2 and 3 absolutely can apply. Considering you get reported to the feds for transactions over $10,000 (or is it lower now?), it's completely reasonable for someone to decide it's not worth the risk and set the cash aside.
As far as number 5, you can't assume that's illegal either. I have a family member who's ex wife continues to commit identity theft and cause headaches for him 5 years after the divorce is over.
>I don't think it's fair to say your experience represents some runaway extra-judicial outcome.
Being involuntarily committed makes you a "prohibited person" and includes a lifetime ban on owning a firearm.[1] It wouldn't surprise me if there were
other strings attached to having that on your record too.
>Lots of folks are just too coddled and unwilling to take a risk, even for the greater good.
I'm not sure how you arrived here from my comment. If I was willing to dox myself you'd see that I have probably taken more risks for 'the greater good'™ than you or even most folks on this site. But those days are over, and this whole situation is setting off all of my finely tuned alarm bells.
You should spend less time stereotyping and more time attempting to understand others.
Letting others do as they please is also a risk 'for the greater good', by the way.
>Lots of folks afraid to take a shot that's been well-studied and given to millions and is, in all probability, quite safe. ;)
That's one way to describe it.
Another less charitable way to describe it: a novel gene therapy being deployed by organizations with a long history of experimenting on the people they were meant to protect.
Pfizer and J&J got the two biggest fines ever handed out by the US government, and moderna and biontech have never had a drug approved before. The US government's history of performing medical experiments on it's own (and foreign) populations speaks for itself.
It is interesting how you characterize the lack of trust in these organizations as selfishness.
Edit:
Apparently I've been posting too fast despite my last post being over an ago, so I can't reply. This post has also been flagged, probably due to the gene therapy comment.
Both Modern and the FDA consider it to be a gene therapy.
"Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA."[1]
>Your threat model for ubiquitous cheap sensing tech is nation states? I'm not overly worried about being spied on by nation states. In general, my feeling is that if a nation-state decides I'm important enough to deploy hardware against, I have no real defense.
Nation states worry me precisely because I'm uninteresting. They wouldn't deploy hardware against me, but I'm under no illusion that they wouldn't use every mass-surveillance option available to them, including mass exploitation of commodity hardware.
I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post.
There is an online course called nand2tetris where you build a whole computer from nand gate level (CPU, ram, ROM, memory-mapped display output, keyboard scanning, etc), write your own assembler and high level language, then program it to play tetris. It is, bar none, the most fun online course I've ever taken.
Because we weren't debating the safety of mRNA. That is unrelated to the discussion and I would be feeding the troll by moving the conversation from ethics to semantics and efficacy. I stated in my original comment that even if it's effective I still have ethical issues with coerced administration of it, gene therapy or not.
The gravity of the falsehood is key to understanding.
We have seen an incredible growth of authoritarianism, from the near daily 'Simon says' mandate changes, lockdowns, increased surveillance, destruction of small business, 12 trillion dollars printed, and coerced administration of a novel gene therapy. You have no choice but to be right with all of that on your shoulders, that's a lot to weigh down a conscience if one is wrong.
Maybe it is working, but being coerced to take a novel gene therapy from organizations with a long history of abuse is a horrific precedent that should offend everyone.
SCOTUS has made many rulings that cops both know and regularly ignore. There's hundreds of videos online of police threatening a camera person with arrest if they don't provide ID and then blinding or obstructing the camera. All three of those have been explicitly ruled on and leave no question, yet they continue to do it en masse.
If you don't stop, cops will happily chase you in violation of department policy, endangering innocent bystanders[1], then shoot you when you are running away. If you happen to get away the next step is sending a paramilitary team to your house to shoot your dog and throw a flashbang in your baby's crib.
>Cops don't have to use violence to solve all their problems.
They don't have to, but its usually the first resort. There's literally thousands of hours of videos online of cops knowingly making illegal 'requests' on video and threatening arrest for noncompliance.
[1] I had to ride my motorcycle over a curb because a police SUV somehow thought he could outrun a race bike and came flying around a blind stop sign in my neighborhood at a fast enough speed to hit the opposite lane. Policy in my city is no pursuit.