6 ms·

The damage to the "value of the content" is done anyway even if you "just" "remove blatantly false content". Also instead of an arbitrator of truth you need an

by noxer 5y ago

The damage to the "value of the content" is done anyway even if you "just" "remove blatantly false content". Also instead of an arbitrator of truth you need an arbitrator of "blatantly false" which is exactly as impossible and comes with the same risk of abuse of power, bias and all that. Anyway you missed the point where I assumed the death evens out aka try make an argument that isn't based on emotion an "backed" by numbers we can not know. >Also, I would love to see what common ground looks like with anti-vaxxers. I don’t think they are willing to give an inch on this, but willing to be proven wrong. I'm not an anti-vaxxer but I'm p sure the common ground for most of them would be to let people decide. Anti-vaxxers who want to remove pro-vaccine information to prevent people from dying form the vaccine seem to be rather rare. As far as I know most are perfectly fine with anyone voluntary injecting toxic and dying. They might be wrong on almost everything but that doesn't mean common ground can not be found. Also by picking the furthest away extreme position to proof no common ground is possible is kind silly. We wan common ground for the majority on both sides not with the extremists.

IgorPartola 5y ago
If we were talking about tetanus I would agree. People who refuse tetanus vaccines place nobody but themselves in danger. I don’t care if you choose to forego that vaccine as it will not affect me. People who refuse vaccines for dangerous contagious diseases directly affect others: they may pass that disease to me, to my children, to my elderly family members, etc. At this point their choice is causing me harm. What is my remedy if this happens? I can’t sue them for the death of a loved one, I can’t hold them accountable criminally. The only path forward I see is that if you choose to not vaccinate, that you also choose to fully isolate yourself until the pandemic is over: no going to work, school, social gatherings, etc. I would be comfortable with that common ground. But that’s not what is being offered by you or even those who refuse to get vaccinated. It is always the pro-vaccine/science/reason people that must give something up for the benefit of those refusing to get vaccinated, which is less common ground and more of a one sided demand.
- noxer 5y ago
  The "put other people in danger" fallacy is the same appeal to emotion again. Its nonsense, you would never apply this kind of "logic" anywhere else. Do you ban cars because you dont need one and all others put you, your children their grandparents in danger? No you dont. If you dont want to be run over at any cost its your task to stay away form cars. Similarly if you dont wanna get covid at any cost its your task to hide in the basement and dont let anyone in vaccinated or not. Alternatively you can accept that life is a deadly risk and do the common sense things to reduce the risk for you and your loved ones and move on. This may be taking the vaccine, putting on a mask, avoiding crowded places or even ware a warn west so you are less likely to be run over by a car. All of that is fine. It stops being fine if you demand others to do something so you can feel safe. Especially if what you demand infringed basic rights and/or is not solving the problem but just lowers the risk by an unknown possibly insignificant amount. Its reasonable to demand that cars have working breaks because they need them anyway. The breaks aren't there to protect you from cars. Its however not reasonable to demand that all cars have advanced pedestrian detection that makes in impossible to run over people. It doesn't matter if you would feel safer that way or that it would safe X numbers of lives. Not because we dont care about lives but because making such a requirement would simply make most car driving people criminals and not actually save lives. Similarly if you demand unvaccinated people to stay at home, all you get is that you criminalizing people for leaving their home. It wont make them take the vaccine and it wont protect you from covid.
  - IgorPartola 5y ago
    You are wrong on several key points but I clearly won’t convince you of anything so I’ll save myself the trouble of arguing. Take care.

by noxer 5y ago

IgorPartola 5y ago

If we were talking about tetanus I would agree. People who refuse tetanus vaccines place nobody but themselves in danger. I don’t care if you choose to forego that vaccine as it will not affect me. People who refuse vaccines for dangerous contagious diseases directly affect others: they may pass that disease to me, to my children, to my elderly family members, etc. At this point their choice is causing me harm. What is my remedy if this happens? I can’t sue them for the death of a loved one, I can’t hold them accountable criminally. The only path forward I see is that if you choose to not vaccinate, that you also choose to fully isolate yourself until the pandemic is over: no going to work, school, social gatherings, etc. I would be comfortable with that common ground. But that’s not what is being offered by you or even those who refuse to get vaccinated. It is always the pro-vaccine/science/reason people that must give something up for the benefit of those refusing to get vaccinated, which is less common ground and more of a one sided demand.

noxer 5y ago
The "put other people in danger" fallacy is the same appeal to emotion again. Its nonsense, you would never apply this kind of "logic" anywhere else. Do you ban cars because you dont need one and all others put you, your children their grandparents in danger? No you dont. If you dont want to be run over at any cost its your task to stay away form cars. Similarly if you dont wanna get covid at any cost its your task to hide in the basement and dont let anyone in vaccinated or not. Alternatively you can accept that life is a deadly risk and do the common sense things to reduce the risk for you and your loved ones and move on. This may be taking the vaccine, putting on a mask, avoiding crowded places or even ware a warn west so you are less likely to be run over by a car. All of that is fine. It stops being fine if you demand others to do something so you can feel safe. Especially if what you demand infringed basic rights and/or is not solving the problem but just lowers the risk by an unknown possibly insignificant amount. Its reasonable to demand that cars have working breaks because they need them anyway. The breaks aren't there to protect you from cars. Its however not reasonable to demand that all cars have advanced pedestrian detection that makes in impossible to run over people. It doesn't matter if you would feel safer that way or that it would safe X numbers of lives. Not because we dont care about lives but because making such a requirement would simply make most car driving people criminals and not actually save lives. Similarly if you demand unvaccinated people to stay at home, all you get is that you criminalizing people for leaving their home. It wont make them take the vaccine and it wont protect you from covid.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  You are wrong on several key points but I clearly won’t convince you of anything so I’ll save myself the trouble of arguing. Take care.