5 ms·

So... my body, _not_ my choice?

by exabrial 6y ago

ceejayoz 6y ago
Sure, just like drunk driving or twitching your trigger finger when someone just happens to be in front of the gun.
- think814 6y ago
  What about non-drunk driving? You still have a non zero risk of killing pedestrians or other drivers/passengers. There's risk in everything we do, including for other people. What amount of risk is acceptable is a subjective choice.
  - lm28469 6y ago
    Going to an event with dozens of other people during covid, especially in the current situation, is like driving on a highway full of walking people. It's not a "it might be dangerous" situation, it's a "it's definitely going to end bad" situation
  - 3JPLW 6y ago
    This is why speed limits are prudent. This is why masks and gathering limits are prudent.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    And liability is part of that - that's why auto insurance is mandatory. There's a difference between reckless endangerment/homicide than an accident. Ridiculous false equivalency.
    - timr 6y ago
      "There's a difference between reckless endangerment/homicide than an accident. Ridiculous false equivalency." And yet, comparison of catching a virus to homicide by gun is not.
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        Strawman, I never mentioned homicide by gun.
        timr 6y ago
        This entire subthread is in response to just such a comparison: "Sure, just like drunk driving or twitching your trigger finger when someone just happens to be in front of the gun." And I quoted you -- you make a comparison to homicide. Comparing catching a virus to homicide of any sort is...extreme.
        tshaddox 6y ago
        Firstly, that's not the same commenter. Secondly, the drunk driving and gun examples were clearly provided merely as examples where "my body, my choice" doesn't apply.
        timr 6y ago
        I know it's not the same commenter. If you're going to argue that gun homicide and drunk driving are examples that should also be followed here, you are making the analogy between catching a virus and those examples.
        tshaddox 6y ago
        Yes, the analogy is being made, and the scope of the analogy is clearly that "my body, my choice" does not apply to either thing.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        > And yet, comparison of catching a virus to homicide by gun is not. That was not intended as a comparison, but as an obvious example of where "my body, my choice" clearly does not apply to making a slight movement of your index finger.
- dfsegoat 6y ago
  >> or twitching your trigger finger when someone just happens to be in front of the gun. Poor example, as Firearms safety 101 would prevent this: - always point weapon in safe direction - finger off trigger until ready to fire - know your target and what is behind it - treat every weapon as if it were loaded. https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/ https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/
  - _Microft 6y ago
    Of course the firearms safety rules are what they are - there is just this guy who thinks they do not apply to him.
  - 3JPLW 6y ago
    Poor response, as pandemic safety 101 would prevent this: - wash your hands - wear a mask - practice social distancing - avoid extended periods indoors with non-household members https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si...
vbordo 6y ago
This is a misapplication of an ideological statement about abortion. Disregarding the guidance of health professionals such as wearing a mask and socially distancing means endangering other people's lives.
- mbostleman 6y ago
  Only if there is no other life in context with abortion.
- timr 6y ago
  "Disregarding the guidance of health professionals such as wearing a mask and socially distancing means endangering other people's lives." ...which isn't different than any other year. Every year, the flu kills tens of thousands (in the US -- higher worldwide). Disproportionately children. Every year, driving kills hundreds of thousands, even when you exclude the effects of alcohol. Every year, people have sex without condoms, and pass on harmful -- possibly fatal -- viruses. Every year, millions of people die from communicable disease of every sort, ranging from pneumonia to HIV. This is the first time in my life that we've tried to apply transitive risk logic to justify curtailing of individual freedoms. Masks are one thing, but telling people that they can't have family gatherings because it might hurt you? This seems wrong to me. You can use this logic to justify literally any curtailment of personal freedom.
  - goostavos 6y ago
    >This is the first time in my life that we've tried to apply transitive risk logic to justify curtailing of individual freedoms. Seems wrong to me, too. There exists no society (that I'm aware of) where the decisions of an individual don't have second or third order effects on other members of the society. We manage and deal with this risk every day of our lives. Sometimes it flat out sucks. However, you can't control for it without raising a lot of very, very uncomfortable questions about what personal choices get to be made, by whom, and under which conditions. This boils down to how you see the world, I guess. Much like any of the usual contentious political topics, both 'camps' view the other side as morally reprehensible.
  - 6y ago

