"Officer he's refusing the vaccine. He's endangering me by not taking the vaccine. The state should not allow him to endanger me by not taking the vaccine. Save me, save me. Kill him, kill him."
Who defines what's good and bad if there are no victims but one's self? Keep shilling.
A victim of what exactly? The use of government force to initiate rape by needle is a direct violation of the non-aggression principle and a violation of basic human rights to bodily autonomy. Especially when the act of breaking the skin is physically damaging to the person and can be measured in real time as such. (Visual wince and reluctance of the individual, plus a tiny bit of blood, followed sometimes by death). Since the effects 'of one person getting vaccinated' on other "victims" can not be measured in real time and has not been, (Everything the vaccine 'does' is hear say, meaning we don't know what it does, other then an anti body response, because it hasn't been tested. For example we do not know if it imparts immunity to covid 19 because vaccinated individuals have never been intentionally exposed to the wild type virus in vivo. They might be immune, they might die, the problem is called a cytokine storm, we don't know yet, it hasnt been tested), then the only conclusion that can be rationally made is the victim is the person being raped by the needle. Everyone else can not prove they are a victim.
rape by needle
the most drama queen pussy stuff i've seen before.
Also there are trials and regulations that vaccines have to go through. The people who are working on this are well educated on microbiology or whatever so I think they know if exposure in vivo would make a difference. In fact it may introduce uncertainty in the experiment because they may be external factors now that you are not in a lab.
Anti-vaxxers are embarrassing.
I'm not too sure about the third one. Also while this is a little based, it sounds too SJW so I think libertarians should try a different approach.
"Officer he's refusing the vaccine. He's endangering me by not taking the vaccine. The state should not allow him to endanger me by not taking the vaccine. Save me, save me. Kill him, kill him."
Who defines what's good and bad if there are no victims but one's self? Keep shilling.
In this case the victim is everyone else by refusing the vaccine. Also when was I shilling? I was thinking of drug laws. Dumbass
A victim of what exactly? The use of government force to initiate rape by needle is a direct violation of the non-aggression principle and a violation of basic human rights to bodily autonomy. Especially when the act of breaking the skin is physically damaging to the person and can be measured in real time as such. (Visual wince and reluctance of the individual, plus a tiny bit of blood, followed sometimes by death). Since the effects 'of one person getting vaccinated' on other "victims" can not be measured in real time and has not been, (Everything the vaccine 'does' is hear say, meaning we don't know what it does, other then an anti body response, because it hasn't been tested. For example we do not know if it imparts immunity to covid 19 because vaccinated individuals have never been intentionally exposed to the wild type virus in vivo. They might be immune, they might die, the problem is called a cytokine storm, we don't know yet, it hasnt been tested), then the only conclusion that can be rationally made is the victim is the person being raped by the needle. Everyone else can not prove they are a victim.