It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
hypothetically, if the vaccine is found to have long term negative effects where the person who is fully vaxxed, sheds viral loads of a new sickness, and thus needs to NOT be allowed to enter any restaurants, but instead must be served through the drive through window, or a back door, would you be angry that you were not allowed to participate in society, or would you just accept that you are now infectious and a detriment to the world in general?
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: zatara
Was the drive thru closed?
originally posted by: canucks555
Well maybe try understanding that the general populous want to feel safe when they eat, drink, fly, go to school, go to work.
etc.
Simply put, there's a virus, there's a vaccination that helps fight against the virus, and, well that's pretty much it.
You have your opinion, companies have there opinions. Just the way it is.
originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: canucks555
People want to feel safe or people want to actually be safe?
That's really the main message I'm getting from a lot of this, there's not any actual safety taking place, just the appearance of such. I know a lot of it is all virtue signaling from various groups, but apparently the appearance of safety is more important than actual safety.
originally posted by: network dude
hypothetically, if the vaccine is found to have long term negative effects where the person who is fully vaxxed, sheds viral loads of a new sickness, and thus needs to NOT be allowed to enter any restaurants, but instead must be served through the drive through window, or a back door, would you be angry that you were not allowed to participate in society, or would you just accept that you are now infectious and a detriment to the world in general?
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: zatara
Was the drive thru closed?
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: network dude
hypothetically, if the vaccine is found to have long term negative effects where the person who is fully vaxxed, sheds viral loads of a new sickness, and thus needs to NOT be allowed to enter any restaurants, but instead must be served through the drive through window, or a back door, would you be angry that you were not allowed to participate in society, or would you just accept that you are now infectious and a detriment to the world in general?
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: zatara
Was the drive thru closed?
Personally, no. I've never gone to any fast food business for the social perks. I pick up my purchase and take it home where my actual friends are.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: network dude
Your comprehension of my relevance to the dialogue is not a basis for my freedom to contribute to said dialogue. You asked me a question, I answered. If you want to clarify why my statements are not helpful, then that's another approach. But don't think you are in some position to effectively shut me out because you disagree with me.
originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: zatara
In some places in the U.S., if you have a history of driving while under the influence of alcohol, you can be required to blow into a breathalyzer to unlock your vehicle's ignition.
In essence, the law requires you to prove that you have taken steps to reduce the likelihood that you could harm others; even though it's your body and your car, your "right" to "do as you please" with them can be limited by the authorities. Or you walk.
Further, although it may be a "public space" that McDonald's is private property, and thus its owners have every right to protect their property, and their guests, by imposing access limitations to that property to the extent of the law.
And finally, the difference between a supermarket and a McDonald's is that no one needs the "food" at a McDonald's, no matter how much they may want to.