4 ms·

> People need to remember the goal is to eliminate the threat, not get everyone vaccinated. For you perhaps, but some people have the terminal goal of avoiding

> People need to remember the goal is to eliminate the threat, not get everyone vaccinated. For you perhaps, but some people have the terminal goal of avoiding vaccination, even if that increases the threat. That is why the government is doing anything and everything, including FUD, to push vaccines down peoples' throats. Their actions will always seem irrational if you ignore that.

protomyth 5y ago
FUD just pushes people away. If you cannot act in a truthful manner you legitimize their beliefs. When you know better and give up on truth, you lose. The single simplest summation of the concept of evil is "the end justifies the means".
- ineptech 5y ago
  > summation of the concept of evil That's a rather strong way to describe someone who refuses to implement a policy you like. You might be right, a natural immunity exemption might be sound policy. I personally tend to agree. But you can't make the case for it by pretending that opposition to it is based in ignorance or evil, if the opposition is due to the concern that people who would abuse it and the result would be more deaths.
  - protomyth 5y ago
    I can at the point they deviate from the science and truth of the situation. When you concede truth, then you have no basis to implement a public policy. Emotion has no place in a fight against a disease and feeding the emotional argument of anti-vaxers with actual talking points is counterproductive. Fear of abuse is a poor argument because both solutions will be abused (fake vaccine cards are already a thing).
    - ineptech 5y ago
      This sounds like a florid way of saying, "I saw a pro-vax lefty lie about something on TV the other day." Okay, feel free to ignore that one guy, but to argue against the vaccine mandate position generally you have to engage with the strongest arguments for it, not the weakest.
      - protomyth 5y ago
        Ok, once again, I am arguing against mandating vaccines for people who already had COVID. The science and studies say they already have a better immunity than the vaccine. This lack of science is troubling. That is not an anti-vax position. Its a vax if you haven't had COVID and don't if you have. This is the same exact advice when talking about other diseases like measles.
xkbarkar 5y ago
0 logic in mandating vaccines as vaccinated still spread the virus. So no benefit for anyone else than the wearer( if you will ) and mandating injections serves no purpose of protecting others. The seatbelt actually does protect others. An unbuckled backseat passangers will smash a frontseat one in a collision. The covid-19 shots do not protect other though. Comparing seatbelts wearing to covid-19 vaccine is incredibly innacurate. Vaccine mandates are now down the path of forbidding us to choose what we do with our own bodies. This is a very, very dangerous path. Punishing nurses that have aquired immunity via natural infection will hopefully be considered criminal in a not too far away future. Fortunately there are very few places in the world that thinks that doing so is a good idea.

protomyth 5y ago

FUD just pushes people away. If you cannot act in a truthful manner you legitimize their beliefs. When you know better and give up on truth, you lose. The single simplest summation of the concept of evil is "the end justifies the means".

ineptech 5y ago
> summation of the concept of evil That's a rather strong way to describe someone who refuses to implement a policy you like. You might be right, a natural immunity exemption might be sound policy. I personally tend to agree. But you can't make the case for it by pretending that opposition to it is based in ignorance or evil, if the opposition is due to the concern that people who would abuse it and the result would be more deaths.
- protomyth 5y ago
  I can at the point they deviate from the science and truth of the situation. When you concede truth, then you have no basis to implement a public policy. Emotion has no place in a fight against a disease and feeding the emotional argument of anti-vaxers with actual talking points is counterproductive. Fear of abuse is a poor argument because both solutions will be abused (fake vaccine cards are already a thing).
  - ineptech 5y ago
    This sounds like a florid way of saying, "I saw a pro-vax lefty lie about something on TV the other day." Okay, feel free to ignore that one guy, but to argue against the vaccine mandate position generally you have to engage with the strongest arguments for it, not the weakest.
    - protomyth 5y ago
      Ok, once again, I am arguing against mandating vaccines for people who already had COVID. The science and studies say they already have a better immunity than the vaccine. This lack of science is troubling. That is not an anti-vax position. Its a vax if you haven't had COVID and don't if you have. This is the same exact advice when talking about other diseases like measles.

xkbarkar 5y ago

0 logic in mandating vaccines as vaccinated still spread the virus. So no benefit for anyone else than the wearer( if you will ) and mandating injections serves no purpose of protecting others. The seatbelt actually does protect others. An unbuckled backseat passangers will smash a frontseat one in a collision. The covid-19 shots do not protect other though. Comparing seatbelts wearing to covid-19 vaccine is incredibly innacurate. Vaccine mandates are now down the path of forbidding us to choose what we do with our own bodies. This is a very, very dangerous path. Punishing nurses that have aquired immunity via natural infection will hopefully be considered criminal in a not too far away future. Fortunately there are very few places in the world that thinks that doing so is a good idea.