3 ms·

> "Excess death" is a pragmatic term, not a normative term Fully aware of that. The reason I invoked them is to make the pragmatic point that those statistics

> "Excess death" is a pragmatic term, not a normative term Fully aware of that. The reason I invoked them is to make the pragmatic point that those statistics alone and the correlated rise with covid should tell an analyst that risks associated with the virus aren't the same as "every other year they've been alive." That's a descriptive observation. Of course, it also invites a normative judgment... > If we're being anal about it, it is not entirely true. It's essentially true, and this is important. There have been genuinely compulsory vaccinations in modern free societies... and these compulsions turned out not to be slippery slopes into totalitarian oppression, but the corner case that you'd expect from societies that, as you say, realize this isn't about "absolute safety nor absolute freedom," that both risks and rights can be qualified (and in fact, for rights to be meaningful at all, they must be qualified, since there are always cases where a right reaches a point of tension with another right). And NY isn't even talking about genuine compulsory vaccination, it's proposing vaccination as a condition of participating in things that people can opt out of. It's not even as compulsory as a fine or paying your taxes or any number of other carrots/sticks that states regularly use to "push conclusions into people" because if you're going to have a society, you're going to blow past the limits of voluntarism at some point, as lovely as it is to try and maximize it within those limits. > People have a right to keep the functional and structural integrity of their bodies Yes, I anticipated that and you can see it in my comment where I refer to bodily autonomy. It's a good place to start, but like every other right it isn't unqualified.

canoebuilder 5y ago
and in fact, for rights to be meaningful at all, they must be qualified, since there are always cases where a right reaches a point of tension with another right What? I have never heard anything like that at all. Rights are absolute. That sounds like it is coming from the "Sure free speech is fine, so long as it doesn't offend me," crowd. it's proposing vaccination as a condition of participating in things that people can opt out of. People here are generally highly attuned to one of the big surveillance ad corps trying to massage people into accepting some invasion of their personal sovereignty, how is this different? You think if something like this is accepted there won't be pushes to go further? If this infrastructure is put in place, it will be abused, and it will coopted for other things.
- wwweston 5y ago
  > What? I have never heard anything like that at all. Sure you have. It's embedded in the common phrase (invoked earlier) about the right to swing a fist ending at the edge of people's noses. Or in the oft-invoked expression about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Or the frequent refrain about rights being paired with responsibilities. > You think if something like this is accepted there won't be pushes to go further? We don't have to "think" it, we can point to historic and present examples where like compulsory actions existed without devolving into totalitarianism because we have a society shaped by people who understood it's possible to have both substantial general protections and specific exceptions.
  - forcry 5y ago
    >We don't have to "think" it, we can point to historic and present examples where like compulsory actions existed without devolving into totalitarianism... If there are, that should be the exceptions, rather than the norm. Also, the parent asked if there won't be "pushes". So the implication is that there will be an overwhelming push in that direction, and very weak countering "pull" in the opposite direction. And it is clear what direction it will ultimately go. So that is the danger in setting a precedent. So that further pushes in a "bad" direction will require much less effort, and only matter of time it is accepted to be the "new normal"..
    - wwweston 5y ago
      The precedents you're invoking as fearsome are scattered over a century old, some older. Past vaccination requirements have been examined and upheld -- all without leading to an overwhelming push to eliminate general autonomy. So the idea that "it is clear what direction it will ultimately go" is... kinda correct, actually. It is clear that general autonomy can remain a valued principle with specific exceptions. It is clear that they are the exceptions rather than the norm. And that the pull in the other direction isn't weak.
      - forcry 5y ago

canoebuilder 5y ago

and in fact, for rights to be meaningful at all, they must be qualified, since there are always cases where a right reaches a point of tension with another right What? I have never heard anything like that at all. Rights are absolute. That sounds like it is coming from the "Sure free speech is fine, so long as it doesn't offend me," crowd. it's proposing vaccination as a condition of participating in things that people can opt out of. People here are generally highly attuned to one of the big surveillance ad corps trying to massage people into accepting some invasion of their personal sovereignty, how is this different? You think if something like this is accepted there won't be pushes to go further? If this infrastructure is put in place, it will be abused, and it will coopted for other things.

wwweston 5y ago
> What? I have never heard anything like that at all. Sure you have. It's embedded in the common phrase (invoked earlier) about the right to swing a fist ending at the edge of people's noses. Or in the oft-invoked expression about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Or the frequent refrain about rights being paired with responsibilities. > You think if something like this is accepted there won't be pushes to go further? We don't have to "think" it, we can point to historic and present examples where like compulsory actions existed without devolving into totalitarianism because we have a society shaped by people who understood it's possible to have both substantial general protections and specific exceptions.
- forcry 5y ago
  >We don't have to "think" it, we can point to historic and present examples where like compulsory actions existed without devolving into totalitarianism... If there are, that should be the exceptions, rather than the norm. Also, the parent asked if there won't be "pushes". So the implication is that there will be an overwhelming push in that direction, and very weak countering "pull" in the opposite direction. And it is clear what direction it will ultimately go. So that is the danger in setting a precedent. So that further pushes in a "bad" direction will require much less effort, and only matter of time it is accepted to be the "new normal"..
  - wwweston 5y ago
    The precedents you're invoking as fearsome are scattered over a century old, some older. Past vaccination requirements have been examined and upheld -- all without leading to an overwhelming push to eliminate general autonomy. So the idea that "it is clear what direction it will ultimately go" is... kinda correct, actually. It is clear that general autonomy can remain a valued principle with specific exceptions. It is clear that they are the exceptions rather than the norm. And that the pull in the other direction isn't weak.
    - forcry 5y ago