3 ms·
> I'd prefer not to expose them to likely sources of the virus if it can be avoided. It can be avoided. You remain locked down. Why should others moderate thei
by Overton-Window 5y ago
> I'd prefer not to expose them to likely sources of the virus if it can be avoided.
It can be avoided. You remain locked down. Why should others moderate their existence based on your unfounded fears?
Should cars be banned as they pose a nonzero risk to your children as they cross the road?
> After all, your choice does not affect just one other person, it may affect millions.
This is a delusional hypothetical with no basis in reality. See Israel.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rootusrootus 5y ago> Why should others moderate their existence based on your unfounded fears? We seem to be at an impasse, because that question can be asked literally word-for-word of you. Except I'm not insisting on you changing your behavior, you are the one trying to suppress my freedom of association. > Should cars be banned as they pose a nonzero risk to your children as they cross the road? Cars at least arguably have a benefit to society that supports their continued existence.
- Overton-Window 5y ago> We seem to be at an impasse, because that question can be asked literally word-for-word of you. I'm not asking anything of you. You're asking me to waive my right to legal recourse and inject an experimental vaccine based on unfounded claims COVID can be eradicated through vaccination. > Except I'm not insisting on you changing your behavior, you are the one trying to suppress my freedom of association. It's the vaccinated excluding the unvaccinated from public and freedom of association, not the other way.