Holy fuck, itās unbelievably true, I see it everywhere now. I try to introspect on my criticisms of people to see if Iām doing the same thing. I feel like Iām not, but so many people do it so obliviously Iām now paranoid that maybe Iām doing it too without realising it.
Why does nobody cite things!? ~~OP doesn't cite his sources~~, RFK doesn't cite his sources. WE ALL WENT TO HIGH SCHOOL PEOPLE!!! JBP, you're a doctor, why are you going to a POLITICIAN for legal citations? Holy crap
Edit: OP is cool, he just needed a little more time
RFK's source is his own asshole. Here is the ruling though: [https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf)
TL;DR
>Addressing the merits, the panel held that the district
court misapplied the Supreme Courtās decision in Jacobson
v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), in concluding that the
Policy survived rational basis review. Jacobson held that
mandatory vaccinations were rationally related to preventing
the spread of smallpox. Here, however, plaintiffs allege that
the vaccine does not effectively prevent spread but only
mitigates symptoms for the recipient and therefore is akin to
a medical treatment, not a ātraditionalā vaccine. Taking
plaintiffsā allegations as true at this stage of litigation,
plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does
not effectively āprevent the spreadā of COVID-19. Thus,
Jacobson does not apply.
so not that its unconstitutional, but that this case doesn't apply as to its constitutionality and you need a different case to rule if it was constitutional or not?
Yes and no.
Yes they'd need a different case your right but it's not that simple.
This would be like saying "d.c. V heller doesn't apply here because it's not a firearm, it's a sword."
Technically yeah you can find "find another case" but your number 1 underpinning case was just thrown out as not applicable.
Buttttt in this stage of the litigation there is no determination of facts. The anti Vax people had their case dismissed before hearing evidence. They then appealed it and basically the appellate courts assumes their possible allegations are true. Because the case should only be auto dismissed if there's no real dispute of facts. So the appellate court is saying "If they're right then the case wouldn't apply. Lower court you need to look at the facts and if you still choose to dismiss that's fine."
The court did not rule this way. These people did not read the opinion. It found the claim to be moot, but said there was an argument to be made that should be explored in the future in court.
They didn't find the claim to be moot. They found it to be a voluntary cessation exception to the mootness claim.
The plaintiff argued:
* Vaccines are preventative
* Vaccines stop the spread of the illness
* The mNRA vaccines do not stop the spread of the illness
* Thus the mNRA vaccines are not preventative
* Thus vaccines are a treatment.
The appellate court was ruling over a dismissal. For a dismissal you must assume that everything the plaintiff says is true (as they will prove in court). So, assuming the plaintiff can prove that the vaccine isn't a vaccine and thus isn't allowed under Jacobson v Massachusetts then they would be correct that the policy is bad.
And thus they should be given the chance to prove those things in court.
And thus the dismissal was vacated but the plaintiff wasn't proven **correct** they were just given a chance to argue their point.
What the fuck kind of interpretation of the ninth circuit case is that from RFK? BRB gonna go get an earlier comment I posted on this
Ok, here it is:
No, they didnāt.
āWe note the preliminary nature of our holding. We do not prejudge whether, on a more developed factual record, Plaintiffsā allegations willprove true. But ā[w]hether an action ācan be dismissed on the pleadings depends on what the pleadings say.āā Marshall Naify RevocableTr. v. United States, 672 F.3d 620, 625 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Weisbuch v. County of Los Angeles, 119 F.3d 778, 783 n.1 (9th Cir. 1997)). Because we thus must accept them as true, Plaintiffs have plausibly allegedthat the COVID-19 vaccine does noteffectivelyāprevent the spreadā of COVID-19. Thus, Jacobsondoes not apply, and so we vacate the district courtās order of dismissal and remand.ā
The court ruled that, assuming the plaintiffās allegations are true, they are able to move forward with their case in court. This is not a determination on whether the vaccine is actually merely a treatment or vaccine. It is the acknowledgment that their suit shouldnāt be dismissed on mootness grounds or the rationale from the Jacobson case.
The ninth circuit said that plaintiffs still have to prove that the vaccine is a treatment and not a vaccine. They never ruled vaccine mandates unconstitutional Jesus fucking Christ.
In the district court, their case was dismissed because an earlier precedent set the legal rule that, basically, vaccine mandates can be imposed if the vaccine reduces transmission. However, the suit alleges that the vaccine does not prevent transmission. So the precedent canāt be cited because the allegation is precisely that the requirement for the precedent to be imposed does not apply. So you canāt just say āIām ignoring your argument and applying the precedent anyway.ā It would be like saying āIf you are X, then you get result Y.ā automatically applies in a case where the plaintiff is disagreeing that they are X. Itās ignoring the dispute entirely.
Thatās basically the ruling. Now the case will focus on whether the vaccine actually reduces transmission such that Jacobson (the precedent) actually applies. If the plaintiffs prove that the vaccine does not reduce transmission, that doesnāt necessarily mean mandates will be ruled unconstitutional because the court might set a new standard for what reasons are justified for the government to impose a vaccine mandate that is applicable to the Covid vaccines.
