3 ms·

> And I think that's a very underhanded bullying argument to coerce people into giving up their freedom or having medical treatment they don't want, to suggest

by shkkmo 5y ago

> And I think that's a very underhanded bullying argument to coerce people into giving up their freedom or having medical treatment they don't want, to suggest that they are responsible for killing others because of choices like this. Because there are hundreds of ways we could all change our choices and indirectly save people,it does not always mean we are responsible for them if we don't. That is a frankly ridiculous and immoral attitude. If you refuse to make minor accomodations when presented with choices that can reduce the amount of risk you cause others, you ARE responsible. If you choose to dive drunk, you are responsible. If you choose to lie about the the status of your STD testing, you are responsible. If you actively discourage people from taking a safe vaccine, you are responsible. If you choose to go un-masked and unvaccinated when there is significant local spread, you are responsible. I don't beleive the best response to this is vilification or shamming, but that doesn't change the moral truth here. If you have "hundreds of ways" we can make minor changes to save the lives of others lives, please share them because that sounds likr really useful information. I think communication is best done with honesty and politeness and without censorship. That does not mean we absolve people of the responsibility of theor choices The descent into authoritarianism is also a significant risk, but vaccine mandates are NOT that start of a slippery slope. They have been around for many decades and they haven't resulted in any slipping. If anything, getting people riled up about vaccines is a way to justify censorship and distract from the ever growing power of the surveillance state.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> That is a frankly ridiculous and immoral attitude. If you refuse to make minor accomodations when presented with choices that can reduce the amount of risk you cause others, you ARE responsible. I know that's what you believe, it's not what I believe. I believe it is ridiculous and immoral to coerce and force people into medical treatment for a relatively minor illness that others have freely available access to effective vaccines against. To be sure it is worse than the flu, but this is not smallpox, the bullies and fearmongers making comparisons like that were simply lying and spreading misinformation. And if it was similar to smallpox, I think it would be quite clear and people would be far more inclined to get vaccinated. And I disagree with your idea of blame, as I said above the same argument can be made about overweight people and others. Maybe you are responsible for the death of starving children right now because you were browsing the internet instead of donating your time or money? And it absolutely is authoritarianism because it is not about the virus or even the vaccine itself really. It is a totally politicized tool that authorities are using. That should have been clear when people were flip flopping between being skeptical of the "Trump" vaccine and calling border closures racist and refusing to acknowledge natural immunity and all that other nonsense. It's not the slippery slope because this is already authoritarianism. Telling people they can not go about their lives, they can't work or go to school, tracking and controlling where they go, who they meet, what business they do. It's already here. If mandates were such a non-issue, why was it just a few months ago the experts and politicians were all lying and denying there would be mandates? Are they just pathological liars who will lie about trivial things that don't matter? Or did they know the seriousness of the issue and decide to lie and mislead until the opinion polls looked better for them? Neither option inspires a lot of trust in them.
- slumpt_ 5y ago
  Holy edits! The internet is exhausted with you, dude. With people with no scientific background to speak of misreading and mischaracterizing the conclusions of an abundance of the medical community. Trying to convince you why giving a shit about others (who can’t get vaccinated for legitimate reasons, e.g) is important, or why you could be host to mutations whether you like it or not if you are infected, and will statistically be host to an extended period in which mutations can occur for the unvaccinated, risking the rest of the population? And it can all be addressed with a couple shots and maybe a sum total of 30 minutes out of your life? A couple days if we count being a bit ill from the nervous response? We’re at the adults table now dude. And people are tired of this goofy shit. Mandates wouldn’t be necessary if this was a country of adults.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > I know that's what you believe, it's not what I believe. You honestly don't believe you are responsible for the knowable results of your own actions? > a relatively minor illness I don't see how you can honestly use this phrase to describe the worst pandemic since HIV. > others have freely available access to effective vaccines against. The vaccines both reduce spread and reduce the risknof serious illnessm. They do not eliminate that risk so choosing to remain unvaccinated bis choocing to increase the risk for both the vaccinated and the other unvaccinated people around you. This is risk that you ARE RESPONSIBLE for so you better make sure it is worth it. As for the rest, please try reading what I actually wrote rather than making assumptions and arguing against partisan strawmen. Where did I advocate for vaccine mandates? Where did I advocate for continued lockdowns? Where did I call border closures racist? Where did I compare covid to smallpox? Natural Immunity does seem superior to vacination alone, but having both is even better. You seem to be projecting partisan talking points onto me to divert from the serious flaws in your moral philosophy and grasp of reality. I don't see how you can conceivably believe that covid vacinations should be a choice but that the people making that choice are not responsible for the effects of that choice. Being responsible for the results is part of having choices.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    I wasn't accusing you of those things, if that wasn't clear. And I used relatively minor in context (which you deleted). Hopefully that was clear, I'm not denying it may be on the order of 1% death rate among the unvaccinated which is not to be taken lightly. And I know many people find it inconceivable that I have an anti authoritarian aversion to forced medical treatment, and that worries me for the future far more than covid. I'm not expecting to change any minds, but I'll put forward my position now and again. I completely understand the other point of view, even if I believe a lot of people have arrived at it due to a campaign of fearmongering and politicization.
serf 5y ago
>If you choose to dive drunk, you are responsible. If you choose to lie about the the status of your STD testing, you are responsible. If you actively discourage people from taking a safe vaccine, you are responsible. If you choose to go un-masked and unvaccinated when there is significant local spread, you are responsible. I don't beleive the best response to this is vilification or shamming, but that doesn't change the moral truth here. without trying to talk about vaccination and politics, a recent personal mandate, i'd like to bring something up. there is a weird change in scope within your example. You choose to drive drunk and are responsible. Sure, got it. You personally lie about an STD and are responsible. Sure, got it. You convince someone else to not take a vaccine and you are responsible. Well.. wait a minute. Why does that responsibility fall one actor back? Why isn't the actor who refuses the vaccine the guilty party? If we can continue this line of thinking, when does it become OK to blame parents for the birth of murderers? It occurs to me that liquor companies convince people to drink via advertisement, same as car companies woo potential customers over. And while not as legal as the under endeavors, the STD laden sexual partner certainly convinced their victims to continue. Why not mention the role of the 'convincers' here, too? In other words : I think 'moral truth' is kind of bullshit. More like "social truth".
- godshatter 5y ago
  > If you actively discourage people from taking a safe vaccine, you are responsible. Just jumping in here to reply to this statement... if you're talking about someone expressing their opinion to others that they shouldn't get the vaccine, the person expressing that opinion isn't responsible if the other person decides not to get the vaccine; the other person is the one who is responsible for their own actions and decisions. It's on them to weigh that advice with whatever other advice they are hearing. I do agree that people are responsible for consequences of driving drunk, or lying about the status of their STD testing.

