4 ms·

> That says you know what percentage of the people I am in contact with need to be vaccinated for some level of what you think I would consider to be "acceptabl

> That says you know what percentage of the people I am in contact with need to be vaccinated for some level of what you think I would consider to be "acceptable risk." So, do you know what that percentage would be, for various vaccines? And how did you define what my acceptable risk would be? Because I think you must have an opinion on both of those things, if you're willing to advise me that "I need most." Since you're favoring an economic slant to this discussion, how, exactly, did you decide what I need? You need most to get herd immunity. It varies on the disease, but you dont need unanimity to get it. Herd immunity was the prize you mentioned that justified using forceful mechanisms, where I answered you dont need it. What you individually want most is your judgement, I'm just telling you that you dont need everyone to agree with you to get herd immunity effects. > People can be carriers of diseases, and not become ill from them. This nullifies your argument. Also, that line of argument can be used as a defense of drunk driving. Drunk driving is not victim-less, even if your own body is risked, as well. That's insufficient escrow even for automobile insurance. In drunk driving, you are harming someone. In not vaccinating, you are not protecting someone. The comparable analogy would be that as long as you have space in your house, you should be forced to home the homeless. Since you, by taking space, are directly harming them with your negligence and self-interest, which then also have cumulative effects on society. > Yes, I think people can enact a government. A government has an enforced monopoly on force, and hopefully has established a system of laws that give the people the opportunity to change those laws over time. And frankly, we voted. We use force against ourselves. We're okay with that. Feel free to vote that we shouldn't be okay with that. Also, feel free to move and renounce your citizenship. Those legal options are available to you. You can also attempt to resist the laws of your country, peacefully or otherwise. I wouldn't recommend it. It is illegal to force vaccinations in the U.S. If you live in the use, you should move to a country that enforces your vaccination ideals. > (of physically forcing people) Fine by me. When you do it successfully, please send me proof and Ill gladly share your story with the world. I'd like to see you try doing this. Until then, talk is talk. > Oxygen is a benefit. Not having it is not a cost. Oxygen is nature, herd immunity is a societal benefit. Humans dont own oxygen, but they do, in a way, own the capacity to build herd immunity. This kind of logic is trying to reverse the burden of proof: that whatever you dont have is yours because it could be. Herd immunity is not a right, its not a natural right, not a legal right, etc. It's merely an effect of vaccines. > We have government to debate issues exactly like this. Governments have decided against forceful vaccination. Albeit some arguments about kids, babies and dogs, but to adults its generally in most cases, illegal to force it. Also, I find the line of argumentation about government kind of off-the-mark. Government is not supposed to be the way you force other people to do your will. That is a tyranny. If 51% vote to enslave the other 49%, a disservice to mankind was made. Thats why the modern governments are democracies with severe limitations on individual rights. > Personally, I'm realizing I should be trying to get my employer to demand all of the employees be reasonably vaccinated, via their employment contracts I hope your employer has the right to do that. He might not have it, due to some other person believing the opposite to your point, and willing to break into the employers home and physicially forcing them to do it.

VikingCoder 8y ago
> I'm just telling you that you dont need everyone to agree with you to get herd immunity effects. Agreed. And you've suggested I track down and pay some of the people I come in contact with, who have not vaccinated, to convince them to vaccinate, if I think the percentage of them is too high? > In drunk driving, you are harming someone. In not vaccinating, you are not protecting someone. Walking around, spreading a disease, is analogous to getting in a car's driver seat when you're drunk. If you want to avoid driving drunk, don't get drunk, or don't drive. If you want to avoid spreading a disease, get a vaccine. Also, drunk driving is NOT harming someone. It has increased the risk you will harm someone, to a level our government has deemed unacceptable. The analogy seems very appropriate. Do you want me to go around finding people with a certain blood alcohol level, and pay them to not drive? Our laws bar drunks from driving. That can actually be a life-or-death situation for them, or cause severe financial harm. "I need to get where I'm going for my job, and I don't have any money, but I'm inebriated." We use force against people who are drunk, because they increase the risk of harm. We detain them in jails, we put them in prisons, we rescind their privilege to drive. That's a lot of force being used against someone who didn't even cause any harm! > When you do it successfully, please send me proof and Ill gladly share your story with the world. I'd like to see you try doing this. Until then, talk is talk. If it's the law, and they need people to help enforce it, I may do my service. As my father was a veteran, my uncle is a veteran, my grandfather was a veteran, etc, serving your country and doing things that are not universally beloved is something my family has done. > It's merely an effect of vaccines. ...and arguably the most important thing humanity has done. It's a shame to watch people abandon it pointlessly, endangering those around them. > Albeit some arguments about kids, babies and dogs, but to adults its generally in most cases, illegal to force it. We're not debating whether is IS legal, we're discussing whether it should be. It's not like I'm unaware of the law. You seem to question the basis of a government using force. Governments do use force, that's all I'm saying. > Government is not supposed to be the way you force other people to do your will. It's how we compromise to live together. Intelligent creatures change their environment to suit them. We will all attempt to force other people to do our will. I think governments should enforce Intellectual Property rights. That means the government will use force to take property away from you, if it is found to be infringing someone else's government-granted monopoly. That is me using the government to force other people to do my will. > That is a tyranny. Tyranny is when you don't have a vote, don't have representation, can't speak your view, and can't move. It's entirely possible for you to lose faith in the government. Any government. And then you could reasonably see the laws of that government as tyranny. There's nothing illogical about that. But literally anyone can declare that at any time. > If 51% vote to enslave the other 49%, a disservice to mankind was made. Which is why it's great that our government protects us from exactly that kind of vote. We can debate whether it protects us well enough. NB: Our Constitution permitted slavery. It took a bloody Civil War to change that. People fought the righteous fight to end slavery. To a degree, we have to count on our government and our fellow man to protect us from being enslaved. > Thats why the modern governments are democracies with severe limitations on individual rights. I'm not sure where you're going with this. I presume you think that's a bad thing. > willing to break into the employers home Why would you go there? Don't you believe in Free Association? If my employer wants to limit employment only to people who have been vaccinated, are you going to argue they don't have that freedom? Regardless, I'm betting you use vaccines, and you just enjoy moral / legal debates. That's fine. Or are you really personally against using vaccines?