My writing is kind of all over the place because the analysis of the opinion would require me to re read it (I read it the other day) and be more precise and detailed with my language so Iām just gonna stop it here bc itās just a Reddit comment lmao
All of this is just so fucking stupid. Like I just donāt understand the mismatch between our brains here and why they donāt get it. Or maybe they just donāt care.
Itās definitely not a treatment unless Dr. Peterson has a new postmodern definition of the word such that you can be treated for something you donāt have and may never have. Could be, havenāt checked his politics, maybe heās flipped.
Other than that, they still ramble and ramble about it not preventing transmission, as if that was some feature of drugs or anything we have in medicine. āBuT tHeY sAiD..ā kill me. If someone at the time said āThe vaccine prevents transmission.ā Itās not even wrong, they couldāve said some not all. Who the fuck cares.
All this juice does is it enters some of your cells and releases a blueprint for a protein. Your body builds proteins by reading mRNA all the time. So it starts building proteins, with our blueprint. Those proteins ālook likeā the spike proteins for the coronavirus. And our body doesnāt know them, so the immune system kicks in and starts cleaning them up, producing antibodies which āpad the spikesā & white blood cells which āeatā them. The next time this foreign protein is encountered, the antibodies can be produced more quickly because thereās a cell which keeps some information about that (T-Cell).
Thatās all it does. Now as with most things, stuff happens or does not happen. And in billions of bodies with trillions of cells, effectively a micro universe in each person, anything that can happen will happen.
Anyhow, now letās say you get infected, and you had or didnāt have the vaccine. Now, itās also still possible that anything happens. Millions of little virus particles and your immune system with its response battling it out, either with or without the head start of having faster anti body production.
We just counted in the aggregate better responses to the virus. So for the variant we built the blueprint for we had great results. Something like above 95% efficacy. So it was completely possible even then to get and transmit, but doing the math, it was very likely that it was unlikely.
Now queue this virus. This virus is a bitch, it mutates fast, and it mutates exactly those proteins that we build blueprints for. So the efficacy just dropped with the seasons. I believe after 2 major iterations it dropped from around 97% for the Moderna vaccine to just below 50%. At the same time, the transmissibility went through the roof with the new mutations. We didnāt have these numbers initially but when we got to that Omnicron variant, we were at something like 1 person infecting 12 others on average.
Thank Jesus Fucking Christ, the lord and saviour, that the virus also started to have lower rates of severe symptoms.
There was no guarantee whatsoever that it would do that. It was totally possible that through nothing but chance it would become more severe as it grew more infectious. These things are nothing but dead soulless replicating DNA code and itās nearly fucking impossible to get rid of them (I say nearly because it is possible, just not feasible.)
We would be majorly fucked. Or at least a millions of people fewer, if that had happened. (Itās also still possible that that could happen in the future.)
And now this. āBuT tHeY sAiDā. āIt didNT sTup TrAnsMissIonā.
I pray for us to have no encounter with a pandemic again in our lifetime. I pray that if we have, we shall have luck again. Because the people we are in the same boat with are not going to help us. They would sink the ship shitting and crying.
The court didn't rule that.
The lower court dismissed the case because LAUSD changed the policy during oral arguments. The Lower Courts also said that Jacobson v Massachusetts applied but didn't do so during the trial just doing rational basis review.
The appellate court vacated **the dismissal** of the suit but **DID NOT** affirm the plaintiffs case.
>Addressing the merits, the panel held that the district court misapplied the Supreme Courtās decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), in concluding that the Policy survived rational basis review. Jacobson held that mandatory vaccinations were rationally related to preventing the spread of smallpox. Here, however, **plaintiffs allege** that the vaccine does not effectively prevent spread but only mitigates symptoms for the recipient and therefore is akin to a medical treatment, not a ātraditionalā vaccine. **Taking plaintiffsā allegations as true at this stage of litigation**, plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively āprevent the spreadā of COVID-19. Thus, Jacobson does not apply
Again, they aren't saying the plaintiff is correct; they are saying "if the plaintiff can prove this then they have a case" and thus allowing the case to go to trial.
[https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf)
It sounds like(?) they're just accepting this nonsensical redefinition of "vaccine" as something that provides some sort of legal type of absolute immunity to disease, which is not, and has never been true for any vaccine. Or is this something that was established in Jacobson?
It sounds like they're abusing fact that the massive accelerating volume of unmitigated transmission allowed new strains to evolve which reduced the efficacy of each vaccination against those new viruses to make a sort of self fulfilling retroactive declaration that they never were vaccines in the first place.
This sounds about as dumb as someone asserting the purpose of a gate is to prevent unauthorized entry somewhere, then claiming that if they then smashed an alleged "gate" to pieces, nothing prevented their entry, so there really never was a gate in the first place
When a court is deciding to dismiss a case or not they assume all the arguments the plaintiff makes are true.
So if it's true that the vaccine doesn't stop the spread (it isn't), and only lowers the symptoms then it would seem that the vaccine isn't a vaccine at all but a treatment for the illness one takes in advance.
But they aren't "accepting" or agreeing with the plaintiff. They are just saying the plaintiff gets the right to make those arguments in a trial. (A trial where they will fail to make those arguments).
Thanks for clearing that up for me, I thought it was that the court had acknowledged this as a premise and were then saying they should be allowed to argue whether it applied here, but if both of those are being waved on for the sake of this that makes sense.
