3 ms·

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?

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?