4 ms·

It's so bizarre. Very few people would argue that they have the freedom to pump chemicals into the air that kill 1% of the population. You have the freedom to

It's so bizarre. Very few people would argue that they have the freedom to pump chemicals into the air that kill 1% of the population. You have the freedom to do what you want with your body but when it impacts me then that freedom stops being absolute and becomes more nuanced. If you don't want to be vaccinated then that's fine, but you're not allowed to put me at risk with your choice. I almost compare it to drunk driving laws. You can get as drunk as you want at home. But when you get into a car, your choices start to impact everyone else, and your right to get as drunk as you want and die in a single-car accident is trumped by my right to not be subject to undue risk when I'm in public. Even if the risk is low, maybe you've driven drunk 1000 times and never killed anyone, my right to be safe trumps your right to drive drunk.

pjc50 5y ago
> Very few people would argue that they have the freedom to pump chemicals into the air that kill 1% of the population The cigarette industry argued this for years past the discovery of passive smoking. In fact I'd say a large amount of 20th century industrial history has been discovering the long list of things that shave bits and pieces off the lives of people in aggregate and banning them - in the face of opposition saying they have a right to emit this and denying the harm.
- imbnwa 5y ago
  > In fact I'd say a large amount of 20th century industrial history has been discovering the long list of things that shave bits and pieces off the lives of people in aggregate and banning them - in the face of opposition saying they have a right to emit this and denying the harm. Serious movie spoiler alert: this is literally what Soderbergh's latest film is about
soco 5y ago
I'm afraid we're way past logic in this kind of debate. You can give facts and comparisons and numbers until you drop and the others will just say "nope" and won't even bother to argue - because they already know, mind you.

pjc50 5y ago

> Very few people would argue that they have the freedom to pump chemicals into the air that kill 1% of the population The cigarette industry argued this for years past the discovery of passive smoking. In fact I'd say a large amount of 20th century industrial history has been discovering the long list of things that shave bits and pieces off the lives of people in aggregate and banning them - in the face of opposition saying they have a right to emit this and denying the harm.

imbnwa 5y ago
> In fact I'd say a large amount of 20th century industrial history has been discovering the long list of things that shave bits and pieces off the lives of people in aggregate and banning them - in the face of opposition saying they have a right to emit this and denying the harm. Serious movie spoiler alert: this is literally what Soderbergh's latest film is about

soco 5y ago

I'm afraid we're way past logic in this kind of debate. You can give facts and comparisons and numbers until you drop and the others will just say "nope" and won't even bother to argue - because they already know, mind you.