3 ms·

So, if we were in a situation where a virus was 90% lethal and could spread easily, you wouldn't mind people walking around spreading it because otherwise we wo

by mrlala 6y ago

So, if we were in a situation where a virus was 90% lethal and could spread easily, you wouldn't mind people walking around spreading it because otherwise we would be infringing on their natural rights?

anonfornoreason 6y ago
It's like free speech - you either support it whether or not you strongly disagree with the speech in question, or you give up the right. Edited to change wording to be more nuanced and convey my actual beliefs.
- mrlala 6y ago
  And by my example you don't see the flaw in your logic? Plus, you are now switching to free speech. That is a false equivalent because your speech cannot inherently harm someone (we aren't talking about hurt feelings here, I mean physically injuring/killing someone). To sum: supporting 100% free speech no matter what is "fine" because it does not affect anyone else (aside from hurt feelings, so let's ignore that). Supporting 100% free movement no matter what cannot be compared to freedom of speech because you can literally harm/kill other people by your actions.
  - anonfornoreason 6y ago
    Ok, the right of assembly, or the right of privacy. They all work equally well to push back against government mandated widespread medical intervention.
    - mrlala 6y ago
      You sure know how to beat around the bush. Let's just be perfectly clear- if there was a virus that is 90% lethal and easily air-borne transmittable.. you are OK with infected people having "the right" to go anywhere they want in public and transmit the virus to others?
      - anonfornoreason 6y ago
        It's a silly question because if the virus was 90% lethal, people wouldn't just walk around. It's a self solving problem. We wouldn't be discussing lock downs, because everyone would lock down without being told they should lock down. The virus we are talking about, COVID-19, is incredibly low risk for 90+ percent of the population. I don't think we should enact policy that infringe on freedoms, so that vulnerable people can move around freely. Or rather, it's important to balance the two. Mask mandates are a reasonable compromise, but an immunization mandate isn't. Focus policy making on vulnerable people - give them wage replacement to not go out in public or to their job if they are overweight, have diabetes, if they are elderly, immunocompromised, etc. But, don't mess with our natural rights. Do not trade liberty for safety, do not build the social will and legal foundation for future erosions of liberty, regardless of the purity of the motive today. Edited to clarify mask vs immunization mandate above.
        mrlala 6y ago
        >It's a silly question because if the virus was 90% lethal, people wouldn't just walk around. It's a self solving problem. We wouldn't be discussing lock downs, because everyone would lock down without being told they should lock down. No, it's not a silly question. You are making the ASSUMPTION that people will make the best decisions for everyone (including themselves). I don't think you have been paying attention this year. And you didn't even answer the question- would you be for forced lockdown if it was that lethal? Saying "it's not even a question" is skirting the issue. Because what about 70% lethal, or 60%, or 50%.. maybe even down to 10%. If your view is there is NO level that liberty can be sacrificed- then prove it by thinking about this simple situation and saying it. I do agree with your general sentiment. However you are acting as if there is NO situation in which limiting liberty is the right choice. And I am arguing that is simply not true by giving you some extreme examples. >Mask mandates are a reasonable compromise Yeah, and people can't even follow THAT. It's arguments like yours that people are like "A mask!? what about MY FREEDOM!". Your freedom becomes less relevant when it DIRECTLY IMPOSES ON THE SAFETY OF OTHERS. >But, don't mess with our natural rights. Do not trade liberty for safety Buzz. Wrong. Your natural rights don't give you the right to harm others.

by mrlala 6y ago

anonfornoreason 6y ago

It's like free speech - you either support it whether or not you strongly disagree with the speech in question, or you give up the right. Edited to change wording to be more nuanced and convey my actual beliefs.

mrlala 6y ago
And by my example you don't see the flaw in your logic? Plus, you are now switching to free speech. That is a false equivalent because your speech cannot inherently harm someone (we aren't talking about hurt feelings here, I mean physically injuring/killing someone). To sum: supporting 100% free speech no matter what is "fine" because it does not affect anyone else (aside from hurt feelings, so let's ignore that). Supporting 100% free movement no matter what cannot be compared to freedom of speech because you can literally harm/kill other people by your actions.
- anonfornoreason 6y ago
  Ok, the right of assembly, or the right of privacy. They all work equally well to push back against government mandated widespread medical intervention.
  - mrlala 6y ago
    You sure know how to beat around the bush. Let's just be perfectly clear- if there was a virus that is 90% lethal and easily air-borne transmittable.. you are OK with infected people having "the right" to go anywhere they want in public and transmit the virus to others?
    - anonfornoreason 6y ago
      It's a silly question because if the virus was 90% lethal, people wouldn't just walk around. It's a self solving problem. We wouldn't be discussing lock downs, because everyone would lock down without being told they should lock down. The virus we are talking about, COVID-19, is incredibly low risk for 90+ percent of the population. I don't think we should enact policy that infringe on freedoms, so that vulnerable people can move around freely. Or rather, it's important to balance the two. Mask mandates are a reasonable compromise, but an immunization mandate isn't. Focus policy making on vulnerable people - give them wage replacement to not go out in public or to their job if they are overweight, have diabetes, if they are elderly, immunocompromised, etc. But, don't mess with our natural rights. Do not trade liberty for safety, do not build the social will and legal foundation for future erosions of liberty, regardless of the purity of the motive today. Edited to clarify mask vs immunization mandate above.
      - mrlala 6y ago
        >It's a silly question because if the virus was 90% lethal, people wouldn't just walk around. It's a self solving problem. We wouldn't be discussing lock downs, because everyone would lock down without being told they should lock down. No, it's not a silly question. You are making the ASSUMPTION that people will make the best decisions for everyone (including themselves). I don't think you have been paying attention this year. And you didn't even answer the question- would you be for forced lockdown if it was that lethal? Saying "it's not even a question" is skirting the issue. Because what about 70% lethal, or 60%, or 50%.. maybe even down to 10%. If your view is there is NO level that liberty can be sacrificed- then prove it by thinking about this simple situation and saying it. I do agree with your general sentiment. However you are acting as if there is NO situation in which limiting liberty is the right choice. And I am arguing that is simply not true by giving you some extreme examples. >Mask mandates are a reasonable compromise Yeah, and people can't even follow THAT. It's arguments like yours that people are like "A mask!? what about MY FREEDOM!". Your freedom becomes less relevant when it DIRECTLY IMPOSES ON THE SAFETY OF OTHERS. >But, don't mess with our natural rights. Do not trade liberty for safety Buzz. Wrong. Your natural rights don't give you the right to harm others.