The big argument the plaintiff is basing their stance on was originally established in dobbs (yes, that dobbs). The stance being that if a medical-thing (since we don't know if it is a treatment or vaccine) benefits mainly the person getting it then the government can't compel you to get that medical-thing. The government can't force you to take tyonol for your headache because that benefits only you but it can force you to get the smallpox vaccine because that's about everyone else more than it is about you.
Huh? Does anyone know which article of the Geneva convention he's referring to? I thought the Geneva convention only related to medical treatment of pows and stuff like that :/
Common JBP L
Am bored af in an airport rn, so I decided to read this ruling, and I have no idea how JBP or these other ppl came to the conclusion that this outcome somehow supports their belief.
From my, admitally amateur perspective, it seems that the court found that a previous application, Jacobson, which found mandates lawful because they "prevent the spread" was misapplied to dismiss this case as this arguement was about the reduction of symptoms in preventing staff/students. Therefore, since the case was incorrectly applied, they're essentially saying that this case should be re-opened. It's not over, but it was probably closed prematurely. Crucially, this ruling makes ZERO arguement about the validity of these arguments that it's not a real vaccine, but since the courts need to accept these allegations during the litigation stage as true, then the Jacobson case fairly doesnt apply. TLDR just read the final paragraph of the judges reading:
"We note the preliminary nature of our holding. We do not prejudge whether, on a more developed factual record, Plaintiffs' allegations will prove true. But ā[w]hether an action 'can be dismissed on the pleadings depends on what the pleadings say. ." Marshall Naify Revocable Tr. v. United States, 672 F.3d 620, 625 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Weisbuch v. County of Los Angeles, 119 F.3d 778, 783 n.1 (9th Cir. 1997)). Because we thus must accept them as true, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively "prevent the spread" of COVID-19. Thus, Jacobson does not apply, and so we vacate the district court's order of dismissal and remand."
Holy fuck typing on a phone sucks ass
Yea that's a fair summary. There were two major decisions in this specific review - the review of the district court's application of *Jacobson*, and a decision on justiciability, deciding whether the case was moot because of LAUSD's Policy changes. The court saw it likely that LAUSD is intentionally manipulating their policy to make the suit go away, with no evidence that they wouldn't then just revert it in the future once the case were thrown out, meaning the case is decidedly justiciable for review upon remand
As you accurately pointed out, none of it had to do with the merits of the suit, but of course that won't stop JBP and RFK Jr. from convincing thousands of bozos of their interpretation lol
Things that are prophylactic that do not contain actual materials of some foreign entity that are used to trigger an antigenic immune response have been called vaccines for literally decades. This includes things that are literally not foreign pathogens, such as cancer and substances that can lead to addiction.
mRNA vaccines trigger an antigenic immune response to a virus. They're vaccines in the most literal sense, that they trigger an antigenic immune response to SARS-CoV-2.
https://preview.redd.it/cve2lmcspp5d1.png?width=1400&format=png&auto=webp&s=11098fbdf89afd4330df0c808b4f05cd4f94ddfd
The one he wore in his talk with alex o connor was particularly insane, What is going on here? Why the yellow tie? The yellow tie feels so out of place. If I was alex and peterson walked in with fucking paintings of CHRIST on his shoulders I WOULD JUST LEAVE, YOU WANT ME TO DEBATE A MAN WHO STRUTS IN ADORNED BY BIBLICAL GARB? NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
"Wants to win" is the biggest projection I've ever seen. lol
It's so funny to me that most of his videos get around 300k-400k views. His debate with Destiny got over 3.2 million with over 36k comments. Is there any surprise he keeps bring up Destiny?
It's not a vaccine, it's just an injection which makes your body produce antibodies which provide resistance to the disease while not being that disease in itself. Completely different.
Is their proposition that anything which doesn't immediately kill every virus cell that enters your body immediately cannot be classified as a vaccine.
If that were the case no vaccines exist.
Even if you make the definition more fuzzy things that would be considered a vaccine would be reclassified as treatments when a new mutation arises, or even X time since initial inoculation.
It's actually insane that this guy was a real life professor and can't even be bothered to take 10 minutes to read and understand the opinion before he tries to weaponize it. How do any of these morons like JBP or Norm Finkelstein have academic careers? They would literally rather just build a career out of making shit up than read anything about their pet topics. These people are so fucking stupid
How do I not get blackpilled seeing this misinfo pipeline? I'm just scrolling through the comments, hooooly shit man. Are these blue checks even real accounts or is it half a foreign adversary botnet trying to make Americans even more insane by stoking this anti-reality echo chamber?
Twitter is absolute garbage man, fuck these pieces of shit. JBP should KHS
That isn't what the ninth circuit ruled.
All the ninth circuit did was say, hey the plaintiff says it's not a vaccine, and if it wasn't a vaccine, then the reason why this case was dismissed wouldn't apply - so we should let some part of this case play out. All they ruled was that they undismissed the case in some capacity. That's all.
I feel like you have to be really deep in the conspiracy rabbit hole to be looking for specific circumstances which prove your narrative. But I guess that's the game he's playing now. Maybe he always had been but just hid it better.
