Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.0K

To be clear, I’m against the vax mandate, am not vaxed, and will not be vaxed.

So this is not a discussion on whether you or I like vaxes or like the government.

The problem we face, as I see it, is that there is apparently precedent with government mandated vaccines.

Hopefully everyone here understands that precedent is how our court system works, for better or worse. And it’s often how government bureaucracy operates, as well. “Well president so-and-so did x, therefore I can do y.” You get the gist.

What I am not sure about is whether or not the government had much data on the polio vaccine before mandating it, for example.

I’m against vax mandates in any form..but as I understand it, the real unprecedented portion of the current mandate craziness is that the damn COVID vax isn’t sufficiently tested. Even if it were, I’m still against a mandate. But what makes this especially troublesome is obviously that they’re forcing the public into a scientific experiment.

In any case, the government has and will continue to make the argument that because there is precedent for coerced vaccinations, that it’s ok.

I’m not sure if there was ever a Supreme Court case to decide this..hell I’m not even sure if it was ever challenged legally back then, much less now. And unless I’m missing something, I’m not seeing much of anything being done from a legal standpoint to bring this issue to the highest court to settle it once and for all. At the least, anyone in Congress who is for freedom (that statement is pretty much a joke in itself, I know) should be pushing for laws to protect against this overreaching bullshit.

I found this interesting, though I didn’t fact check it: https://amp.swtimes.com/amp/8363060002

Assuming the things in that article are true, those are precisely the things we are facing for the fact that the government has already done this and gotten away with it before.

Which is the problem with government. It’s like a narcissistic spouse or significant other…if it is allowed to get away with a heinous act a single time, it will continue in these ways because the expectation is that its actions are acceptable. Well, that line was crossed long ago with polio (and even earlier according to that article), long before I was even born. So what is a practical solution to this issue now?

To be clear, I’m against the vax mandate, am not vaxed, and will not be vaxed. So this is not a discussion on whether you or I like vaxes or like the government. The problem we face, as I see it, is that there is apparently precedent with government mandated vaccines. Hopefully everyone here understands that precedent is how our court system works, for better or worse. And it’s often how government bureaucracy operates, as well. “Well president so-and-so did x, therefore I can do y.” You get the gist. What I am not sure about is whether or not the government had much data on the polio vaccine before mandating it, for example. I’m against vax mandates in any form..but as I understand it, the real unprecedented portion of the current mandate craziness is that the damn COVID vax isn’t sufficiently tested. Even if it were, I’m still against a mandate. But what makes this especially troublesome is obviously that they’re forcing the public into a scientific experiment. In any case, the government has and will continue to make the argument that because there is precedent for coerced vaccinations, that it’s ok. I’m not sure if there was ever a Supreme Court case to decide this..hell I’m not even sure if it was ever challenged legally back then, much less now. And unless I’m missing something, I’m not seeing much of anything being done from a legal standpoint to bring this issue to the highest court to settle it once and for all. At the least, anyone in Congress who is for freedom (that statement is pretty much a joke in itself, I know) should be pushing for laws to protect against this overreaching bullshit. I found this interesting, though I didn’t fact check it: https://amp.swtimes.com/amp/8363060002 Assuming the things in that article are true, those are precisely the things we are facing for the fact that the government has already done this and gotten away with it before. Which is the problem with government. It’s like a narcissistic spouse or significant other…if it is allowed to get away with a heinous act a single time, it will continue in these ways because the expectation is that its actions are acceptable. Well, that line was crossed long ago with polio (and even earlier according to that article), long before I was even born. So what is a practical solution to this issue now?

(post is archived)

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Jacobson was a five dollar fine, he wasn’t forced or fired, and removed from society and that was a state mandate, not federal and he refused the second dose because the first dose it almost killed him and his son. And the people who’d recovered from small pox weren’t forced to take the vaccine.

Also it was the precedent for forced sterilization a decade or two later and even the national socialist used it as a defense at Nuremberg.

You also had families or courts that could commit you against your will to state mental hospitals, forced shock therapy, forced lobotomies etc.

A lot has changed in the last 100+ years especially civil rights, bodily autonomy etc.

In Buck v Bell (1927),26 Holmes ruled that the state of Virginia could use police power to protect the public health by involuntarily sterilizing a poor 17-year old single mother, Carrie Buck, who state officials had incorrectly judged to be morally unfit and mentally retarded – in effect, genetically defective- just like they said Carrie’s daughter and mother were.27

In one of the most chilling statements in American jurisprudence, Holmes declared, “It is better for the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough!”

In the merciless 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, just as in the Machiavellian 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts decision, ethical principles grounded in respect for individual human life and civil liberties were stripped from U.S. law. The reasoning was that if utilitarianism could be used to create forced vaccination laws to immunize society from infectious disease, then forced sterilization laws could be created to immunize society against becoming infected with bad genes. The immoral premise that “the ends justifies the means” created a perfect climate for what became a tyranny of the majority.

By 1932, mandatory sterilization laws had been passed in 29 states.  More than 60,000 Americans were involuntarily sterilized by public health officials before the barbaric medical practice was ended by most, but not all, states in the late 1940s

Utilitarianism was discredited as a pseudo-ethic in 1947 at The Doctor’s Trial at Nuremberg after World War II. The horrifying truth about what can happen when utilitarianism is used to create public health law was exposed for the whole world to see30 31 and gave birth to the informed consent principle articulated in the historic Nuremberg Code.32 The next year, basic human rights that include autonomy and freedom of thought, conscience and religious belief were affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[–] • 0 pt

The vaxxed will die soon.

