4 ms·

If peace is a worthy objective to sacrifice the health risk for, then accepting anti-vaxxers as a legal and legitimate position will get you there the fastest.

If peace is a worthy objective to sacrifice the health risk for, then accepting anti-vaxxers as a legal and legitimate position will get you there the fastest. However, if the argument is what level of pressure should the government apply to this group of people to coerce them into something they don't believe in, I demand that the advocate take the matter on their own hands and not place third parties in danger for their own beliefs.

dctoedt 7y ago
You might wish to re-read what I said. I'm NOT willing for global society to incur major health risks for the sake of placating anti-vaxxers' irrationality, even if that means forcibly imposing consensus solutions on them (e.g, by quarantine). But it's not black-and-white: Any such involuntary measures must be done in accordance with our established processes. Otherwise, we risk anarchy.
dctoedt 7y ago
> I demand that the advocate take the matter on their own hands and not place third parties in danger for their own beliefs. Demand all you like, but we have established processes for this sort of thing. If I were a physician or nurse tasked by a government with vaccinating people against their will, then certainly I'd do the job — assuming of course that the vaccine had been appropriately tested, etc., and that due process had been followed. Likewise, if I were a police officer and it was my job to make sure someone stood still to be involuntarily vaccinated, then sure, I'd do that job too, subject to the same assumptions. This is not a novel problem nor are we lacking in solutions; what I've described has been painfully worked out in the course of thousands of years of communal life.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  There is a public policy angle of debate, and a moral debate. There is no morality in absolute obedience: you can invent a process to do anything at all for any reason whatsoever. If we debate what a process should be to satisfy some morality, we need to debate on that ground first, and then the policy that enacts that morality as consistently as possible. If the morality you advocate is that vaccines should be administered against the will of the patients, then the policy I suggest you advocate for might be to have Vaccination squads that break into people's homes in the middle of the night and inject people with vaccines. It's better than demanding doctors to do it that as their Hippocratic oath bounds them not to do it and will fight you tooth and nail because of it. You could get to them as well by making it illegal for them to practice medicine unless they forcefully vaccinate all the patients as soon as they see them - without any medical reasoning that could be used as a lever for civil disobedience. But non-medical staff is the way to go, as brute and unapologetic as possible. The morality I advocate for is for vaccines to be administered at will, and for the anti-vaxers to be first persuaded, and then held reasonably accountable by their personal choice. If some anti-anti-vaxxer find themselves trapped in a dangerous situation because they are surrounded by anti-vaxxers, then they should get vaccines themselves and physically force it down on people, risking their own lives in the process (to get, in exchange, better life themselves). I would not advocate against those people, but neither for the anti-vaxxer that violently defends himself. I assure you that if these were the options for anti-anti-vaxxers, you would achieve much more peace and calm than with a system that gratifies their perverse pleasure of violence without risk or danger.

dctoedt 7y ago

You might wish to re-read what I said. I'm NOT willing for global society to incur major health risks for the sake of placating anti-vaxxers' irrationality, even if that means forcibly imposing consensus solutions on them (e.g, by quarantine). But it's not black-and-white: Any such involuntary measures must be done in accordance with our established processes. Otherwise, we risk anarchy.

dctoedt 7y ago

> I demand that the advocate take the matter on their own hands and not place third parties in danger for their own beliefs. Demand all you like, but we have established processes for this sort of thing. If I were a physician or nurse tasked by a government with vaccinating people against their will, then certainly I'd do the job — assuming of course that the vaccine had been appropriately tested, etc., and that due process had been followed. Likewise, if I were a police officer and it was my job to make sure someone stood still to be involuntarily vaccinated, then sure, I'd do that job too, subject to the same assumptions. This is not a novel problem nor are we lacking in solutions; what I've described has been painfully worked out in the course of thousands of years of communal life.

conanbatt 7y ago
There is a public policy angle of debate, and a moral debate. There is no morality in absolute obedience: you can invent a process to do anything at all for any reason whatsoever. If we debate what a process should be to satisfy some morality, we need to debate on that ground first, and then the policy that enacts that morality as consistently as possible. If the morality you advocate is that vaccines should be administered against the will of the patients, then the policy I suggest you advocate for might be to have Vaccination squads that break into people's homes in the middle of the night and inject people with vaccines. It's better than demanding doctors to do it that as their Hippocratic oath bounds them not to do it and will fight you tooth and nail because of it. You could get to them as well by making it illegal for them to practice medicine unless they forcefully vaccinate all the patients as soon as they see them - without any medical reasoning that could be used as a lever for civil disobedience. But non-medical staff is the way to go, as brute and unapologetic as possible. The morality I advocate for is for vaccines to be administered at will, and for the anti-vaxers to be first persuaded, and then held reasonably accountable by their personal choice. If some anti-anti-vaxxer find themselves trapped in a dangerous situation because they are surrounded by anti-vaxxers, then they should get vaccines themselves and physically force it down on people, risking their own lives in the process (to get, in exchange, better life themselves). I would not advocate against those people, but neither for the anti-vaxxer that violently defends himself. I assure you that if these were the options for anti-anti-vaxxers, you would achieve much more peace and calm than with a system that gratifies their perverse pleasure of violence without risk or danger.