4 ms·

> 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 t

> 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?

conanbatt 8y ago
> You seem to question the basis of a government using force. Governments do use force, that's all I'm saying. Im questioning the value of a solution with the application of force. A dangerous tool, that requires all sorts of limitations to make sure it is not used abusively. And injecting things into people against their will is pretty high up there. It is not the intention of the act alone that decides if its moral or not: the act itself is. I think we have had enough experiences to know that if the government decided what to do with your own body, great tragedies follow. If you can force people onto their bodies, can you forbid them to each unhealthy foods? can you ban drugs and alcohol? Can you decide on forcefully aborting, or forbidding abortion? How people are dressed? Its not the act of using a hammer on a nail that is in question: its the hammer itself, and the act of nails voting who gets hit next. Why would government enacted violence be any more dignified than individual violence? What change does it make to the morality of a violent act if it was voted on?
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  > Im questioning the value of a solution with the application of force. Governments use force. By definition. That means you question the value of governments. I don't. The alternative is warlords, who also use force. The benefit of a Government, specifically of a mostly democratic one, is I have some say in when and how that force gets used, without myself having to be a warlord. > A dangerous tool, that requires all sorts of limitations to make sure it is not used abusively. Absolutely. A Constitution enacting checks and balances, and guaranteeing free speech and a free press, are the best ways I know to limit that power. > And injecting things into people against their will is pretty high up there. Sure? Allowing nuclear testing where it can impact people is also bad. (We did that.) Allowing the for-profit sale of known carcinogens is also bad. (We do that. See: asbestos, tobacco.) We've also committed absolute atrocities. [1] Clearly we need more checks and balances, and a more powerful press. > It is not the intention of the act alone that decides if its moral or not: the act itself is. Is the act of murder moral? I'm pretty sure you would say, "no." What about when the US sees Germany invading neighboring countries, and killing Jews and gypsies? Is it moral for the US to start murdering German soldiers, in open war? I'm pretty sure you have to concede, "yes." Therefore, it is not the act alone. The intention also plays a part. > I think we have had enough experiences to know that if the government decided what to do with your own body, great tragedies follow. I'm pretty sure great tragedies will happen regardless, and unfortunately, governments have to make decisions. King Solomon's wisdom over deciding to cut a baby in half comes to mind. > can you ban drugs and alcohol I think a far better parallel track of conversation is antibiotics. If you don't follow the prescribed course of antibiotics, you can breed drug-resistant bacteria. That's a very good argument in favor of limiting access to antibiotics, to people who have consulted with a doctor. There are countries (India) where antibiotics are much more freely available, and people don't use them properly. They take them for a few days, until they feel better. Breeding dangerous strains. The argument can be made that governments should stop you from improperly using antibiotics, because it increases the risk to all of us. > Can you decide on forcefully aborting, or forbidding abortion? We do decide that. We have to make decisions about how our laws work. > How people are dressed? We decide that, too, yes. > Its not the act of using a hammer on a nail that is in question: its the hammer itself, and the act of nails voting who gets hit next. Hitler 2.0 comes up. Should we murder his soldiers? I vote yes. How vote you? > Why would government enacted violence be any more dignified than individual violence? "Dignified" is an interesting word choice. "having or showing a composed or serious manner that is worthy of respect." The simple answer is that the government composed a law in a respectful manner, and hopefully the officers of the government carried out the law in a respectful manner. When they don't, we're supposed to hold them to account. > What change does it make to the morality of a violent act if it was voted on? Catholics say a phrase, "in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do." It can be immoral to NOT act. It would be immoral to not intervene in WW3 with Hitler 2.0. The way we decide if it's time to intervene is that we vote on how our representative government is run. [1] : http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story/2017/02/guatemala_syphilis_experiments_worse_than_tuskegee.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story...

conanbatt 8y ago

> You seem to question the basis of a government using force. Governments do use force, that's all I'm saying. Im questioning the value of a solution with the application of force. A dangerous tool, that requires all sorts of limitations to make sure it is not used abusively. And injecting things into people against their will is pretty high up there. It is not the intention of the act alone that decides if its moral or not: the act itself is. I think we have had enough experiences to know that if the government decided what to do with your own body, great tragedies follow. If you can force people onto their bodies, can you forbid them to each unhealthy foods? can you ban drugs and alcohol? Can you decide on forcefully aborting, or forbidding abortion? How people are dressed? Its not the act of using a hammer on a nail that is in question: its the hammer itself, and the act of nails voting who gets hit next. Why would government enacted violence be any more dignified than individual violence? What change does it make to the morality of a violent act if it was voted on?

VikingCoder 8y ago
> Im questioning the value of a solution with the application of force. Governments use force. By definition. That means you question the value of governments. I don't. The alternative is warlords, who also use force. The benefit of a Government, specifically of a mostly democratic one, is I have some say in when and how that force gets used, without myself having to be a warlord. > A dangerous tool, that requires all sorts of limitations to make sure it is not used abusively. Absolutely. A Constitution enacting checks and balances, and guaranteeing free speech and a free press, are the best ways I know to limit that power. > And injecting things into people against their will is pretty high up there. Sure? Allowing nuclear testing where it can impact people is also bad. (We did that.) Allowing the for-profit sale of known carcinogens is also bad. (We do that. See: asbestos, tobacco.) We've also committed absolute atrocities. [1] Clearly we need more checks and balances, and a more powerful press. > It is not the intention of the act alone that decides if its moral or not: the act itself is. Is the act of murder moral? I'm pretty sure you would say, "no." What about when the US sees Germany invading neighboring countries, and killing Jews and gypsies? Is it moral for the US to start murdering German soldiers, in open war? I'm pretty sure you have to concede, "yes." Therefore, it is not the act alone. The intention also plays a part. > I think we have had enough experiences to know that if the government decided what to do with your own body, great tragedies follow. I'm pretty sure great tragedies will happen regardless, and unfortunately, governments have to make decisions. King Solomon's wisdom over deciding to cut a baby in half comes to mind. > can you ban drugs and alcohol I think a far better parallel track of conversation is antibiotics. If you don't follow the prescribed course of antibiotics, you can breed drug-resistant bacteria. That's a very good argument in favor of limiting access to antibiotics, to people who have consulted with a doctor. There are countries (India) where antibiotics are much more freely available, and people don't use them properly. They take them for a few days, until they feel better. Breeding dangerous strains. The argument can be made that governments should stop you from improperly using antibiotics, because it increases the risk to all of us. > Can you decide on forcefully aborting, or forbidding abortion? We do decide that. We have to make decisions about how our laws work. > How people are dressed? We decide that, too, yes. > Its not the act of using a hammer on a nail that is in question: its the hammer itself, and the act of nails voting who gets hit next. Hitler 2.0 comes up. Should we murder his soldiers? I vote yes. How vote you? > Why would government enacted violence be any more dignified than individual violence? "Dignified" is an interesting word choice. "having or showing a composed or serious manner that is worthy of respect." The simple answer is that the government composed a law in a respectful manner, and hopefully the officers of the government carried out the law in a respectful manner. When they don't, we're supposed to hold them to account. > What change does it make to the morality of a violent act if it was voted on? Catholics say a phrase, "in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do." It can be immoral to NOT act. It would be immoral to not intervene in WW3 with Hitler 2.0. The way we decide if it's time to intervene is that we vote on how our representative government is run. [1] : http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story/2017/02/guatemala_syphilis_experiments_worse_than_tuskegee.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story...