3 ms·
The principle is simply: It is important to exercise our rights. In a different circumstance, I would probably only get it for convenience, because I don’t rea
by guscost 6y ago
The principle is simply: It is important to exercise our rights.
In a different circumstance, I would probably only get it for convenience, because I don’t really believe in messing with peoples’ immune systems without a much clearer benefit. I’m not convinced about the long-term public health benefit of flu shots either. You may disagree, which would not surprise me.
But again, that thinking is irrelevant in this case, because exercising liberty is FAR more important than “staying safe”.
- rglullis 6y agoYou should really find the comments I made on the thread before jumping to any conclusions about whether I disagree or not. The point I'm trying to understand is that you are basically saying "I am not getting because I don't want to and it is within my rights to not take it", which is totally fine. But I am failing to see how this is a "principled" statement. It's like saying "I will smoke a pack of cigarettes in my bathtub because I am free to do so". Claiming any "principle" stand there is based at best in circular logic.
- guscost 6y agoThe glaring difference between this situation and your analogy: There is no faction of “ban smoking in the bathtub” zealots getting ready to bully, intimidate, and otherwise coerce the people who want to smoke in the bathtub. Like it or not, this is a political issue, and your choice has a political effect.
- rglullis 6y agoFaction or not, you still have not established a principle to justify taking the action in the first place and so far all you've got was some circular logic. That's all I've objected to in your original post.