6 ms·

It’s the individual’s choice. Medical tyranny due to mass fear is still tyranny.

chii 5y ago
> It’s the individual’s choice to choose to not get vaccinated when it's not medically necessary for you to avoid it means you are endangering those who can't get vaccinated for medical reasons. Freedom of choice can only extend to actions that have no effect on others.
- jjgreen 5y ago
  All actions have effects on others -- you conclude that we cannot have freedom of choice, i.e., freedom?
  - chii 5y ago
    what you choose to do in your own private space, where the consequences of your actions is not going to affect me, is up to you. But if you take (or not take) actions that causes harm for other people, then you do not get to claim freedom of choice when you are stopped. Because if by this logic, you choose to drink and drive, and kills someone, you would claim that it's your freedom to drink!
    - jjgreen 5y ago
      Your post might be read by a crazy person who takes it as proof that anyone drinking is a danger to the world, and so decides to firebomb a bar. Since your actions lead to harm to others, you are no longer permitted to post on the internet (or elsewhere). Enjoy.
    - natmaka 5y ago
      As far as I understand this also plays the other way, because no one endorses each and every effect of the vaccine, therefore no one knows for sure that it cannot cause a problem, and consequently being vaccinated is taking a risk. Am I wrong?
      - sseagull 5y ago
        > no one knows for sure that it cannot cause a problem It is extremely hard, if not impossible, to prove a negative. By all available evidence, the vaccines are "safe" for some level of "safe". What more evidence do you need? Not getting the vaccine -> risk. Getting the vaccine -> smaller risk. Those are your two choices. Also, your choice to not get vaccinated not only increases others risk of infection, pools of unvaccinated people allow for mutation, endangering the currently vaccinated as well. If you are looking for the ability to 100% prove something, take up mathematics, and leave the rest of science to others.
        jjgreen 5y ago
        > It is extremely hard, if not impossible, to prove a negative. It is actually rather easy to prove a negative: If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P. This is called modus tollens and has been known since antiquity.
        sseagull 5y ago
        I will interpret this as a little tongue-in-cheek. But see my comment on mathematics :)
        natmaka 5y ago
        > Not getting the vaccine -> risk. Getting the vaccine -> smaller risk. This is not a hard fact but a matter of opinion, mainly of trust. Everyone is entitled to have one, and to chose for himself. Coercing some (for example to have them vaccinated) in the name of solidarity and preservation of society may lead to resentment and even hate. This is dangerous. My take: such crisis (pandemics) arise because too much people live in too densely populated areas, and travel too much and too fast. Those who chose to live this way are threatening others. In a mature human society we may let subgroups chose, each for itself, instead of coercing everyone into sustaining a single way. Trying to solve such crisis thanks to some hack (here: mandatory vaccination) is at best a kludge. Do some really think that, given the current state of affairs, there will be no other pandemics, that some new ones will not raise the ante, or that kludges will always be adequate?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > Freedom of choice can only extend to actions that have no effect on others. As far as I know you are still free to drive a car even though you a good chance to kill people with it every single day. Bad reasoning.
  - CarelessExpert 5y ago
    > As far as I know you are still free to drive a car even though you a good chance to kill people with it every single day. And if you do kill someone with your car you will be charged with vehicular manslaughter. Similar laws exist that make it a crime to kill or injure others through recklessness or negligence in a wide variety of circumstances. So I gather you're advocating for the government being able to charge the unvaccinated with manslaughter if a death can be attributed to their recklessly endangering others by refusing vaccination? Edit: To be clear, I'm not advocating for such a thing, but if one is going to accuse another commenter of "bad reasoning", it's probably best to avoid doing the same.
    - ekianjo 5y ago
      > And if you do kill someone with your car you will be charged with vehicular manslaughter. You still have the freedom to drive your car while we all know very well that several dozens of thousands of people will die because we allow that kind of freedom. Let's not pretend otherwise.
      - CarelessExpert 5y ago
        > You still have the freedom to drive your car And with that comes legally enforced consequences if you cause the death of another while exercising that freedom. That's how we deal with the situation where exercising one's freedoms violates the rights of another. So, given your choice of analogy, in a world where individuals have the freedom to choose not to be vaccinated against a deadly disease, I assume you therefore support the idea that similar legally enforced responsibility should apply to those who exercise their freedom to go about unvaccinated, and in doing so cause the death of another. Or would you care to choose another analogy where you are able to exercise a right in a way that both violates the rights of others while having absolutely no consequences?
scrollaway 5y ago
Society has tradeoffs. Paying taxes is one of them. Getting vaccinated is another. Those tradeoffs are made to protect the weaker members of society so that everyone, even the less fortunate, gets a fairer shot. In return, you get all the advantages of said society. This idea that you're protesting tyranny or something is absurd. You're being asked to give up a few hours of your time and some muscle pain to fight back against something that is plaguing the entire planet. You want to be selfish? Okay, but then go live on your own and don't go and contaminate other members of our society. You want to be selfish but still go to restaurants and concerts and airports and what not? Well what the fuck can I tell ya.
- dustinmoris 5y ago
  BBC presenter died of blood clot from the jab: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-presenter-died-blood-clot-20695064 https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-presenter-die... Mandating a medicine which many people don't really need is yet the most unethical dystopian thing of our current times. This is nothing like paying taxes because no tax bill has caused someone to die from side effects. Also I know that those side effects are extremely rare, but if you force it on 100% of the population then you know that there will be some who will be affected and you are essentially willingly killing some in order to protect others. That is completely unethical in principle. And I repeat, I am pro vaccine, but not forcefully applied to everyone. It should be a choice. I was happy to get vaccinated because I wasn't afraid of any side effects. But I also wasn't afraid of COVID so there's that.
  - scrollaway 5y ago
    When you're talking about side effects that are this rare, I can guarantee you that the side effects of just about anything are just as frequent. "Nobody has died from a tax bill" is nonsense. If you give it more than a moment's thought, you'll realize that there's probably plenty of people who have in fact died as a side effect of any type of unexpected bill, and that can include tax bill. Your premise that "many people don't really need" the vaccine for a highly infectious, highly transmissible disease is flawed from the get go. If you don't get the vaccine, you will catch COVID at one point or another, especially as its transmissibility goes up. And if you catch it, it's just a roll of the die whether you suffer side effects from it or not. This isn't about being scared of it or not, it's about numbers. Regardless on whether you suffer side effects, you will be a transmission vector. And if you do suffer side effects, you'll be a burden on society. It is in fact society's responsibility to prevent this from happening. I'm not a fan of nanny states, but when so many people are so eager to be not only selfish but a danger to themselves, fuck it all to hell, I'm pro mandatory vaccination at that point. I'd never have been pro mandatory vaccines until I found out just how many anti-vax people there are. Funny how that works: The more of them there are, the more we need to make them mandatory.
QuadmasterXLII 5y ago
with this attitude we’d still have smallpox and polio
- captainredbeard 5y ago
  How so? Those did not require forced vaccinations.
vaccineamateur 5y ago
Unvaccinated people increase of further mutations of virus which poses direct risk for vaccinated people.
- ndury 5y ago
  Doesn't this imply we need to vaccinate all animals too? What if it mutates in animals and contaminates humans again.
- loonster 5y ago
  It's the other way around. If a virus can infect an unvaxed person with no mutations, there will be no incentive for a mutation to become the dominant strain.

