Originally Posted by Meat Fighter;[url=tel:3302620
3302620[/url]]Cognitive dissonance.
Many here are proud of playing a lead role in this mass psychosis. Even after 18 months I still can't believe I'm living through a digital rendition of 1984.
Two weeks to flatten the curve has become, according Fauci, three shots in a 12 month span to feed your family or you're labeled unvaccinated, along with all the propaganda shaming of wanting to kill grandma if you decide not to get a third shot.
I could understand people complying with these mandates for a myriad of personal reasons based on their own beliefs and overall cost benefit analysis, but it's a completely different story to see people advocate for this dystopian nightmare after being subject to the psy-op and shifting goal posts for the last 18 months. Yet here we are. It's fascinating and scary all at the same time.
Back to the original point; what is the predicate for mandating a shot that doesn't prevent transmission....... in order to stop transmission?
Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk
To answer your question, the predicate is Jacobson vs Massachusetts which was decided by the Supreme Court. The smallpox vaccine is and was not 100% efficacious, yet it was mandated. The Supreme Court spoke and it is the law of the land and it has been for over 100 years. That is a direct answer to your question and assuming you live in the United States it applies to you and since FedEx is a company operating in the United States it applies to the company and it’s employees in the United States.
Now as to your argument that we live in the equivalent of 1942 Germany, I’m going to have to do some major research to answer such a well thought out and not at all lazy argument. I’ll start by reading “The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich” again and see what I missed the first time. Will report back soon listing all of the similarities.