ago, ARTPOP said:

No offence but why are Americans so obsessed with constitution and ´freedom´

Maybe because freedom is important. It is one of the most important things humans have.

[ARTPOP 3,096]

2 minutes ago, Queen Bitch said:

Maybe because freedom is important. It is one of the most important things humans have.

Personal freedom yes. Freedom to be a danger to society is no more personal freedom. Freedom to endanger others 'safety and lives, is no more a personal freedom. 

[SwissMonster 30,688]

11 minutes ago, ceminay said:

It's not dangerous to say this because we have never ever had a time in history where people were allowed or refused entry to public spaces just because of their immunization record. Yes, it's a thing in schools, or jobs, but not shops, restaurants or even public transportation like in Canada.

I'm not saying everyone shouldn't get vaccinated, they should. Please read my post again, my point is obvious, this has never been done before, and allowing this to happen without debating the future consequences is dangerous. How do we know whether this could be used as a precedent in the future for something else that is bad intentioned? I brought up a very valid concern and the knee jerk reactions I'm getting just show that there isn't enough healthy debate on this.

 

Shops and restaurants are pleasure and not needed for survival. Tell me one thing to survive that was taken away. I know you are not saying that not everyone should get vaccinated but you did say it is human rights violation, which means you are putting Merkel at the same level as Hitler.

Unvaxxed people aren’t killed or tortured, they are being restricted to keep the freedom and safety for the general society. As I said, your own freedom ends when it takes away the freedom and safety from others

[ceminay 1,122]

1 minute ago, SwissMonster said:

Shops and restaurants are pleasure and not needed for survival. Tell me one thing to survive that was taken away. I know you are not saying that not everyone should get vaccinated but you did say it is human rights violation, which means you are putting Merkel at the same level as Hitler.

Unvaxxed people aren’t killed or tortured, they are being restricted to keep the freedom and safety for the general society. As I said, your own freedom ends when it takes away the freedom and safety from others

You don't seem to understand my point about future consequences. A fascist government could come to power one day, show this as a precedent, and limit you from entering shops and restaurants, it won't be a big deal because this is not needed for your survival. My issue is not with this decision's motives, it's with how this could be used in the future by bad intentioned governments. We can agree to disagree though, I just stated my concern.

I also never talked about Hitler, what made you think this has anything to do with Hitler?

[ARTPOP 3,096]

18 minutes ago, ceminay said:

t's not dangerous to say this because we have never ever had a time in history where people were allowed or refused entry to public spaces just because of their immunization record

Most countries do not allow kids access to public education without some important vaccines, this is not abnormal. Many extremist political parties (mainly right wing) are latching on it and politicizing it. They are feeding on that opinion of yours. 

 

[Queen Bitch 10,513]

14 minutes ago, ARTPOP said:

Personal freedom yes. Freedom to be a danger to society is no more personal freedom. Freedom to endanger others 'safety and lives, is no more a personal freedom. 

Okay. So we agree.

[ARTPOP 3,096]

1 minute ago, ceminay said:

A fascist government could come to power one day, show this as a precedent, and limit you from entering shops and restaurants, it won't be a big deal because this is not needed for your survival. My issue is not with this decision's motives, it's with how this could be used in the future by bad intentioned governments. We can agree to disagree though, I just stated my concern.

How is a government making a decision based on SCIENCE and for the better of the globe is compared to a fascist regime ?? Fascist governments will make up reasons and twist facts  to do what they want to do. Science based restrictions are 100% objective 

[ARTPOP 3,096]

1 minute ago, Queen Bitch said:

Okay. So we agree.

How do we agree? Not getting vaccinated with no good reason, is not personal freedom

[SwissMonster 30,688]

8 minutes ago, ceminay said:

You don't seem to understand my point about future consequences. A fascist government could come to power one day, show this as a precedent, and limit you from entering shops and restaurants, it won't be a big deal because this is not needed for your survival. My issue is not with this decision's motives, it's with how this could be used in the future by bad intentioned governments. We can agree to disagree though, I just stated my concern.

I also never talked about Hitler, what made you think this has anything to do with Hitler?

Because Hitler did violate Human Rights. So you are putting them in the same group of people.

I do get what you mean and its wrong. You make it seem like this is easy for the government to make. This will be checked by SEVERAL Justice Instances. Just some days ago the Lockdown at the beginning this year was being judged by a jury on Human Rights.

A future government (until it is a dictatur, which would be a totaly different situation) can’t just put these restrictions up. There are so many scientists, official and neutral instances involved you have no Idea how difficult this is.

[Queen Bitch 10,513]

4 minutes ago, ARTPOP said:

How do we agree? Not getting vaccinated with no good reason, is not personal freedom

I completely agree with the answer you gave. That's how. 

[Supersonic 49,376]

4 hours ago, Noah said:

The Idea is good, but how often have the 2G Rules failed for Clubs, Restaurants etc. There need to be better controls (outside of the business owners) so they check the vaccination passes more. 

I agree. My workplace is quite meticulous (we have been letting in people into our museum by the 2G+ principle for a week now) and the guests are constantly irritated because... we actually check all the things we're legally obliged to check. It paints a clear picture of the majority of shops owners/museums/cinemas/etc. not giving a flying f*ck about restrictions whatsoever and that angers me. Cuz we gotta play the bad guys and get the brunt of all the vitriol for restrictions that we're not really personally responsible for. 

[trutheverafter 153]

2 hours ago, ceminay said:

I can’t support this. I wish everyone got vaccinated, but this is just against human rights. You could come up with a lot of arguments showing its benefits, but it’s still wrong and unconstitutional in many countries.

This could be the beginning of a slippery slope. Who can guarantee a government in the near future could show this as precedent, and decide to segregate and disregard human rights of a minority for the “greater good of public”?

I know people are sick of anti-vaxxers, but having no discussion about the future implications of this dangerous.

Thank you for this. I got vaccinated but I think everyone is up to their own. No one should be forced to do so.