by shkkmo 5y ago

throwawaylinux 5y ago

> That is a frankly ridiculous and immoral attitude. If you refuse to make minor accomodations when presented with choices that can reduce the amount of risk you cause others, you ARE responsible. I know that's what you believe, it's not what I believe. I believe it is ridiculous and immoral to coerce and force people into medical treatment for a relatively minor illness that others have freely available access to effective vaccines against. To be sure it is worse than the flu, but this is not smallpox, the bullies and fearmongers making comparisons like that were simply lying and spreading misinformation. And if it was similar to smallpox, I think it would be quite clear and people would be far more inclined to get vaccinated. And I disagree with your idea of blame, as I said above the same argument can be made about overweight people and others. Maybe you are responsible for the death of starving children right now because you were browsing the internet instead of donating your time or money? And it absolutely is authoritarianism because it is not about the virus or even the vaccine itself really. It is a totally politicized tool that authorities are using. That should have been clear when people were flip flopping between being skeptical of the "Trump" vaccine and calling border closures racist and refusing to acknowledge natural immunity and all that other nonsense. It's not the slippery slope because this is already authoritarianism. Telling people they can not go about their lives, they can't work or go to school, tracking and controlling where they go, who they meet, what business they do. It's already here. If mandates were such a non-issue, why was it just a few months ago the experts and politicians were all lying and denying there would be mandates? Are they just pathological liars who will lie about trivial things that don't matter? Or did they know the seriousness of the issue and decide to lie and mislead until the opinion polls looked better for them? Neither option inspires a lot of trust in them.

