I can't believe we're forced into arguing over whether or not preventing a potentially crippling or deadly disease is good with the same people with whom we argued over whether or not a terminally ignorant fascist rodeo clown should be president.
"Preventing disease is good, actually."
"Oh? I'm sure you have proof. Be detailed. I'll wait."
"Ok, one second. Here."
"Oh? I'm sure you have proof. Be detailed. I'll wait."
"Ok, one second. Here."
"What you haven't considered is that preventing disease is inconvenient."
"Not to people who might die."
"No I mean inconvenient to me. Slightly."
"I see, OK. Well have you considered this:"
"Not to people who might die."
"No I mean inconvenient to me. Slightly."
"I see, OK. Well have you considered this:"
"No vaccine mandates!"
"Why not?"
"Because we mustn't live in fear."
"But you say you fear the vaccine."
"Yes ... ?"
"So you'll take it? To not live in fear?"
"Oh. I see. No. What I meant was I mustn't live in inconvenience."
"OK, one second. I need to take a running start."
"Why not?"
"Because we mustn't live in fear."
"But you say you fear the vaccine."
"Yes ... ?"
"So you'll take it? To not live in fear?"
"Oh. I see. No. What I meant was I mustn't live in inconvenience."
"OK, one second. I need to take a running start."
If you think about it, anti-vaxxers shouldn’t fear getting kicked in the balls because getting kicked in the balls has a 99.9% survival rate.
Almost all of the people who die from getting kicked in the balls are either elderly or already sick with something, therefore we should be able to kick antivaxxers in the balls as part of our constitutional liberties.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
