off_sounder

The intent of the first amendment is to give individuals the freedom to express their thoughts freely, without any legal repercussions. It's a universal human right, and its implementation into law is irrelevant to any philosophical discussion on morals.

That right has brought freedom and prosperity everywhere it's been implemented with minimal restrictions.

Twitter has become a public platform/forum/news outlet at this point. It's hard for anyone to argue with that, since people go there to get their news and to hear what prominent figures have to say.

Regardless of all that, shouldn't we be insisting that American companies retain core American values? The market can't select for those values since Twitter has no direct competitors, which makes the case for it being a platform even stronger.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't we be looking at whether the people at the bottom gained more wealth, rather than what percentage of the gains they hold?

The wealthy will always have more opportunities bc of the 80/20 rule, and the fact that inequality is inherent in all animals. It is called "trickle down" after all, not "ration down."

I'm skeptical about the efficacy of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine over longer periods of time.

I've still not heard a reasonable explanation about why this vaccine is expected to work long-term when the flu shot clearly does not. Especially since SARS-CoV-2 mutates faster than the flu virus.

Can anyone give me an explanation of why vaccines are touted for fast-evolving viruses like the flu and SARS-CoV-2?

Wrong again, bc you're leaving out intent. People aren't taking the vaccine bc they don't want to inadvertantly put themselves in harm's way, not bc they want to infect other people.

Or maybe they're like me, and have already been infected with mild symptoms. Have you noticed that no one talks about natural immunity anymore, btw?

Again, anyone who has seen the VAERS data, and doesn't think twice about getting the vaccine, is just plain reckless.

Your wrong. That's like saying a taxi cab driver who drove a criminal to a place where he committed a murder is partly responsible for the crime.

The virus is the thing that's causing harm. You can't blame an individual for being skeptical about a vaccine (that has more voluntarily reports of causing harm than any other vaccine in recent history, btw) that's experimental, and unapproved.

Also, the science is in on there being an effective treatment, therefore emergency use isn't even warranted. Seems cut and dry to me .