slumpt_ 5y ago
Holy edits! The internet is exhausted with you, dude. With people with no scientific background to speak of misreading and mischaracterizing the conclusions of an abundance of the medical community. Trying to convince you why giving a shit about others (who can’t get vaccinated for legitimate reasons, e.g) is important, or why you could be host to mutations whether you like it or not if you are infected, and will statistically be host to an extended period in which mutations can occur for the unvaccinated, risking the rest of the population? And it can all be addressed with a couple shots and maybe a sum total of 30 minutes out of your life? A couple days if we count being a bit ill from the nervous response? We’re at the adults table now dude. And people are tired of this goofy shit. Mandates wouldn’t be necessary if this was a country of adults.
shkkmo 5y ago
> I know that's what you believe, it's not what I believe. You honestly don't believe you are responsible for the knowable results of your own actions? > a relatively minor illness I don't see how you can honestly use this phrase to describe the worst pandemic since HIV. > others have freely available access to effective vaccines against. The vaccines both reduce spread and reduce the risknof serious illnessm. They do not eliminate that risk so choosing to remain unvaccinated bis choocing to increase the risk for both the vaccinated and the other unvaccinated people around you. This is risk that you ARE RESPONSIBLE for so you better make sure it is worth it. As for the rest, please try reading what I actually wrote rather than making assumptions and arguing against partisan strawmen. Where did I advocate for vaccine mandates? Where did I advocate for continued lockdowns? Where did I call border closures racist? Where did I compare covid to smallpox? Natural Immunity does seem superior to vacination alone, but having both is even better. You seem to be projecting partisan talking points onto me to divert from the serious flaws in your moral philosophy and grasp of reality. I don't see how you can conceivably believe that covid vacinations should be a choice but that the people making that choice are not responsible for the effects of that choice. Being responsible for the results is part of having choices.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  I wasn't accusing you of those things, if that wasn't clear. And I used relatively minor in context (which you deleted). Hopefully that was clear, I'm not denying it may be on the order of 1% death rate among the unvaccinated which is not to be taken lightly. And I know many people find it inconceivable that I have an anti authoritarian aversion to forced medical treatment, and that worries me for the future far more than covid. I'm not expecting to change any minds, but I'll put forward my position now and again. I completely understand the other point of view, even if I believe a lot of people have arrived at it due to a campaign of fearmongering and politicization.

serf 5y ago

>If you choose to dive drunk, you are responsible. If you choose to lie about the the status of your STD testing, you are responsible. If you actively discourage people from taking a safe vaccine, you are responsible. If you choose to go un-masked and unvaccinated when there is significant local spread, you are responsible. I don't beleive the best response to this is vilification or shamming, but that doesn't change the moral truth here. without trying to talk about vaccination and politics, a recent personal mandate, i'd like to bring something up. there is a weird change in scope within your example. You choose to drive drunk and are responsible. Sure, got it. You personally lie about an STD and are responsible. Sure, got it. You convince someone else to not take a vaccine and you are responsible. Well.. wait a minute. Why does that responsibility fall one actor back? Why isn't the actor who refuses the vaccine the guilty party? If we can continue this line of thinking, when does it become OK to blame parents for the birth of murderers? It occurs to me that liquor companies convince people to drink via advertisement, same as car companies woo potential customers over. And while not as legal as the under endeavors, the STD laden sexual partner certainly convinced their victims to continue. Why not mention the role of the 'convincers' here, too? In other words : I think 'moral truth' is kind of bullshit. More like "social truth".

godshatter 5y ago
> If you actively discourage people from taking a safe vaccine, you are responsible. Just jumping in here to reply to this statement... if you're talking about someone expressing their opinion to others that they shouldn't get the vaccine, the person expressing that opinion isn't responsible if the other person decides not to get the vaccine; the other person is the one who is responsible for their own actions and decisions. It's on them to weigh that advice with whatever other advice they are hearing. I do agree that people are responsible for consequences of driving drunk, or lying about the status of their STD testing.