4 ms·

If someone wants to exercise their freedoms and accept responsibility for harm they cause to themselves, I don't have a problem with that. I do however have a p

If someone wants to exercise their freedoms and accept responsibility for harm they cause to themselves, I don't have a problem with that. I do however have a problem with someone's exercise of their freedoms causing physical harm to me without my consent. In the same way that it's not acceptable to get lit and then drive a car because it creates a risk to other people, people should shut up and stay inside when told to do so in this context as they risk getting sick or being sick and spreading the disease to others, potentially killing them.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
psychlops 7y ago
That's how it should work. Excellent example. Automobile deaths account for over 3000 deaths per day, far in excess of what covid19 has or will do. Given that information, it seems that you would recommend people "shut up and stay inside" due to the "risk to other people". This is not rational. Giving up everyone's freedom and accepting simple authoritarian solutions a few vocal people want is not a good approach. Punishing perfectly healthy people by threat of imprisonment as a result of the absence of planning by the nation's healthcare and government is not a reasonable response.
- senordevnyc 7y ago
  That 3000+ per day is for the entire globe. And horrifyingly, there’s a chance the US alone will surpass that for some period in the coming weeks. Italy recorded 600+ today, and we’re much bigger. Plus we are way behind on locking down.
  - psychlops 7y ago
    That sounds horrifying. What information leads you to believe that the United States will be having so many automobile deaths in the coming weeks?
    - senordevnyc 7y ago
      Don’t be purposely obtuse. You know what I meant.