4 ms·

"One can either be part of society or not. Society has minimum requirements if one wants to participate" You make it sound as if there is a fixed, god given se

"One can either be part of society or not. Society has minimum requirements if one wants to participate" You make it sound as if there is a fixed, god given set of rules for society. That's not the case. Societies rules are constantly being negotiated by society. So your argument is not an argument at all. It boils down to "you have to follow the rules because you have to follow the rules".

thwarted 5y ago
Those requirements are welcome to be negotiated. But negotiation often isn't occurring in good faith. There's way too much flat-earth- holocaust-denial- style arguments from those who "just don't want to be told what to do". Getting vaccinated doesn't take away someone's liberties; "I don't want to be told what to do" is not an argument against vaccination. Many of these people are just making noise, and it's getting old. I'm not saying there aren't good arguments for not getting vaccinated, but it falls flat when those same people got vaccinated in order to attend public school or have state issued IDs or use passports or will bitch about a loved one dying because they failed to get vaccinated.
- kofddfjdfdfdff 5y ago
  Mandating medical interventions is pretty much taking away someone's liberties. And your opinions about other people's opinions are also irrelevant as an argument.
  - thwarted 5y ago
    Are you daft? I'm not offering what I think of other people's opinions as an argument about vaccination. I'm responding to your assertion that there is actually valuable debate to be had with rubes whose only argument is "I don't like being told what to do".
    - mygoodaccount 5y ago
      > Are you daft? This style of dialogue is not welcome here. Try Reddit.
      - sharken 5y ago
        Well put and my thoughts exactly. Hacker News is a great place for all kinds of information and great discussions too. Let's try and keep it that way.
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  Tone and discourse. We're not debating the merits of vaccinations here. We're talking about how this way of making conversation is ultimately toxic. > There's way too much flat-earth- holocaust-denial- style arguments from those who "just don't want to be told what to do". This is how you want the discourse to look like? Somebody puts an argument, and gets labeled flat earther. Do you know Gell Mann amnesia? I shared an article the other day on facebook and got it flagged as "out of context". As it happens, it was something not out of context, just slightly against the mainstream. What do you think this did to my confidence in the mainstream? And before you say that my article must have been wrong, let me remind you that the mainstream was against wearing masks 12 months ago. Hell, CDC was against wearing ffp2 masks... I don't know, 3 months ago? Civil discourse and tone are much more important long term than just winning conversation points. Sure, go for points if you want. But every time you say things like "flat earth", you take a small chip out of the boat we're all in.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
piva00 5y ago
Following societies' rules is the basic principle of the social contract, I recommend reading a little about it starting from Hobbes' Leviathan.
- kofddfjdfdfdff 5y ago
  But who draws up the social contract?
  - prepend 5y ago
    Hobbes lays out a mixture of natural/God aspects and society negotiated aspects. But I think they all boil down to an ongoing slow shift of what society accepts as a whole. I think society has opinions and ideas that evolve into ethics and morals that are represented in laws. It’s not a secret. In this case, rights are curtailed to require vaccines. This is deemed acceptable. If you don’t like it, convince your country mates to change their mind. Or move to a country that feels differently. Or move to the wilderness.
    - kofddfjdfdfdff 5y ago
      Why do you say it is "deemed acceptable", if there is an ongoing discussion about it?
      - prepend 5y ago
        Yes, certainly. The ongoing discussion is going on right now, we’re part of it as a very small amount of two strangers talking. I think it’s usually informal, but sometimes through debates, books, essays, etc. A good example are the Federalist Papers in the 18th century with back and forth on topics that ended up being articulated in the constitution, bill of rights, etc. I think it also varies from country to country as it varies quite a bit.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

thwarted 5y ago

Those requirements are welcome to be negotiated. But negotiation often isn't occurring in good faith. There's way too much flat-earth- holocaust-denial- style arguments from those who "just don't want to be told what to do". Getting vaccinated doesn't take away someone's liberties; "I don't want to be told what to do" is not an argument against vaccination. Many of these people are just making noise, and it's getting old. I'm not saying there aren't good arguments for not getting vaccinated, but it falls flat when those same people got vaccinated in order to attend public school or have state issued IDs or use passports or will bitch about a loved one dying because they failed to get vaccinated.

kofddfjdfdfdff 5y ago
Mandating medical interventions is pretty much taking away someone's liberties. And your opinions about other people's opinions are also irrelevant as an argument.
- thwarted 5y ago
  Are you daft? I'm not offering what I think of other people's opinions as an argument about vaccination. I'm responding to your assertion that there is actually valuable debate to be had with rubes whose only argument is "I don't like being told what to do".
  - mygoodaccount 5y ago
    > Are you daft? This style of dialogue is not welcome here. Try Reddit.
    - sharken 5y ago
      Well put and my thoughts exactly. Hacker News is a great place for all kinds of information and great discussions too. Let's try and keep it that way.
radu_floricica 5y ago
Tone and discourse. We're not debating the merits of vaccinations here. We're talking about how this way of making conversation is ultimately toxic. > There's way too much flat-earth- holocaust-denial- style arguments from those who "just don't want to be told what to do". This is how you want the discourse to look like? Somebody puts an argument, and gets labeled flat earther. Do you know Gell Mann amnesia? I shared an article the other day on facebook and got it flagged as "out of context". As it happens, it was something not out of context, just slightly against the mainstream. What do you think this did to my confidence in the mainstream? And before you say that my article must have been wrong, let me remind you that the mainstream was against wearing masks 12 months ago. Hell, CDC was against wearing ffp2 masks... I don't know, 3 months ago? Civil discourse and tone are much more important long term than just winning conversation points. Sure, go for points if you want. But every time you say things like "flat earth", you take a small chip out of the boat we're all in.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

piva00 5y ago

Following societies' rules is the basic principle of the social contract, I recommend reading a little about it starting from Hobbes' Leviathan.

kofddfjdfdfdff 5y ago
But who draws up the social contract?
- prepend 5y ago
  Hobbes lays out a mixture of natural/God aspects and society negotiated aspects. But I think they all boil down to an ongoing slow shift of what society accepts as a whole. I think society has opinions and ideas that evolve into ethics and morals that are represented in laws. It’s not a secret. In this case, rights are curtailed to require vaccines. This is deemed acceptable. If you don’t like it, convince your country mates to change their mind. Or move to a country that feels differently. Or move to the wilderness.
  - kofddfjdfdfdff 5y ago
    Why do you say it is "deemed acceptable", if there is an ongoing discussion about it?
    - prepend 5y ago
      Yes, certainly. The ongoing discussion is going on right now, we’re part of it as a very small amount of two strangers talking. I think it’s usually informal, but sometimes through debates, books, essays, etc. A good example are the Federalist Papers in the 18th century with back and forth on topics that ended up being articulated in the constitution, bill of rights, etc. I think it also varies from country to country as it varies quite a bit.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]