So... my body, _not_ my choice?

ceejayoz 6y ago

Sure, just like drunk driving or twitching your trigger finger when someone just happens to be in front of the gun.

think814 6y ago
What about non-drunk driving? You still have a non zero risk of killing pedestrians or other drivers/passengers. There's risk in everything we do, including for other people. What amount of risk is acceptable is a subjective choice.
- lm28469 6y ago
  Going to an event with dozens of other people during covid, especially in the current situation, is like driving on a highway full of walking people. It's not a "it might be dangerous" situation, it's a "it's definitely going to end bad" situation
- 3JPLW 6y ago
  This is why speed limits are prudent. This is why masks and gathering limits are prudent.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  And liability is part of that - that's why auto insurance is mandatory. There's a difference between reckless endangerment/homicide than an accident. Ridiculous false equivalency.
  - timr 6y ago
    "There's a difference between reckless endangerment/homicide than an accident. Ridiculous false equivalency." And yet, comparison of catching a virus to homicide by gun is not.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      Strawman, I never mentioned homicide by gun.
      - timr 6y ago
        This entire subthread is in response to just such a comparison: "Sure, just like drunk driving or twitching your trigger finger when someone just happens to be in front of the gun." And I quoted you -- you make a comparison to homicide. Comparing catching a virus to homicide of any sort is...extreme.
        tshaddox 6y ago
        Firstly, that's not the same commenter. Secondly, the drunk driving and gun examples were clearly provided merely as examples where "my body, my choice" doesn't apply.
        timr 6y ago
        I know it's not the same commenter. If you're going to argue that gun homicide and drunk driving are examples that should also be followed here, you are making the analogy between catching a virus and those examples.
        tshaddox 6y ago
        Yes, the analogy is being made, and the scope of the analogy is clearly that "my body, my choice" does not apply to either thing.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > And yet, comparison of catching a virus to homicide by gun is not. That was not intended as a comparison, but as an obvious example of where "my body, my choice" clearly does not apply to making a slight movement of your index finger.
dfsegoat 6y ago
>> or twitching your trigger finger when someone just happens to be in front of the gun. Poor example, as Firearms safety 101 would prevent this: - always point weapon in safe direction - finger off trigger until ready to fire - know your target and what is behind it - treat every weapon as if it were loaded. https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/ https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/
- _Microft 6y ago
  Of course the firearms safety rules are what they are - there is just this guy who thinks they do not apply to him.
- 3JPLW 6y ago
  Poor response, as pandemic safety 101 would prevent this: - wash your hands - wear a mask - practice social distancing - avoid extended periods indoors with non-household members https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si...

vbordo 6y ago

This is a misapplication of an ideological statement about abortion. Disregarding the guidance of health professionals such as wearing a mask and socially distancing means endangering other people's lives.

mbostleman 6y ago
Only if there is no other life in context with abortion.
timr 6y ago
"Disregarding the guidance of health professionals such as wearing a mask and socially distancing means endangering other people's lives." ...which isn't different than any other year. Every year, the flu kills tens of thousands (in the US -- higher worldwide). Disproportionately children. Every year, driving kills hundreds of thousands, even when you exclude the effects of alcohol. Every year, people have sex without condoms, and pass on harmful -- possibly fatal -- viruses. Every year, millions of people die from communicable disease of every sort, ranging from pneumonia to HIV. This is the first time in my life that we've tried to apply transitive risk logic to justify curtailing of individual freedoms. Masks are one thing, but telling people that they can't have family gatherings because it might hurt you? This seems wrong to me. You can use this logic to justify literally any curtailment of personal freedom.
- goostavos 6y ago
  >This is the first time in my life that we've tried to apply transitive risk logic to justify curtailing of individual freedoms. Seems wrong to me, too. There exists no society (that I'm aware of) where the decisions of an individual don't have second or third order effects on other members of the society. We manage and deal with this risk every day of our lives. Sometimes it flat out sucks. However, you can't control for it without raising a lot of very, very uncomfortable questions about what personal choices get to be made, by whom, and under which conditions. This boils down to how you see the world, I guess. Much like any of the usual contentious political topics, both 'camps' view the other side as morally reprehensible.
- 6y ago