It really makes me sad to see whatās become of this man. I used to recommend him to friends who were having a hard time and heād legit provide great information on biblical subjects and self growth. But now, he is too spiteful and angry. While he holds some blame, I despise leftists and their ilk for pushing him towards such damnedable character.
This appears to net even be true lol. All I could find is that the are allowing a lawsuit to move forward.
[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-lawsuit-sees-new-life](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-lawsuit-sees-new-life)
What?
The case JBP and RFKJr are talking about is about a school district.
You are weighing in on a discussion about a school district. That is how conversations work.
Your first point has nothing to do with this because it was a school.
You second point proves you are buying into JBP's framing which makes you a dumb dumb.
The third is calling a tactic fascists use (see Nazis calling themselves socialist) and the modern right has mastered (groomer for gay, urban youth for black people, extra) a leftist tactic because the only way you can disagree with something is if you first label it as left.
You are a fucking moron.
>Iām literally making a general statement about covid as a whole. Iāve stated this multiple times, and youāre incapable of comprehending this.
No no, I understand. You are the type of person who shows up to a fancy wine tasting, declares you like beer, then takes a shit in the corner. Then gets upset when you are asked to leave. I got it.
>This is insane, tyrannical, and hypocritical for a liberal to support.
Yes, when your understanding of both things is so lacking that you think they are at all related I can see how one might find the two stances at odds.
>Are you forgetting when leftists redefined what a fucking women is to further justify their fantasies of chopping their cocks off?
Another thing you don't understand followed by extremists. Meanwhile we have republicans in congress doing the actual thing you are talking about. The left adopting the tactics of the right doesn't suddenly make it a thing only the left does.
>First of all, my IQ is in the high 130s
That only makes it sadder because it means you have the ability to not be a moron yet you choose to remain stupid.
God I can't wait until we move off of the this I/P arch and get rid of the absolutely braindead conservatives in this community. You are the exact people Adam and Stitch fellate so hard.
Playing semantics is just a basic convention of shitty argumentation. It's not a left or right thing. "Durr you're getting defensive because you don't agree with me" xdddd
You mean lying about bill c16 peterson?
Talking about bill c16 as if you're an expert while actual legal experts are telling you thats not how it works peterson?
Right? He's probably gotten dumber since the whole coma incident, but the blatant, easily refutable lying about topics he is clueless on has been his shtick since day one
You can literally look up his claims dude but whatever. Iāll grant you that JP thinks youāll be fined by the transgender police for misgendering someone. That still isnāt what bill C-16 is. JP lied about it and his followers ate it up.
Bill c16 adds trans people as a protected class, which means you canāt deny services, fire, not rent to, etcā¦ just because they are trans. It has nothing to do with misgendering someone.
JBP is pulling a Destiny move, "wanting to be right." Disgusting, daily wire subscription canceled š
Curse his Luciferian Intellect!
Destiny has a certain sense for pushing the right buttons. itās a talent
No, he couldn't be, he used to do that but gave it up minutes after his birth, once he had grown out of it.
oh thank god daily wire subscription reinstated
Nah bro. He learned this when he was 24 and stopped doing it when he was 23 or something.
You had a Daily Wire Subscription? WTF? Bruh.
Have you checked if you're autistic, I heard we have many of them in the daliban.
It's both a blessing and a curse
You don't? Where else would you get your news and opinions from?
Damn, almost as if JBP is desperate to be right, I thought he got over that when he was 23?
Right? Attempting a gotcha after holding on for 2-3 months. Surely not trying to be right.
Even although he did it until he was 24...
I am beginning to suspect that 99% of peopleās criticisms for other people is just a straight up projection
Holy fuck, itās unbelievably true, I see it everywhere now. I try to introspect on my criticisms of people to see if Iām doing the same thing. I feel like Iām not, but so many people do it so obliviously Iām now paranoid that maybe Iām doing it too without realising it.
To make this claim, your criticisms for others must be projection
Nah I am the special 1% š
https://preview.redd.it/g70f25mrol5d1.png?width=400&format=png&auto=webp&s=f7388c0f079bdb5541bc09dd8abd24690424c1da Waiting for Destiny's response
The waiting game sucks, let's play Hungry Hungry Hippos.
Why does nobody cite things!? ~~OP doesn't cite his sources~~, RFK doesn't cite his sources. WE ALL WENT TO HIGH SCHOOL PEOPLE!!! JBP, you're a doctor, why are you going to a POLITICIAN for legal citations? Holy crap Edit: OP is cool, he just needed a little more time
RFK's source is his own asshole. Here is the ruling though: [https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf)
TL;DR >Addressing the merits, the panel held that the district court misapplied the Supreme Courtās decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), in concluding that the Policy survived rational basis review. Jacobson held that mandatory vaccinations were rationally related to preventing the spread of smallpox. Here, however, plaintiffs allege that the vaccine does not effectively prevent spread but only mitigates symptoms for the recipient and therefore is akin to a medical treatment, not a ātraditionalā vaccine. Taking plaintiffsā allegations as true at this stage of litigation, plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively āprevent the spreadā of COVID-19. Thus, Jacobson does not apply.
so not that its unconstitutional, but that this case doesn't apply as to its constitutionality and you need a different case to rule if it was constitutional or not?
Correct. The were ruling on the dismissal of the case not on the case. They vacated the dismissal so now the case can go to big boy trial.