chii 5y ago

> It’s the individual’s choice to choose to not get vaccinated when it's not medically necessary for you to avoid it means you are endangering those who can't get vaccinated for medical reasons. Freedom of choice can only extend to actions that have no effect on others.

jjgreen 5y ago
All actions have effects on others -- you conclude that we cannot have freedom of choice, i.e., freedom?
- chii 5y ago
  what you choose to do in your own private space, where the consequences of your actions is not going to affect me, is up to you. But if you take (or not take) actions that causes harm for other people, then you do not get to claim freedom of choice when you are stopped. Because if by this logic, you choose to drink and drive, and kills someone, you would claim that it's your freedom to drink!
  - jjgreen 5y ago
    Your post might be read by a crazy person who takes it as proof that anyone drinking is a danger to the world, and so decides to firebomb a bar. Since your actions lead to harm to others, you are no longer permitted to post on the internet (or elsewhere). Enjoy.
  - natmaka 5y ago
    As far as I understand this also plays the other way, because no one endorses each and every effect of the vaccine, therefore no one knows for sure that it cannot cause a problem, and consequently being vaccinated is taking a risk. Am I wrong?
    - sseagull 5y ago
      > no one knows for sure that it cannot cause a problem It is extremely hard, if not impossible, to prove a negative. By all available evidence, the vaccines are "safe" for some level of "safe". What more evidence do you need? Not getting the vaccine -> risk. Getting the vaccine -> smaller risk. Those are your two choices. Also, your choice to not get vaccinated not only increases others risk of infection, pools of unvaccinated people allow for mutation, endangering the currently vaccinated as well. If you are looking for the ability to 100% prove something, take up mathematics, and leave the rest of science to others.
      - jjgreen 5y ago
        > It is extremely hard, if not impossible, to prove a negative. It is actually rather easy to prove a negative: If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P. This is called modus tollens and has been known since antiquity.
        sseagull 5y ago
        I will interpret this as a little tongue-in-cheek. But see my comment on mathematics :)
      - natmaka 5y ago
        > Not getting the vaccine -> risk. Getting the vaccine -> smaller risk. This is not a hard fact but a matter of opinion, mainly of trust. Everyone is entitled to have one, and to chose for himself. Coercing some (for example to have them vaccinated) in the name of solidarity and preservation of society may lead to resentment and even hate. This is dangerous. My take: such crisis (pandemics) arise because too much people live in too densely populated areas, and travel too much and too fast. Those who chose to live this way are threatening others. In a mature human society we may let subgroups chose, each for itself, instead of coercing everyone into sustaining a single way. Trying to solve such crisis thanks to some hack (here: mandatory vaccination) is at best a kludge. Do some really think that, given the current state of affairs, there will be no other pandemics, that some new ones will not raise the ante, or that kludges will always be adequate?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ekianjo 5y ago
> Freedom of choice can only extend to actions that have no effect on others. As far as I know you are still free to drive a car even though you a good chance to kill people with it every single day. Bad reasoning.
- CarelessExpert 5y ago
  > As far as I know you are still free to drive a car even though you a good chance to kill people with it every single day. And if you do kill someone with your car you will be charged with vehicular manslaughter. Similar laws exist that make it a crime to kill or injure others through recklessness or negligence in a wide variety of circumstances. So I gather you're advocating for the government being able to charge the unvaccinated with manslaughter if a death can be attributed to their recklessly endangering others by refusing vaccination? Edit: To be clear, I'm not advocating for such a thing, but if one is going to accuse another commenter of "bad reasoning", it's probably best to avoid doing the same.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    > And if you do kill someone with your car you will be charged with vehicular manslaughter. You still have the freedom to drive your car while we all know very well that several dozens of thousands of people will die because we allow that kind of freedom. Let's not pretend otherwise.
    - CarelessExpert 5y ago
      > You still have the freedom to drive your car And with that comes legally enforced consequences if you cause the death of another while exercising that freedom. That's how we deal with the situation where exercising one's freedoms violates the rights of another. So, given your choice of analogy, in a world where individuals have the freedom to choose not to be vaccinated against a deadly disease, I assume you therefore support the idea that similar legally enforced responsibility should apply to those who exercise their freedom to go about unvaccinated, and in doing so cause the death of another. Or would you care to choose another analogy where you are able to exercise a right in a way that both violates the rights of others while having absolutely no consequences?

