3 ms·

You're using a lot of internet argument buzz words, but none of them invalidate my position. More to the point: people get to make choices. That's what being a

You're using a lot of internet argument buzz words, but none of them invalidate my position. More to the point: people get to make choices. That's what being a person means. Either you let people choose, or you put them on a feedlot, admit that this is a factory farm, and openly ply them with antibiotics and horomones, so you can milk them longer, before putting the bolt gun to their head and serving their remains at McDonald's.

mort96 8y ago
> Either you let people choose, or you put them on a feedlot, admit that this is a factory farm, and openly ply them with antibiotics and horomones, so you can milk them longer, before putting the bolt gun to their head and serving their remains at McDonald's. How about the third option; let people do as they please, as long as it doesn't negatively affect others? You're dismissing the concept of herd immunity, as well as the fact that there are people who can't be vaccinated for legitimate reasons (i.e age or medical issues), and the fact that vaccines aren't 100% effective, as "internet argument buzz words". It almost sounds like you're arguing either in bad faith or from a position of willful ignorance.
lovich 8y ago
Pure anarchy or factory farming of humans. Thank you for making us aware that those are the only two options for a society. The issue is much clearer now
cmurf 8y ago
Using your own logic, we should let healthy people choose to execute those who aren't immunized the instant they contract disease. It's self-defense, just let people choose. Obviously that's absurd. There is a line drawn in any civil society, to keep it civil. If people want to opt out of immunizations, it should be legal and obligatory to eject them from society: they do not get to go to school in public schools, they can be discriminated against in hiring, they can be excluded from health care programs whether private or public insurance - until they comply. That is absolutely civil behavior, and it's reasonable. And they can still choose whether to participate in civil society or not. And we have very nearly that policy. But the problem in the U.S. is religious exemptions. The flaw with the current coddling of religious folk, is that a person's right to religious freedom cannot be permitted to increase the risk to other people's lives. And yet it does, and we tolerate it so far. The only people who should be exempt from immunizations are those who are immune compromised in a way that their life is at greater risk by being immunized.
- downer52 8y ago
  Letting a stranger execute a stranger doesn't fit in with the basic concept of personal choice which affects only one's self or family members. In fact, it's in direct contravention to the underlying concept, so you're clearly lost at sea, and digressing.

mort96 8y ago

> Either you let people choose, or you put them on a feedlot, admit that this is a factory farm, and openly ply them with antibiotics and horomones, so you can milk them longer, before putting the bolt gun to their head and serving their remains at McDonald's. How about the third option; let people do as they please, as long as it doesn't negatively affect others? You're dismissing the concept of herd immunity, as well as the fact that there are people who can't be vaccinated for legitimate reasons (i.e age or medical issues), and the fact that vaccines aren't 100% effective, as "internet argument buzz words". It almost sounds like you're arguing either in bad faith or from a position of willful ignorance.

lovich 8y ago

Pure anarchy or factory farming of humans. Thank you for making us aware that those are the only two options for a society. The issue is much clearer now

cmurf 8y ago

Using your own logic, we should let healthy people choose to execute those who aren't immunized the instant they contract disease. It's self-defense, just let people choose. Obviously that's absurd. There is a line drawn in any civil society, to keep it civil. If people want to opt out of immunizations, it should be legal and obligatory to eject them from society: they do not get to go to school in public schools, they can be discriminated against in hiring, they can be excluded from health care programs whether private or public insurance - until they comply. That is absolutely civil behavior, and it's reasonable. And they can still choose whether to participate in civil society or not. And we have very nearly that policy. But the problem in the U.S. is religious exemptions. The flaw with the current coddling of religious folk, is that a person's right to religious freedom cannot be permitted to increase the risk to other people's lives. And yet it does, and we tolerate it so far. The only people who should be exempt from immunizations are those who are immune compromised in a way that their life is at greater risk by being immunized.

downer52 8y ago
Letting a stranger execute a stranger doesn't fit in with the basic concept of personal choice which affects only one's self or family members. In fact, it's in direct contravention to the underlying concept, so you're clearly lost at sea, and digressing.