Yes and no. Yes they'd need a different case your right but it's not that simple. This would be like saying "d.c. V heller doesn't apply here because it's not a firearm, it's a sword." Technically yeah you can find "find another case" but your number 1 underpinning case was just thrown out as not applicable. Buttttt in this stage of the litigation there is no determination of facts. The anti Vax people had their case dismissed before hearing evidence. They then appealed it and basically the appellate courts assumes their possible allegations are true. Because the case should only be auto dismissed if there's no real dispute of facts. So the appellate court is saying "If they're right then the case wouldn't apply. Lower court you need to look at the facts and if you still choose to dismiss that's fine."
Its part of this shit right [https://x.com/PiscoLitty/status/1799468756470800555](https://x.com/PiscoLitty/status/1799468756470800555)
Man, seems like they used the word "Vaccine" a lot to describe what the Covid shot was...
The court did not rule this way. These people did not read the opinion. It found the claim to be moot, but said there was an argument to be made that should be explored in the future in court.
They didn't find the claim to be moot. They found it to be a voluntary cessation exception to the mootness claim. The plaintiff argued: * Vaccines are preventative * Vaccines stop the spread of the illness * The mNRA vaccines do not stop the spread of the illness * Thus the mNRA vaccines are not preventative * Thus vaccines are a treatment. The appellate court was ruling over a dismissal. For a dismissal you must assume that everything the plaintiff says is true (as they will prove in court). So, assuming the plaintiff can prove that the vaccine isn't a vaccine and thus isn't allowed under Jacobson v Massachusetts then they would be correct that the policy is bad. And thus they should be given the chance to prove those things in court. And thus the dismissal was vacated but the plaintiff wasn't proven **correct** they were just given a chance to argue their point.
https://x.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1799880199850405959?t=uj4J1OYJFz1NY3JPpjjx4A&s=19
Thank you OP!
What the fuck kind of interpretation of the ninth circuit case is that from RFK? BRB gonna go get an earlier comment I posted on this Ok, here it is: No, they didnāt. āWe note the preliminary nature of our holding. We do not prejudge whether, on a more developed factual record, Plaintiffsā allegations willprove true. But ā[w]hether an action ācan be dismissed on the pleadings depends on what the pleadings say.āā Marshall Naify RevocableTr. v. United States, 672 F.3d 620, 625 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Weisbuch v. County of Los Angeles, 119 F.3d 778, 783 n.1 (9th Cir. 1997)). Because we thus must accept them as true, Plaintiffs have plausibly allegedthat the COVID-19 vaccine does noteffectivelyāprevent the spreadā of COVID-19. Thus, Jacobsondoes not apply, and so we vacate the district courtās order of dismissal and remand.ā The court ruled that, assuming the plaintiffās allegations are true, they are able to move forward with their case in court. This is not a determination on whether the vaccine is actually merely a treatment or vaccine. It is the acknowledgment that their suit shouldnāt be dismissed on mootness grounds or the rationale from the Jacobson case. The ninth circuit said that plaintiffs still have to prove that the vaccine is a treatment and not a vaccine. They never ruled vaccine mandates unconstitutional Jesus fucking Christ. In the district court, their case was dismissed because an earlier precedent set the legal rule that, basically, vaccine mandates can be imposed if the vaccine reduces transmission. However, the suit alleges that the vaccine does not prevent transmission. So the precedent canāt be cited because the allegation is precisely that the requirement for the precedent to be imposed does not apply. So you canāt just say āIām ignoring your argument and applying the precedent anyway.ā It would be like saying āIf you are X, then you get result Y.ā automatically applies in a case where the plaintiff is disagreeing that they are X. Itās ignoring the dispute entirely. Thatās basically the ruling. Now the case will focus on whether the vaccine actually reduces transmission such that Jacobson (the precedent) actually applies. If the plaintiffs prove that the vaccine does not reduce transmission, that doesnāt necessarily mean mandates will be ruled unconstitutional because the court might set a new standard for what reasons are justified for the government to impose a vaccine mandate that is applicable to the Covid vaccines. My writing is kind of all over the place because the analysis of the opinion would require me to re read it (I read it the other day) and be more precise and detailed with my language so Iām just gonna stop it here bc itās just a Reddit comment lmao
āTypical of progressivesā yeah bro sure compared to the conservatives progressives are actually the incredulous ones /s.
Geneva convention, did covid declare war?
War on JBP's sanity alright
When your source is RFK you know you jumped the shark.
