3 ms·

The Quiet Rage of the Responsible

13 points by elsewhen 5y ago

captainredbeard 5y ago
> To say what should be obvious, getting vaccinated and > wearing a mask in public spaces aren’t “personal choices.” > When you reject your shots or refuse to mask up, you’re > increasing my risk of catching a potentially deadly or > disabling disease, and also helping to perpetuate the social > and economic costs of the pandemic. In a very real sense, > the irresponsible minority is depriving the rest of us of > life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the crux of the divide in the Western world. I vehemently disagree with Krugman but I like how he was able to summarize it all into one place. The notion of taking "your shots" is anti-freedom as it implies someone or some organization defines what shots I must take. Vaccines are great because they are effective, not because they are encouraged or mandated by institutions!
- smt88 5y ago
  The passage you quoted is not anti-freedom because it never says people should be forced to take their shots. You also seem to be having a completely different argument -- that the risk/reward of Covid vaccines are debatable. Assuming the debate is satisfyingly closed in the future, as it has been for polio, measles, and certain other vaccines, the people defining what shots you should (not must) take are scientific and medical groups using evidence that is transparently available to you.
- Gravityloss 5y ago
  I guess I don't understand your argument at all. Certainly it's anti-freedom to mandate shots or maybe even to suggest them? Many things are anti-freedom if you think about it. Things like speed limits for example. What does it really mean?
  - Gibbon1 5y ago
    If someone thinks mandating vaccination is anti-freedom it just means they have no clue what freedom is.
    - captainredbeard 5y ago
      Forcing a person to inject a medical treatment they object to is possibly the most anti-freedom thing possible. You have it backwards.
- thomascgalvin 5y ago
  > The notion of taking "your shots" is anti-freedom as it implies someone or some organization defines what shots I must take. Science defines what shots you must take. Science defines what shots we all must take in order to end this pandemic. Or, more specifically, it defines the percentage of people who must be vaccinated in order to achieve herd immunity. The refusal of 30-40% of Americans to listen to science, and the fact that resisting vaccination has become a symbol of tribal membership, has without question prolonged this pandemic, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. These are facts. This is science. And people repeating these facts are not infringing your freedoms, they are pointing out the selfish, hateful behavior of those who can be vaccinated, but choose not to be.
  - captainredbeard 5y ago
    I disagree and you (personally) cannot force me. If you tried, you would learn the hard way.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

13 points by elsewhen 5y ago

> To say what should be obvious, getting vaccinated and > wearing a mask in public spaces aren’t “personal choices.” > When you reject your shots or refuse to mask up, you’re > increasing my risk of catching a potentially deadly or > disabling disease, and also helping to perpetuate the social > and economic costs of the pandemic. In a very real sense, > the irresponsible minority is depriving the rest of us of > life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the crux of the divide in the Western world. I vehemently disagree with Krugman but I like how he was able to summarize it all into one place. The notion of taking "your shots" is anti-freedom as it implies someone or some organization defines what shots I must take. Vaccines are great because they are effective, not because they are encouraged or mandated by institutions!

smt88 5y ago
The passage you quoted is not anti-freedom because it never says people should be forced to take their shots. You also seem to be having a completely different argument -- that the risk/reward of Covid vaccines are debatable. Assuming the debate is satisfyingly closed in the future, as it has been for polio, measles, and certain other vaccines, the people defining what shots you should (not must) take are scientific and medical groups using evidence that is transparently available to you.
Gravityloss 5y ago
I guess I don't understand your argument at all. Certainly it's anti-freedom to mandate shots or maybe even to suggest them? Many things are anti-freedom if you think about it. Things like speed limits for example. What does it really mean?
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  If someone thinks mandating vaccination is anti-freedom it just means they have no clue what freedom is.
  - captainredbeard 5y ago
    Forcing a person to inject a medical treatment they object to is possibly the most anti-freedom thing possible. You have it backwards.
thomascgalvin 5y ago
> The notion of taking "your shots" is anti-freedom as it implies someone or some organization defines what shots I must take. Science defines what shots you must take. Science defines what shots we all must take in order to end this pandemic. Or, more specifically, it defines the percentage of people who must be vaccinated in order to achieve herd immunity. The refusal of 30-40% of Americans to listen to science, and the fact that resisting vaccination has become a symbol of tribal membership, has without question prolonged this pandemic, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. These are facts. This is science. And people repeating these facts are not infringing your freedoms, they are pointing out the selfish, hateful behavior of those who can be vaccinated, but choose not to be.
- captainredbeard 5y ago
  I disagree and you (personally) cannot force me. If you tried, you would learn the hard way.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]