Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

1330331333335336419

Comments

  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Super. If it's a fact I guess it is simple for you to demonstrate how the legally different definitions of mandatory and compulsory mean that mandatory vaccination is not coercion.

    What is the difference between a compulsory vaccination and a mandatory vaccination?



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 181 ✭✭kernkraft500


    compulsory would mean you haven't a choice in getting it, regardless of the situation

    mandatory means you have a choice to take it or not, but that doesn't mean there may be ramifications for that choice



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 181 ✭✭kernkraft500


    I'm just waiting for the confidence interval arguments to start again... they were fun.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    You might be surprised to find that the Miriam Webster legal dictionary does not support your claim of fact. Indeed it lists mandatory as a synonym of compulsory:

    Legal Definition of compulsory

    1

    required or compelled by law MANDATORYOBLIGATORY

    compulsory arbitration

    compulsory insurance

    specifically required to be brought or asserted in a pleading because of having arisen from the transaction or occurrence that is the subject of litigation

    But lets assume you're right and this legal dictionary in wrong.

    What would the differences in consequences for an individual who refused to consent to a compulsory vaccination versus a mandatory vaccination?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 181 ✭✭kernkraft500


    have a search of mandatory in that dictionary... you'll see compulsory is only mentioned as a synonym (synonyms don't equate)...

    it actually shows you the structure of precedence.

    if something is compulsory, it will also be mandatory and obligatory

    If something is mandatory, it is also obligatory and visa versa...

    Good find, maybe you'll learn something !

    If a vaccine is compulsory, the consequences would be more likely legal proceedings dictated by whatever jurisdiction they're in (or paid from in Employee law)... as mentioned, other than military service and people working with multinationals, I would love to see an example of compulsory vaccines in Ireland.

    Mandatory means you can not take the vaccine, but it may stop you from doing a particular task, but won't effect you from a legal standpoint.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    If a vaccine is compulsory, the consequences would be more likely legal proceedings 

    Mandatory means you can not take the vaccine, but it may stop you from doing a particular task, but won't effect you from a legal standpoint.

    So if a country passed a law requiring all people over a certain age to be vaccinated, and an individual refused to obey that law by refusing to get vaccinated, would that decision effect that individual from a legal stand point. i.e they would have broken the law?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 181 ✭✭kernkraft500


    if it's compulsory yes.... if it's a mandate, it depends



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Oh so some laws are compulsory to obey and others it's merely mandatory to obey them? Do you have any examples of such laws from your legal experience?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 181 ✭✭kernkraft500


    compulsory laws are obviously compulsory... they are also a fundamental change to the statute and take longer to enact...

    mandatory laws are far easier to get through, and are used in certain scenarios .... i.e. the travel passport

    if it were compulsory to get the vaccine, you would need to get it to go the shops, get on a bus, day to day general life...

    a mandate was only in place to have a vaccine if you wanted to travel... i.e. you had a choice not to get a vaccine...

    the passive aggressive playing dumb act is getting old.... I get it, you don't understand the difference.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Are we going to get to how any of this has anything to do with vaccine safety any time soon?

    Or if not, maybe you can point out why this is an issue given that compulsory or mandatory vaccines were never a thing in Ireland.


    Cause I think you're just wasting time again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 181 ✭✭kernkraft500


    just another pedantic point @hometruths has demonstrated they have zero knowledge about.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 181 ✭✭kernkraft500


    looking forward to your next link drop which actually proves yourself wrong @hometruths



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    As I have said before, there is a more interesting discussion to be had - in this case why the shift in attitude from getting vaccinated is entirely an individual's choice, no pressure of any kind, to coercive measures to "encourage" vaccination.

    But it is impossible to have that discussion as long as there are posters who will try and derail it by insisting nobody was ever under any pressure to get vaccinated, nor was anybody coerced, and in fact even mandatory vaccination cannot be considered coercive because it is not compulsory!

    It's insane.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    You have a very familiar posting style as well as a tendency to argue black is white. What's the big secret about your previous username?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 181 ✭✭kernkraft500


    jaysus, what a dodge :-D

    If it's so familiar, you'll know



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,431 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Careful now. Hasn't the same been said to you.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Numerous times. In fact one poster repeated it so often they got banned for it.

    Presumably you are no longer taking issue with my claim that posters on this thread are saying mandatory vaccination is not coercion?



