Joe Rogan's Podcast

[NAOS]

Yes I am, unapologetically. Take a look at any era of deregulated capital and compare where American life expectancy was at the beginning of the era versus where it was at the end. Take a look at American standard of living at the beginning of the era versus the American standard of living at the end. Take a look at what was happening in America versus what was happening in the less free parts of the world at that same time. America has been the engine driving the world forward and everyone, including those who hate us, has been riding on our coattails. If the prosperity created from American freedom came at the price of increasing CO2 in Earth atmosphere by 0.01% then I do not have even 0.01% regret.

It turns out that some pretty incredible things can happen (in the short-term, for a select few Homo sapiens) when you’re furiously busy borrowing, leveraging, wagering against, and spending the future. If only a healthy planet could actually endure the recklessness of the last 70 years, amiright??!

in other her words, your phrase above is full-on climate denialism. But, unfortunately, that’s only one of the ways it’s insanely tone deaf.

 

[LogGrad98]

Everyone arguing against vaccine mandates obviously didn't live through, or don't have any inkling of, polio. Currently mandated in every state, currently all but eradicated. It was a devastating disease and a constant fear for the populace.

I have an uncle who was paralyzed by polio. My parents tell us that most summers growing up, when polio was most active, they had kids in their schools die. Others hospitalized with long battle and ending up permanent affected by the disease. It was far and away the most feared disease of the 20th century.

So what is honestly the difference between mandating the polio vaccine and mandating a COVID vaccine, when COVID is much more wide-spread and much more deadly than polio ever was.

Those against this mandate, do they wish polio vaccine had never been mandated anywhere? Is it really materially different to have the states mandate it as opposed to the federal government?

And please don't say because it's not effective. When they rolled out the polio vaccine, indeed even when most states made it a mandate, they weren't entirely sure if it would do what they wanted it to, but had seen improvements where it had been given, and the studies were promising. It killed some people due to allergies as they refined the formula as well. So that argument is about as solid as warm jello.

The personal freedom thing is stupid as well, because we give up lots and lots of personal freedom to live effectively in a society. I want to kill my neighbor. No ****. Can't stand the bitch. We recently found out she took our dog out of our backyard and held her for a day in her backyard during a rainstorm, then put her back in our backyard soaking wet. She claimed it was because our dog had gotten out but that was ********. She didn't like our dog because she barked through the fence at the neighbors dog. Police wouldn't do anything about it. But to maintain society, I have to refrain from beating the **** out of her no matter how much she deserves it. I give up that freedom.

 

[Rubashov]

Everyone arguing against vaccine mandates obviously didn't live through, or don't have any inkling of, polio. Currently mandated in every state, currently all but eradicated. It was a devastating disease and a constant fear for the populace.

I have an uncle who was paralyzed by polio. My parents tell us that most summers growing up, when polio was most active, they had kids in their schools die. Others hospitalized with long battle and ending up permanent affected by the disease. It was far and away the most feared disease of the 20th century.

So what is honestly the difference between mandating the polio vaccine and mandating a COVID vaccine, when COVID is much more wide-spread and much more deadly than polio ever was.

Those against this mandate, do they wish polio vaccine had never been mandated anywhere? Is it really materially different to have the states mandate it as opposed to the federal government?

And please don't say because it's not effective. When they rolled out the polio vaccine, indeed even when most states made it a mandate, they weren't entirely sure if it would do what they wanted it to, but had seen improvements where it had been given, and the studies were promising. It killed some people due to allergies as they refined the formula as well. So that argument is about as solid as warm jello.

The personal freedom thing is stupid as well, because we give up lots and lots of personal freedom to live effectively in a society. I want to kill my neighbor. No ****. Can't stand the bitch. We recently found out she took our dog out of our backyard and held her for a day in her backyard during a rainstorm, then put her back in our backyard soaking wet. She claimed it was because our dog had gotten out but that was ********. She didn't like our dog because she barked through the fence at the neighbors dog. Police wouldn't do anything about it. But to maintain society, I have to refrain from beating the **** out of her no matter how much she deserves it. I give up that freedom.

Whats wrong with you? You're an American, pay somebody to beat her arse!

 

[LogGrad98]

Whats wrong with you? You're an American, pay somebody to beat her arse!