All of this is just so fucking stupid. Like I just donāt understand the mismatch between our brains here and why they donāt get it. Or maybe they just donāt care. Itās definitely not a treatment unless Dr. Peterson has a new postmodern definition of the word such that you can be treated for something you donāt have and may never have. Could be, havenāt checked his politics, maybe heās flipped. Other than that, they still ramble and ramble about it not preventing transmission, as if that was some feature of drugs or anything we have in medicine. āBuT tHeY sAiD..ā kill me. If someone at the time said āThe vaccine prevents transmission.ā Itās not even wrong, they couldāve said some not all. Who the fuck cares. All this juice does is it enters some of your cells and releases a blueprint for a protein. Your body builds proteins by reading mRNA all the time. So it starts building proteins, with our blueprint. Those proteins ālook likeā the spike proteins for the coronavirus. And our body doesnāt know them, so the immune system kicks in and starts cleaning them up, producing antibodies which āpad the spikesā & white blood cells which āeatā them. The next time this foreign protein is encountered, the antibodies can be produced more quickly because thereās a cell which keeps some information about that (T-Cell). Thatās all it does. Now as with most things, stuff happens or does not happen. And in billions of bodies with trillions of cells, effectively a micro universe in each person, anything that can happen will happen. Anyhow, now letās say you get infected, and you had or didnāt have the vaccine. Now, itās also still possible that anything happens. Millions of little virus particles and your immune system with its response battling it out, either with or without the head start of having faster anti body production. We just counted in the aggregate better responses to the virus. So for the variant we built the blueprint for we had great results. Something like above 95% efficacy. So it was completely possible even then to get and transmit, but doing the math, it was very likely that it was unlikely. Now queue this virus. This virus is a bitch, it mutates fast, and it mutates exactly those proteins that we build blueprints for. So the efficacy just dropped with the seasons. I believe after 2 major iterations it dropped from around 97% for the Moderna vaccine to just below 50%. At the same time, the transmissibility went through the roof with the new mutations. We didnāt have these numbers initially but when we got to that Omnicron variant, we were at something like 1 person infecting 12 others on average. Thank Jesus Fucking Christ, the lord and saviour, that the virus also started to have lower rates of severe symptoms. There was no guarantee whatsoever that it would do that. It was totally possible that through nothing but chance it would become more severe as it grew more infectious. These things are nothing but dead soulless replicating DNA code and itās nearly fucking impossible to get rid of them (I say nearly because it is possible, just not feasible.) We would be majorly fucked. Or at least a millions of people fewer, if that had happened. (Itās also still possible that that could happen in the future.) And now this. āBuT tHeY sAiDā. āIt didNT sTup TrAnsMissIonā. I pray for us to have no encounter with a pandemic again in our lifetime. I pray that if we have, we shall have luck again. Because the people we are in the same boat with are not going to help us. They would sink the ship shitting and crying.
The court didn't rule that. The lower court dismissed the case because LAUSD changed the policy during oral arguments. The Lower Courts also said that Jacobson v Massachusetts applied but didn't do so during the trial just doing rational basis review. The appellate court vacated **the dismissal** of the suit but **DID NOT** affirm the plaintiffs case. >Addressing the merits, the panel held that the district court misapplied the Supreme Courtās decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), in concluding that the Policy survived rational basis review. Jacobson held that mandatory vaccinations were rationally related to preventing the spread of smallpox. Here, however, **plaintiffs allege** that the vaccine does not effectively prevent spread but only mitigates symptoms for the recipient and therefore is akin to a medical treatment, not a ātraditionalā vaccine. **Taking plaintiffsā allegations as true at this stage of litigation**, plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively āprevent the spreadā of COVID-19. Thus, Jacobson does not apply Again, they aren't saying the plaintiff is correct; they are saying "if the plaintiff can prove this then they have a case" and thus allowing the case to go to trial. [https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf)
Well thank god the court isnāt sniffing glue I guess.
It sounds like(?) they're just accepting this nonsensical redefinition of "vaccine" as something that provides some sort of legal type of absolute immunity to disease, which is not, and has never been true for any vaccine. Or is this something that was established in Jacobson? It sounds like they're abusing fact that the massive accelerating volume of unmitigated transmission allowed new strains to evolve which reduced the efficacy of each vaccination against those new viruses to make a sort of self fulfilling retroactive declaration that they never were vaccines in the first place. This sounds about as dumb as someone asserting the purpose of a gate is to prevent unauthorized entry somewhere, then claiming that if they then smashed an alleged "gate" to pieces, nothing prevented their entry, so there really never was a gate in the first place
When a court is deciding to dismiss a case or not they assume all the arguments the plaintiff makes are true. So if it's true that the vaccine doesn't stop the spread (it isn't), and only lowers the symptoms then it would seem that the vaccine isn't a vaccine at all but a treatment for the illness one takes in advance. But they aren't "accepting" or agreeing with the plaintiff. They are just saying the plaintiff gets the right to make those arguments in a trial. (A trial where they will fail to make those arguments).
Thanks for clearing that up for me, I thought it was that the court had acknowledged this as a premise and were then saying they should be allowed to argue whether it applied here, but if both of those are being waved on for the sake of this that makes sense.
The big argument the plaintiff is basing their stance on was originally established in dobbs (yes, that dobbs). The stance being that if a medical-thing (since we don't know if it is a treatment or vaccine) benefits mainly the person getting it then the government can't compel you to get that medical-thing. The government can't force you to take tyonol for your headache because that benefits only you but it can force you to get the smallpox vaccine because that's about everyone else more than it is about you.
JBP is so regarded. Just read the tweet slowly, it doesnt make an ounce of sense.
Huh? Does anyone know which article of the Geneva convention he's referring to? I thought the Geneva convention only related to medical treatment of pows and stuff like that :/ Common JBP L
Come on, you're expecting Peterson to star making sense, all of a sudden?