scrollaway 5y ago

Society has tradeoffs. Paying taxes is one of them. Getting vaccinated is another. Those tradeoffs are made to protect the weaker members of society so that everyone, even the less fortunate, gets a fairer shot. In return, you get all the advantages of said society. This idea that you're protesting tyranny or something is absurd. You're being asked to give up a few hours of your time and some muscle pain to fight back against something that is plaguing the entire planet. You want to be selfish? Okay, but then go live on your own and don't go and contaminate other members of our society. You want to be selfish but still go to restaurants and concerts and airports and what not? Well what the fuck can I tell ya.

dustinmoris 5y ago
BBC presenter died of blood clot from the jab: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-presenter-died-blood-clot-20695064 https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-presenter-die... Mandating a medicine which many people don't really need is yet the most unethical dystopian thing of our current times. This is nothing like paying taxes because no tax bill has caused someone to die from side effects. Also I know that those side effects are extremely rare, but if you force it on 100% of the population then you know that there will be some who will be affected and you are essentially willingly killing some in order to protect others. That is completely unethical in principle. And I repeat, I am pro vaccine, but not forcefully applied to everyone. It should be a choice. I was happy to get vaccinated because I wasn't afraid of any side effects. But I also wasn't afraid of COVID so there's that.
- scrollaway 5y ago
  When you're talking about side effects that are this rare, I can guarantee you that the side effects of just about anything are just as frequent. "Nobody has died from a tax bill" is nonsense. If you give it more than a moment's thought, you'll realize that there's probably plenty of people who have in fact died as a side effect of any type of unexpected bill, and that can include tax bill. Your premise that "many people don't really need" the vaccine for a highly infectious, highly transmissible disease is flawed from the get go. If you don't get the vaccine, you will catch COVID at one point or another, especially as its transmissibility goes up. And if you catch it, it's just a roll of the die whether you suffer side effects from it or not. This isn't about being scared of it or not, it's about numbers. Regardless on whether you suffer side effects, you will be a transmission vector. And if you do suffer side effects, you'll be a burden on society. It is in fact society's responsibility to prevent this from happening. I'm not a fan of nanny states, but when so many people are so eager to be not only selfish but a danger to themselves, fuck it all to hell, I'm pro mandatory vaccination at that point. I'd never have been pro mandatory vaccines until I found out just how many anti-vax people there are. Funny how that works: The more of them there are, the more we need to make them mandatory.

QuadmasterXLII 5y ago

with this attitude we’d still have smallpox and polio

captainredbeard 5y ago
How so? Those did not require forced vaccinations.

vaccineamateur 5y ago

Unvaccinated people increase of further mutations of virus which poses direct risk for vaccinated people.

ndury 5y ago
Doesn't this imply we need to vaccinate all animals too? What if it mutates in animals and contaminates humans again.
loonster 5y ago
It's the other way around. If a virus can infect an unvaxed person with no mutations, there will be no incentive for a mutation to become the dominant strain.