Do you understand?

[–] • 0 pt

Some of them will die soon. Most of them won't die soon. But many will get sick, and need continuing costly medical services due to the harm caused by the vax. Ca-ching for Big Pharma.

[–] • 0 pt

I've seen so much "soon" on here that the word doesn't carry much weight with me anymore. Soon never seems to happen 9 times out of 10

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

The vaxxed will die soon.

Yes, they will.

Do you understand?

Oh, I do. I can't wait for everyone to understand that.

[–] • 1 pt

What a fucking nightmare we've been in.

God better have a solid plan.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Lucifer is doing all the planning....

[–] • 0 pt

Hopefully everyone here understands that precedent is how our court system works, for better or worse.

What I've come to understand lately is that the courts work exactly the way the liberal elite and the Deep State want them to work. Precedent doesn't enter into it.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

He’s talking out his ass.

Jacobson was a five dollar fine, he wasn’t forced or fired, and removed from society and that was a state mandate, not federal and he refused the second dose because the first dose it almost killed him and his son. And the people who’d recovered from small pox weren’t forced to take the vaccine.

Also it was the precedent for forced sterilization a decade or two later and even the national socialist used it as a defense at Nuremberg.

You also had families or courts that could commit you against your will to state mental hospitals, forced shock therapy, forced lobotomies etc.

A lot has changed in the last 100+ years especially civil rights, bodily autonomy etc.

In Buck v Bell (1927),26 Holmes ruled that the state of Virginia could use police power to protect the public health by involuntarily sterilizing a poor 17-year old single mother, Carrie Buck, who state officials had incorrectly judged to be morally unfit and mentally retarded – in effect, genetically defective- just like they said Carrie’s daughter and mother were.27

In one of the most chilling statements in American jurisprudence, Holmes declared, “It is better for the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough!”

In the merciless 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, just as in the Machiavellian 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts decision, ethical principles grounded in respect for individual human life and civil liberties were stripped from U.S. law. The reasoning was that if utilitarianism could be used to create forced vaccination laws to immunize society from infectious disease, then forced sterilization laws could be created to immunize society against becoming infected with bad genes. The immoral premise that “the ends justifies the means” created a perfect climate for what became a tyranny of the majority.

By 1932, mandatory sterilization laws had been passed in 29 states.  More than 60,000 Americans were involuntarily sterilized by public health officials before the barbaric medical practice was ended by most, but not all, states in the late 1940s

Utilitarianism was discredited as a pseudo-ethic in 1947 at The Doctor’s Trial at Nuremberg after World War II. The horrifying truth about what can happen when utilitarianism is used to create public health law was exposed for the whole world to see30 31 and gave birth to the informed consent principle articulated in the historic Nuremberg Code.32 The next year, basic human rights that include autonomy and freedom of thought, conscience and religious belief were affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[–] • 0 pt

Nuremburg.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Yeah Jacobson led to Buck V Bell (forced sterilization) which led to the national socialist using the ruling at Nuremberg.

Jacobson was a five dollar fine, he wasn’t forced or fired, and removed from society and that was a state mandate, not federal and he refused the second dose because the first dose it almost killed him and his son. And the people who’d recovered from small pox weren’t forced to take the vaccine.

Also it was the precedent for forced sterilization a decade or two later and even the national socialist used it as a defense at Nuremberg.

You also had families or courts that could commit you against your will to state mental hospitals, forced shock therapy, forced lobotomies etc.

A lot has changed in the last 100+ years especially civil rights, bodily autonomy etc.

In Buck v Bell (1927),26 Holmes ruled that the state of Virginia could use police power to protect the public health by involuntarily sterilizing a poor 17-year old single mother, Carrie Buck, who state officials had incorrectly judged to be morally unfit and mentally retarded – in effect, genetically defective- just like they said Carrie’s daughter and mother were.27

In one of the most chilling statements in American jurisprudence, Holmes declared, “It is better for the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough!”

In the merciless 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, just as in the Machiavellian 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts decision, ethical principles grounded in respect for individual human life and civil liberties were stripped from U.S. law. The reasoning was that if utilitarianism could be used to create forced vaccination laws to immunize society from infectious disease, then forced sterilization laws could be created to immunize society against becoming infected with bad genes. The immoral premise that “the ends justifies the means” created a perfect climate for what became a tyranny of the majority.

By 1932, mandatory sterilization laws had been passed in 29 states.  More than 60,000 Americans were involuntarily sterilized by public health officials before the barbaric medical practice was ended by most, but not all, states in the late 1940s

Utilitarianism was discredited as a pseudo-ethic in 1947 at The Doctor’s Trial at Nuremberg after World War II. The horrifying truth about what can happen when utilitarianism is used to create public health law was exposed for the whole world to see30 31 and gave birth to the informed consent principle articulated in the historic Nuremberg Code.32 The next year, basic human rights that include autonomy and freedom of thought, conscience and religious belief were affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[–] • 0 pt

doesn't mean it was done legally. its my opinion that some of that was simply incorrect rulings and can be over turned, and probably will when this is all said and done, when all the people die, Nuremburg will be underscored.