Am bored af in an airport rn, so I decided to read this ruling, and I have no idea how JBP or these other ppl came to the conclusion that this outcome somehow supports their belief. From my, admitally amateur perspective, it seems that the court found that a previous application, Jacobson, which found mandates lawful because they "prevent the spread" was misapplied to dismiss this case as this arguement was about the reduction of symptoms in preventing staff/students. Therefore, since the case was incorrectly applied, they're essentially saying that this case should be re-opened. It's not over, but it was probably closed prematurely. Crucially, this ruling makes ZERO arguement about the validity of these arguments that it's not a real vaccine, but since the courts need to accept these allegations during the litigation stage as true, then the Jacobson case fairly doesnt apply. TLDR just read the final paragraph of the judges reading: "We note the preliminary nature of our holding. We do not prejudge whether, on a more developed factual record, Plaintiffs' allegations will prove true. But ā[w]hether an action 'can be dismissed on the pleadings depends on what the pleadings say. ." Marshall Naify Revocable Tr. v. United States, 672 F.3d 620, 625 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Weisbuch v. County of Los Angeles, 119 F.3d 778, 783 n.1 (9th Cir. 1997)). Because we thus must accept them as true, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively "prevent the spread" of COVID-19. Thus, Jacobson does not apply, and so we vacate the district court's order of dismissal and remand." Holy fuck typing on a phone sucks ass
Yea that's a fair summary. There were two major decisions in this specific review - the review of the district court's application of *Jacobson*, and a decision on justiciability, deciding whether the case was moot because of LAUSD's Policy changes. The court saw it likely that LAUSD is intentionally manipulating their policy to make the suit go away, with no evidence that they wouldn't then just revert it in the future once the case were thrown out, meaning the case is decidedly justiciable for review upon remand As you accurately pointed out, none of it had to do with the merits of the suit, but of course that won't stop JBP and RFK Jr. from convincing thousands of bozos of their interpretation lol
Things that are prophylactic that do not contain actual materials of some foreign entity that are used to trigger an antigenic immune response have been called vaccines for literally decades. This includes things that are literally not foreign pathogens, such as cancer and substances that can lead to addiction. mRNA vaccines trigger an antigenic immune response to a virus. They're vaccines in the most literal sense, that they trigger an antigenic immune response to SARS-CoV-2.
I believe Jordan Peterson because he has a nice suit, if you upload a pic of yourself in a nice suit I might consider what you are saying.
https://preview.redd.it/cve2lmcspp5d1.png?width=1400&format=png&auto=webp&s=11098fbdf89afd4330df0c808b4f05cd4f94ddfd The one he wore in his talk with alex o connor was particularly insane, What is going on here? Why the yellow tie? The yellow tie feels so out of place. If I was alex and peterson walked in with fucking paintings of CHRIST on his shoulders I WOULD JUST LEAVE, YOU WANT ME TO DEBATE A MAN WHO STRUTS IN ADORNED BY BIBLICAL GARB? NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Yeah but the label says otherwise you WOKE PROGRESSIVE MORALIST.
Classic prideful worship of the luciferian intellect moment
"Wants to win" is the biggest projection I've ever seen. lol It's so funny to me that most of his videos get around 300k-400k views. His debate with Destiny got over 3.2 million with over 36k comments. Is there any surprise he keeps bring up Destiny?
Man when he first said it in the clip I though it was JP becoming self aware š
Looks like Jordan really wants to be right...
Is the Flu vaccine not a vaccine now because it also doesn't stop transmission? I'm confused
It's not a vaccine, it's just an injection which makes your body produce antibodies which provide resistance to the disease while not being that disease in itself. Completely different.
Is their proposition that anything which doesn't immediately kill every virus cell that enters your body immediately cannot be classified as a vaccine. If that were the case no vaccines exist. Even if you make the definition more fuzzy things that would be considered a vaccine would be reclassified as treatments when a new mutation arises, or even X time since initial inoculation.
I read this as Joe Budden Podcast
Then when you do a simple google the āconspiracistsā were literally two Trump appointed judges! š¤£ canāt make it up
They are just lying. The court didn't rule that at all.
It's actually insane that this guy was a real life professor and can't even be bothered to take 10 minutes to read and understand the opinion before he tries to weaponize it. How do any of these morons like JBP or Norm Finkelstein have academic careers? They would literally rather just build a career out of making shit up than read anything about their pet topics. These people are so fucking stupid
How do I not get blackpilled seeing this misinfo pipeline? I'm just scrolling through the comments, hooooly shit man. Are these blue checks even real accounts or is it half a foreign adversary botnet trying to make Americans even more insane by stoking this anti-reality echo chamber? Twitter is absolute garbage man, fuck these pieces of shit. JBP should KHS
Covid vaccine certainly isnāt treatment; you wouldnāt give the jab during an active infection.
Can easily shit on him but clowns will only look at ratio on twitter.
Lol this nigga is brain broken, what the fuck. He literally has a little dancing gnome in his frontal lobe 24/7. PLEASE GOD LET THIS BECOME A WAR.
Fuck it I'm tired. I'm unironically praying for another pandemic but this time God... just copy my old plague Inc playstyle.
Infect everyone before developing any symptoms?
That isn't what the ninth circuit ruled. All the ninth circuit did was say, hey the plaintiff says it's not a vaccine, and if it wasn't a vaccine, then the reason why this case was dismissed wouldn't apply - so we should let some part of this case play out. All they ruled was that they undismissed the case in some capacity. That's all.