Can't be that obvious. It's in the works.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Is it really materially different to have the states mandate it as opposed to the federal government?

Yes! One has the scope of power to enact such mandates and the other does not. The question here isn't about the moral goodness of mandating the vaccine but rather one of the government still being constrained in any meaningful way by the US Constitution. Can the President of the United States now issue any order he pleases and command the full power of the government to force the American people into compliance? The Tenth Amendment doesn't include the phrase "unless the President has an excuse that many see as a moral good". The Commerce Claus in the US Constitution that grants power to the legislature, does not give the President any power at all in that department.

A US President acting like a dictator isn't a good thing even if you like the things he's dictating. That guy won't be President forever and the next guy could very easily use our current dictator President as precedent to issue orders you aren't so fond of. Limits on power matter. Don't let people rip down these safeguards even for reasons as seemingly noble as being for the public good.

 

[LogGrad98]

Yes! One has the scope of power to enact such mandates and the other does not. The question here isn't about the moral goodness of mandating the vaccine but rather one of the government still being constrained in any meaningful way by the US Constitution. Can the President of the United States now issue any order he pleases and command the full power of the government to force the American people into compliance? The Tenth Amendment doesn't include the phrase "unless the President has an excuse that many see as a moral good". The Commerce Claus in the US Constitution that grants power to the legislature, does not give the President any power at all in that department.

A US President acting like a dictator isn't a good thing even if you like the things he's dictating. That guy won't be President forever and the next guy could very easily use our current dictator President as precedent to issue orders you aren't so fond of. Limits on power matter. Don't let people rip down these safeguards even for reasons as seemingly noble as being for the public good.

I summarily reject the notion that an executive order for vaccinations to help contain the worst pandemic in a century constitutes an unrecoverable slippery slope of tyrannical proportions.

You want to see a tyrant in the making, see the last president. He set terrible precedents for wanna-be dictators.

 

[Red]

I summarily reject the notion that an executive order for vaccinations to help contain the worst pandemic in a century constitutes an unrecoverable slippery slope of tyrannical proportions.

You want to see a tyrant in the making, see the last president. He set terrible precedents for wanna-be dictators.

When the state orders me to get a shot that will make me more trusting of government, more accepting of authority, and adverse to political activism, then I’ll resist the state with everything I have, and die trying if it comes to that.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I summarily reject the notion that an executive order for vaccinations to help contain the worst pandemic in a century constitutes an unrecoverable slippery slope of tyrannical proportions.

"Summarily reject" sounds like you're pretty sure. I already have a bet with One Brow on this. Would you also like to take that bet? The arbiter is the Supreme Court and the wager is to allow me to pick your avatar image for 30 days. Seeing how obviously wrong my opinion is, wouldn't you love to have everything I say discredited for 30 days by making my words appear next to some silly image you decide on?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

When the state orders me to get a shot that will make me more trusting of government, more accepting of authority, and adverse to political activism, then I’ll resist the state with everything I have, and die trying if it comes to that.

That shot flows from the barrel of a gun and every action the government takes ultimately has that shot standing behind it.

 

[NAOS]

Al-O-Meter is impressively sticking to the talking points. His posts read like a series of bulletpoints; and any value that might reorder his senses slides off his back like water off a duck.

If being a foot soldier was impressive—independent of a cause—then this would be impressive by Internet Dude standards.

 

[Red]

That shot flows from the barrel of a gun and every action the government takes ultimately has that shot standing behind it.

When Trump returns in 2024, I’ll do my best to avoid placement in the camps he’ll establish for folks like me. Camps that will earn the full throated support of his cult…..

 

[fishonjazz]

"Summarily reject" sounds like you're pretty sure. I already have a bet with One Brow on this. Would you also like to take that bet? The arbiter is the Supreme Court and the wager is to allow me to pick your avatar image for 30 days. Seeing how obviously wrong my opinion is, wouldn't you love to have everything I say discredited for 30 days by making my words appear next to some silly image you decide on?

He didn't say he thinks it's constitutional or that the mandate will go forward. Which I believe is the bet you have with one brow.
He just said he is fine with mandates that save lives and he doesn't believe this mandate will lead us to some horrible final destination.
At least that's what I got from his post.