I just like to see every option.
If I was so gullible, I probably would have believed the general consensus to the exclusion of all other options, which I did not. I don't believe that I am that gullible.
Instead, you choose to use your voice to spread anti-vaxxer BS. That is what makes you gullible. You clearly have not done any research whatsoever. You are merely spouting anti-vaxxer BS on this site without any thought whatsoever. You think you are being clever in stating it as an "estimation" (*
sigh*), but believe me, we've seen people try to do this and fail each time.
I make sense. I use the word estimation to mean roughly calculate the extent to which something is true, in most of the cases in which I use it. In this case, that is roughly calculating the extent to which what I hear about coronavirus is true.
Then you are failing at basic mathematics.
I said that the virus might be dangerous and that it also might not be.
Can the bullshit.
Over 5 million people dead in less than two years. If a food contaminant had killed over 5 million people in less than two years (as one example), it would not be allowed to be sold and the person who made the food would be in prison for life for failing to take proper precautions when preparing said food.
I was indeed under the impression that the lock downs were a violation of this bit from the bill of rights act:
Freedom of movement(1)Everyone lawfully in New Zealand has the right to freedom of movement and residence in New Zealand.(2)Every New Zealand citizen has the right to enter New Zealand.(3)Everyone has the right to leave New Zealand.(4)No one who is not a New Zealand citizen and who is lawfully in New Zealand shall be required to leave New Zealand except under a decision taken on grounds prescribed by law.
Firstly, don't assume that everyone is in New Zealand. Secondly, you have completely forgotten that other laws exist in New Zealand, such as the Health Act (1956), and pay particular attention to Part 3 of the Act, which deals with infectious diseases and most importantly, the right of the State to act to protect citizens and residents of the country during an epidemy and pandemic - which COVID19 would qualify.
Although, I suppose that freedom of movement is a very vague thing with plenty of loopholes.
Yes. Prison, private property (eg trespass), secure land and property, government buildings, etc. There are always restrictions in place in where people can go and what they can do.
It's not lovely. But then your sarcasm here is palpable. I can just see the utility of bullying sometimes you know? It's like how criminals have to be punished for there crimes in order to discourage people from doing illegal things. I think that bully's should be bullied for the same reasons. I don't mean physically obviously, because that would probably result in a totalitarian regime pretty quickly. I mean verbally.
And how do you propose to do this? Bully box? Say mean things about the person? You are participating on a forum. Your words will be challenged. Your arguments will definitely be challenged. That is not bullying. You will be expected to support your claims with actual evidence (such as links at a minimum). Trying to suggest it's your "estimation" and then spout whatever bullshit you can think of, does not cut it. This isn't New Zealand.
You've been told this repeatedly.
Yes, well, from what I have seen anyone with a strong enough opinion about anything is dangerous for that reason.
Then you clearly have not seen much of life or the world.
I'm not an anti vaxxer. I just think that this whole coronavirus response is very wrong and anything to do with it should be treated with suspicion.
You compared the vaccine to gene therapy and suggested that's why people are afraid of it.
You can disagree with public health orders as much as you like. It's the only reason New Zealand and other countries have managed to keep their death rates down. You have provided nothing of substance to suggest otherwise.
I follow the rules if and only if they make sense.
That's not how it works.
And I can safely say that I truly hope you never, ever get a driver's licence at this point in time!
I do not think this. I think that everyone should have the freedom to do anything but hurt others.
Cute.
A deadly virus means that anyone infected with said virus is causing harm to others. Understand now?
I know what it means, and so do you I presume.
I do. You should look it up though. Because you aren't making sense when you employ these terms outside of their actual meaning.
The lock downs. The lock downs undermining the freedom of movement, which according to the bill of rights act, at least everyone in NZ has.
New Zealand also has other legislations that comply with the Bill of Rights, and which allow the Government and the health department in this instance, to employ measures for public safety. In this case, lockdowns, which are legal as they are in accordance to the Health Act (1956) that I mentioned above. And it's not "degraded".
You need to look up the definition of that word and then look up "eroded".
Well, legally speaking, yes. However, I disagree that anyone has the right to impose their will onto anyone else except to prevent that someone else from hurting others, where there is no other way to prevent that someone else from hurting others.
Moot point. The laws exist to prevent harm to the general public. COVID is a deadly virus. Over 5 million people dead and that count is still going up.
This is why I think that people should be allowed guns, just in case they need to defend themselves when their government turns nasty.
Of course you do! Is this so they can shoot them up in the air for fun?
Something to do with what Jacinda is calling the traffic light system.
And what's that?
This is a forum with people from all over the world. Not from New Zealand.
From what I just saw, it's a pretty good system. What's your issue with it?
The word eroded works here. The word degraded works here.
Yes, I do know what totalitarianism is. I'm not an idiot despite your implication that I am. I know what I am talking about.
Laws don't really degrade.
No. People still pretty much have all of their freedoms as far as I am aware. It is just the freedom of movement which I am concerned about, because of the lock downs.
If you make claims, you need to be able to support it.
Well, tough. I'm not defining degraded for you in the context of this sentence because I am pretty sure that you already know what it means and I refuse to participate in any petty tests. I have nothing to prove to anyone.
Then you are simply spouting nonsense and if you can't back up your claims, then that's on you and not anyone else.
When you misuse words, the meaning of your posts change.
Okay. Like most things have killed at least some people, because people are so damn fragile. Really, they should just learn to be more careful, you know?
Or people can not shoot their guns up in the air or fire them for fun in any direction that could kill someone.
You used the quote function. It went wrong, but you'll get the hang of it one day!
How does real life not work that way? Who can people not let onto their own properties, other than criminals?
Anyone they choose. Trespassers, vagrants, Jehovah's Witness, etc..
If you ever rocked up to my house, do you think you should be allowed entry? No, you should not. In the interest of public safety, restaurants are required to have people be vaccinated to use their premises. Given the high percentage of vaccinated people, it makes sense to do so, and it will also keep them safer. If you have an issue with it, I'd suggest you get take out!
Where the bullets come down depends on where they're shot I guess.
Doesn't matter. They can and do kill people. The solution is to not do it. It's why it's illegal in the US in all 50 states.