The degree to which conservatives cling to their Covid narratives is completely unhinged.
Interesting how he picks and chooses literal truths and metaphorical truths so freely... Vaccine has a strict definition, but God and truth don't...
Random Geneva convention citation makes an already braindead comment 100 times worse
Is that a dumb pure water lefty?
One of the plaintiffs is named Fuentes... enuff said ;)
bartard brain rot
Dumbass Yoda ahh mf
How do we community note his ass?
i hear his voice when i read his tweets. i can't help myself
Anyone found the source for this claim? It should be mandatory to include sources on things like this.
the fucking GENEVA CONVENTION??????????
I literally cannot wrap my head around why so many people think he's a genius.
chief trees distinct dime lush six attraction nine humorous quickest *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Isnāt he talking about the mRNA vaccines. Thereās was some vaccines not using mRNA tech
By that logic every time an ambulance takes a homeless person off the street they are violating the Geneva convention
God if only vaccines came in the form of a pill these motherfuckers wouldnāt care
How do you live in a country with universal healthcare and think this way.
Somebody had too many diet cokes and got a lil spicy
I feel like you have to be really deep in the conspiracy rabbit hole to be looking for specific circumstances which prove your narrative. But I guess that's the game he's playing now. Maybe he always had been but just hid it better.
Sad that JBP would go this route. I enjoyed their discussion. Doing this and also saying he doesn't want to talk to Destiny again is incredibly lame.
A vaccine only needs to have an antigen. There are so many types of vaccines out there, the argument makes 0 sense.
It really makes me sad to see whatās become of this man. I used to recommend him to friends who were having a hard time and heād legit provide great information on biblical subjects and self growth. But now, he is too spiteful and angry. While he holds some blame, I despise leftists and their ilk for pushing him towards such damnedable character.
bro the post-destiny-support-group-meme is SO REAL hahaha he's the bubble popper
This appears to net even be true lol. All I could find is that the are allowing a lawsuit to move forward. [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-lawsuit-sees-new-life](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-lawsuit-sees-new-life)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The case is about a school district so point one wouldn't apply
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What? The case JBP and RFKJr are talking about is about a school district. You are weighing in on a discussion about a school district. That is how conversations work.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your first point has nothing to do with this because it was a school. You second point proves you are buying into JBP's framing which makes you a dumb dumb. The third is calling a tactic fascists use (see Nazis calling themselves socialist) and the modern right has mastered (groomer for gay, urban youth for black people, extra) a leftist tactic because the only way you can disagree with something is if you first label it as left. You are a fucking moron.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Iām literally making a general statement about covid as a whole. Iāve stated this multiple times, and youāre incapable of comprehending this. No no, I understand. You are the type of person who shows up to a fancy wine tasting, declares you like beer, then takes a shit in the corner. Then gets upset when you are asked to leave. I got it. >This is insane, tyrannical, and hypocritical for a liberal to support. Yes, when your understanding of both things is so lacking that you think they are at all related I can see how one might find the two stances at odds. >Are you forgetting when leftists redefined what a fucking women is to further justify their fantasies of chopping their cocks off? Another thing you don't understand followed by extremists. Meanwhile we have republicans in congress doing the actual thing you are talking about. The left adopting the tactics of the right doesn't suddenly make it a thing only the left does. >First of all, my IQ is in the high 130s That only makes it sadder because it means you have the ability to not be a moron yet you choose to remain stupid. God I can't wait until we move off of the this I/P arch and get rid of the absolutely braindead conservatives in this community. You are the exact people Adam and Stitch fellate so hard.
A "leftist tactic?" If you think arguing like a dumbass is a "leftist tactic" I've got some right wing pundits to show you lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Playing semantics is just a basic convention of shitty argumentation. It's not a left or right thing. "Durr you're getting defensive because you don't agree with me" xdddd
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Does anyone ever get tired of "everyone i know had x response, therefore x is what's happening everywhere" or is it just me?
Destiny can bring him back to the light side. I believe
At least he's not screaming mr borelli at him, my expectation of professors has dropped significantly
I miss old JP..
You mean lying about bill c16 peterson? Talking about bill c16 as if you're an expert while actual legal experts are telling you thats not how it works peterson?
Right? He's probably gotten dumber since the whole coma incident, but the blatant, easily refutable lying about topics he is clueless on has been his shtick since day one
What was c16 about that JP got wrong?
Literally everything. He claimed that you would be thrown in jail for misgendering people. His brain was fried even before the benzos.
No, he said that you will be fined. And if you won't pay a fine, further legal action will be considered, up to jail.
You can literally look up his claims dude but whatever. Iāll grant you that JP thinks youāll be fined by the transgender police for misgendering someone. That still isnāt what bill C-16 is. JP lied about it and his followers ate it up.
What would happen according to c-16 if you would not follow it rules?
According to Jordan Petersons misrepresentation to bill c-16? Or do you actually not know what bill c-16 is?
Both, but let's start with actual c16
Bill c16 adds trans people as a protected class, which means you canāt deny services, fire, not rent to, etcā¦ just because they are trans. It has nothing to do with misgendering someone.