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ok. If you say so.

    But I asked you previously what kind of discussion you were expecting from conspiracy theorists.

    You refused to answer this.

    So again, your whinging comes across as ungenuine.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 181 ✭✭kernkraft500


    trying to get someone else to bite :-D

    how about you head down to a solicitor, pay them a couple of hundred quid, and they'll tell you the same stuff mentioned here.... maybe you'll believe them.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    It's not a dodge, I just suspect this is not our first rodeo arguing black is white. And mindful of the mod instructions I have no intention of spending the next 50 pages arguing that mandatory vaccination is not coercive because it is not compulsory.

    It's even more stupid than arguing insufficient data is extremely comprehensive.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 181 ✭✭kernkraft500


    there's no argument, they're different things in the eyes of the law...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,431 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    I personally think that laws such as Austria's were coercive (in theory) - in a way that Ireland's was not. However, I am speaking from a political perspective.

    I say "in theory" because they penalties were never enforced and the law was revoked before that occurred.

    So, I see a single poster arguing the very fine points of mandatory, compulsory and coercion in law.

    So it is not something for me to take issue with as we are not in direct contradiction.

    My main point was that there was no coercion in Ireland or at EU wide level, and this is reinforced by the poster's comments.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    My main point was that there was no coercion in Ireland

    Would you agree that people in Ireland faced political and social pressure to get vaccinated?

    or at EU wide level

    Clearly at EU wide level vax certs for travel where always on the table, but would you agree that no EU politicians, or any politicians from individual member states, were talking about even the possibility of mandatory vaccinations in Dec 2020? Quite the opposite in fact - they were outspoken against the idea?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,431 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    I have already said on the thread - that in political terms of the carrot and stick, the government in Ireland very much used the 'carrot' rather than the stick.

    What 'social pressure' has to do with the current topic is beyond me and is dismissed as irrelevent.

    If you have a case to make about the EU, you must make it yourself, rather than rely on the answers of other posters to make it for you.

    I don't agree with the premise of the question. I have already posted that you are deliberately muddying the waters with vague phrasings like 'EU politicians' ignoring the very different roles of parliament, commission, national governments. You have having to get further and further away from the topic of the thread - vaccine safety - to make any kind of point.

    Even if you could show - which you have not done so - that the people responsible for vaccine rollouts changed course over 2021 (the EU Parliament are not those people) - it does not speak to any kind of safety issue with the vaccine, or fundamental problem with it. Other than the issues publicly acknowledged by the authorities in 2021.

    So all this is increasingly tenuous to the topic of the thread. It is a side show.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,222 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    You have every intention of spending the next 50 pages making every vapid contrarian "argument" under the sun about these vaccines, that is your M.O.

    I'll be back to point it out



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Do you agree that mandatory vaccination is not coercive because it is not compulsory?

    Not trying to argue the point with you just curious is this the sort of example of an explanation of a basic concept you repeatedly refer to.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,222 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    What is the conspiracy here exactly?

    This is a conspiracy theory forum. If you want to protest vaccines by filibustering a thread, okay, but I am still not seeing the conspiracy relation. Not sure why this thread is still open to be honest.



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Don't you know, if a conspiracy thread gets to page 500, the conspiracy theorists get declared right all along.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I'm not filibustering a thread. Learnt that lesson with the poster who spent 50 pages failing to prove that insufficient data was in fact extremely comprehensive data. Not going to make the same mistake arguing that mandatory vaccinations are not compulsory.

    They are two of the most glaring examples of a widespread revisionism about the vaccines and an inability to acknowledge even a minor truth that could be viewed as critical of the vaccines.

    Other examples are the claims that vaccines were never intended to prevent infection or to achieve herd immunity. Or what constitutes vaccine failure. Or the fact that being immune to a disease now means something different than it did 2 years ago. I could go on and on.

    Why is this so prevalent, both at a micro and macro level? Is this a conspiracy? I don't know, but I think for those interested in conspiracy theories it is potentially fascinating question to discuss.

    Unfortunately you and others, for whatever reason are hell bent on ensuring this discussion does not take place. Either by arguing black is white, or trying to discredit posters - for example because somebody in a different thread who has stated they think the earth is flat has thanked a post here. That's one of your favourite tactics.

    Or by trying to get the thread closed. You ask for this repeatedly. Why are you so keen that the thread is closed?



Advertisement