VikingCoder 8y ago

> I'm just telling you that you dont need everyone to agree with you to get herd immunity effects. Agreed. And you've suggested I track down and pay some of the people I come in contact with, who have not vaccinated, to convince them to vaccinate, if I think the percentage of them is too high? > In drunk driving, you are harming someone. In not vaccinating, you are not protecting someone. Walking around, spreading a disease, is analogous to getting in a car's driver seat when you're drunk. If you want to avoid driving drunk, don't get drunk, or don't drive. If you want to avoid spreading a disease, get a vaccine. Also, drunk driving is NOT harming someone. It has increased the risk you will harm someone, to a level our government has deemed unacceptable. The analogy seems very appropriate. Do you want me to go around finding people with a certain blood alcohol level, and pay them to not drive? Our laws bar drunks from driving. That can actually be a life-or-death situation for them, or cause severe financial harm. "I need to get where I'm going for my job, and I don't have any money, but I'm inebriated." We use force against people who are drunk, because they increase the risk of harm. We detain them in jails, we put them in prisons, we rescind their privilege to drive. That's a lot of force being used against someone who didn't even cause any harm! > When you do it successfully, please send me proof and Ill gladly share your story with the world. I'd like to see you try doing this. Until then, talk is talk. If it's the law, and they need people to help enforce it, I may do my service. As my father was a veteran, my uncle is a veteran, my grandfather was a veteran, etc, serving your country and doing things that are not universally beloved is something my family has done. > It's merely an effect of vaccines. ...and arguably the most important thing humanity has done. It's a shame to watch people abandon it pointlessly, endangering those around them. > Albeit some arguments about kids, babies and dogs, but to adults its generally in most cases, illegal to force it. We're not debating whether is IS legal, we're discussing whether it should be. It's not like I'm unaware of the law. You seem to question the basis of a government using force. Governments do use force, that's all I'm saying. > Government is not supposed to be the way you force other people to do your will. It's how we compromise to live together. Intelligent creatures change their environment to suit them. We will all attempt to force other people to do our will. I think governments should enforce Intellectual Property rights. That means the government will use force to take property away from you, if it is found to be infringing someone else's government-granted monopoly. That is me using the government to force other people to do my will. > That is a tyranny. Tyranny is when you don't have a vote, don't have representation, can't speak your view, and can't move. It's entirely possible for you to lose faith in the government. Any government. And then you could reasonably see the laws of that government as tyranny. There's nothing illogical about that. But literally anyone can declare that at any time. > If 51% vote to enslave the other 49%, a disservice to mankind was made. Which is why it's great that our government protects us from exactly that kind of vote. We can debate whether it protects us well enough. NB: Our Constitution permitted slavery. It took a bloody Civil War to change that. People fought the righteous fight to end slavery. To a degree, we have to count on our government and our fellow man to protect us from being enslaved. > Thats why the modern governments are democracies with severe limitations on individual rights. I'm not sure where you're going with this. I presume you think that's a bad thing. > willing to break into the employers home Why would you go there? Don't you believe in Free Association? If my employer wants to limit employment only to people who have been vaccinated, are you going to argue they don't have that freedom? Regardless, I'm betting you use vaccines, and you just enjoy moral / legal debates. That's fine. Or are you really personally against using vaccines?