7 ms·

Also, your comparison is bad. It's more like a mother giving her son a winter hat, and he refuses it because he knows he doesn't need it, and his mother does n

Also, your comparison is bad. It's more like a mother giving her son a winter hat, and he refuses it because he knows he doesn't need it, and his mother does not give him dinner. Because that is where we seem to be headed: refusing to let people work so that they can have the basic necessities, just like dinner is for a child.

scotty79 5y ago
Of course he "knows". Kids who don't want a hat always "know" they don't need a hat. Even if that was dinner. They'll eventually get some dinner even if they adamantly refuse a hat. Or they can just wear a hat even if they "know" they don't need it. Sometimes cooperation is worth more than sticking to what you believe is true.
- ghoward 5y ago
  And sometimes, it is not. I am accepting the consequences of becoming a second-class citizen. If you still disagree with my choice, then what you desire is control, not cooperation.
  - scotty79 5y ago
    Of course I disagree. Your decission puts other people health at risk for no benefit to you or anyone else. My desire is not control just education of people so they can avoid stupid decisions like the one you made. Somebody framed vaccine as a freedom issue and you happily agreed to accept this framework and internalize it. For me freedom of not taking a vaccine is same as freedom to avoid drinking unsweetened, unflavored water. I mean, sure, you can, but why in the world would you want to? The only result is increasing probability of harm for you, your loved ones and possibly other people. And even if you want it, why would you put it on your freedom banner? Why not something less harmful? Like freedom to avoid eating meat?
    - ghoward 5y ago
      Because once the freedom to make medical choices is taken away, a line has been crossed that can be easily crossed in the future in a far worse way. But at this point, you should know that your line of "no benefit" is absolutely false. Also, assuming the vaccines are all benefit is false. Every medical treatment has risks; failure to recognize that is the first thing that tells me someone did not actually think about vaccines. That goes for health officials too.
      - scotty79 5y ago
        For all intents and purposes, apart from covid, the vaccine (Pfizer, Moderna) is no different than injecting yourself with very small amount of saline. Geting stung by any insect is orders of magnitude more dangerous. So avoiding vaccine is of no practical benefit to anyone. Despite billions vaccinated there's no clear evidence that any onserved adverse medical outcome registered after vaccination has greater prevalence in vaccinated than in general population. If you want to fight for freedom of medical choices then fight for the right to abortion because there is no other case where a person is lawfully compelled to risk their health for benefit of other human. That's way more clear cut case of limiting somebody's medical choices (by refusing a procedure in this case) for benefit of only another human. Limiting peoples medical choices is pretty bad when you think about it as being compelled to a procedure or being refused a procedure for ideological reasons. But what's worst in this are ideological reasons not the limitation itself. We are routinely limited in out medical choices for practical reasons like the cost of the procedure or harmfulness of it and we are sort of fine with that. Your inability to have you kidney cut out to sell it is a limit on your medical choices but most people find it reasonable given harm to you and to society caused by such procedure. Freedom of choice is a great thing to strive for but it's only as realistically possible as long as people won't use that freedom to make excessively stupid choices. Freedom is not absolute thing. It's just a worthwhile goal to aspire to when practical.
        ghoward 5y ago
        I agree that freedom is not an absolute. However, the freedom the be stupid, as you say, should not be taken away just because you think it is stupid. I'm assuming you simply did not read my blog post where I lay out my reasons. Using CDC data, I found that the vaccines would not be equivalent to injecting saline. I have the data and the calculations. If you read it, you can disagree and say that I am wrong, but you can't just arbitrarily declare my reasoning wrong because my reasoning is based on what is important to me. However, because you haven't even read my blog post, it appears that your are arguing in bad faith, so I do not need to engage further with you.

scotty79 5y ago

Of course he "knows". Kids who don't want a hat always "know" they don't need a hat. Even if that was dinner. They'll eventually get some dinner even if they adamantly refuse a hat. Or they can just wear a hat even if they "know" they don't need it. Sometimes cooperation is worth more than sticking to what you believe is true.

ghoward 5y ago
And sometimes, it is not. I am accepting the consequences of becoming a second-class citizen. If you still disagree with my choice, then what you desire is control, not cooperation.
- scotty79 5y ago
  Of course I disagree. Your decission puts other people health at risk for no benefit to you or anyone else. My desire is not control just education of people so they can avoid stupid decisions like the one you made. Somebody framed vaccine as a freedom issue and you happily agreed to accept this framework and internalize it. For me freedom of not taking a vaccine is same as freedom to avoid drinking unsweetened, unflavored water. I mean, sure, you can, but why in the world would you want to? The only result is increasing probability of harm for you, your loved ones and possibly other people. And even if you want it, why would you put it on your freedom banner? Why not something less harmful? Like freedom to avoid eating meat?
  - ghoward 5y ago
    Because once the freedom to make medical choices is taken away, a line has been crossed that can be easily crossed in the future in a far worse way. But at this point, you should know that your line of "no benefit" is absolutely false. Also, assuming the vaccines are all benefit is false. Every medical treatment has risks; failure to recognize that is the first thing that tells me someone did not actually think about vaccines. That goes for health officials too.
    - scotty79 5y ago
      For all intents and purposes, apart from covid, the vaccine (Pfizer, Moderna) is no different than injecting yourself with very small amount of saline. Geting stung by any insect is orders of magnitude more dangerous. So avoiding vaccine is of no practical benefit to anyone. Despite billions vaccinated there's no clear evidence that any onserved adverse medical outcome registered after vaccination has greater prevalence in vaccinated than in general population. If you want to fight for freedom of medical choices then fight for the right to abortion because there is no other case where a person is lawfully compelled to risk their health for benefit of other human. That's way more clear cut case of limiting somebody's medical choices (by refusing a procedure in this case) for benefit of only another human. Limiting peoples medical choices is pretty bad when you think about it as being compelled to a procedure or being refused a procedure for ideological reasons. But what's worst in this are ideological reasons not the limitation itself. We are routinely limited in out medical choices for practical reasons like the cost of the procedure or harmfulness of it and we are sort of fine with that. Your inability to have you kidney cut out to sell it is a limit on your medical choices but most people find it reasonable given harm to you and to society caused by such procedure. Freedom of choice is a great thing to strive for but it's only as realistically possible as long as people won't use that freedom to make excessively stupid choices. Freedom is not absolute thing. It's just a worthwhile goal to aspire to when practical.
      - ghoward 5y ago
        I agree that freedom is not an absolute. However, the freedom the be stupid, as you say, should not be taken away just because you think it is stupid. I'm assuming you simply did not read my blog post where I lay out my reasons. Using CDC data, I found that the vaccines would not be equivalent to injecting saline. I have the data and the calculations. If you read it, you can disagree and say that I am wrong, but you can't just arbitrarily declare my reasoning wrong because my reasoning is based on what is important to me. However, because you haven't even read my blog post, it appears that your are arguing in bad faith, so I do not need to engage further with you.