5 ms·

Do you really believe that mandating people do a difficult, time consuming task for years is reasonably equivalent to mandating them to get two shots, which tak

• throwawaylinux 5y ago
  No, it takes no time to eat less (it takes less time in fact), or stand on a scale once a week. In the weeks between the two shots (are we ruling out boosters?), a person could easily have lost several pounds and didn't even have to step out of the house into the risky possibly covid-filled environment -- already a significant improvement and reduction on the stress of the healthcare system. So losing weight is actually much easier, less time consuming task than to get vaccinated.
  • hhmc 5y ago
    If it’s as easy as you say to lose weight (and it must be very easy if, as you say, it’s easier than receiving a vaccine that a majority of US adults have received). Then tell me, why are so many people still obese?
    • throwawaylinux 5y ago
      I didn't say it was psychologically any easier than it is psychologically easy for someone who does not want to get a vaccine to be forced to take one. But the mechanism is perfectly simple and easy, easier than going out to get vaccines. So just mandate and force them not to eat as much, and ban them from civil society if they fail their weigh ins.
      • hhmc 5y ago
        > I didn't say it was psychologically any easier than it is psychologically easy for someone who does not want to get a vaccine to be forced to take one. You just blanket said it was 'easier'. You pick one definition when it suits you - it's textbook bad faith argumentation.
        • throwawaylinux 5y ago
          It was a response to the insinuation that the vaccine is blanket easier. Mechanically, losing weight is strictly easier. Psychologically you really can't say one way or the other and thinking you know people's mindset to say one is easier than the other is bad faith argumentation. So, whether or not one is easy. That's what it all hinges on? Very flimsy.
          • emn13 5y ago
            So it hinges on how different the psychological difficulties of accepting vaccination vs. "just eating less for years" are. Given how many vaccinations people already accept vs. other diseases, and the fact that any such irrational fears need to be surmounted just twice, as opposed to resisting (irrational) urges to eat every waking hour for years, it strikes me as being unlikely that even a serious fear of needles is even remotely as high a hurdle. The thing is: people that are overweight but try to lose weight will nevertheless struggle. But certainly from how they talk people resisting vaccination are not trying to overcome their own limitations; i.e. the problems are not really comparable. While there's a hypothetical world imaginable where the two would be equally difficult, it seems hell of a lot more plausible that the issue isn't a psychological hangup, it's conscious intent. But if this is about people choosing to impose costs on others, then it's totally reasonable to force the issue or otherwise ensure that those making those choices bear the burden of the consequences - rather than innocent bystanders. Insofar as people have real hangups, rather than making poor (but conscious) choices - sure, it sounds reasonable to help them - and that actually happens! People with fears of needles and the like can get extra help to get through the difficult (for them) ordeal, and perfectly fair.
            • throwawaylinux 5y ago
              Yes, this is entirely about people choosing to impinge on others, and I don't see how it's been established that a weight loss mandate is fundamentally different than a vaccine mandate, except in the handwaving around details that really don't seem to be central to the issue. And I think people are taking the idea of forced medical treatments far too lightly.