3 ms·

All you're doing here is re-stating your original argument, seemingly without actually understanding my criticism of it. I'm not sure what you're hoping to acco

All you're doing here is re-stating your original argument, seemingly without actually understanding my criticism of it. I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish by that, but it strikes me as very strange. Look, let's say we observe an employee and employer undertaking a discussion that goes something like this. "Take this medicine" "No I don't want to" "Take it or else you're fired" "I'm not going to take it, fire me if you have to." "OK, you're fired" "That's going to turn out poorly for the people who must now suffer the consequences of not having people available to do my job" I don't understand how you jump to the conclusion that the reason the employee refuses to take the medicine is so they can have that last line of dialogue, rather than that they don't want to take the medicine. Enlighten me?

newbie789 5y ago
>All you’re doing here is restating your argument without actually understanding my criticism of it. My criticism of your argument is that it’s silly to decide that nobody in town can leave their houses during the winter because you don’t want to get a shot. Furthermore, it’s downright ghastly to gloat about the upcoming, totally avoidable, suffering that they’ll be imparting on people that _AGREE WITH THEM_ in order make their point and own the libs. Pro tip: We might actually be having a two way conversation if your next response included words like “snow” or “plow” or “stranded in your house by no fault of your own.” But please go on with your regurgitated Facebook nonsense about experiments or whatever. The only thing that’s important is that you’re right!
- etherael 5y ago
  > My criticism of your argument is that it’s silly to decide that nobody in town can leave their houses during the winter because you don’t want to get a shot. Once again, that's not what they're doing. "I'm not going to take the medicine so everybody has to stay inside" you will note was not part of the dialogue. > Furthermore, it’s downright ghastly to gloat about the upcoming, totally avoidable, suffering that they’ll be imparting on people that _AGREE WITH THEM_ in order make their point and own the libs. People have a history of hostility to those they perceive, whether rightly or wrongly, as unnecessarily depriving them of their livelihood. > We might actually be having a two way conversation if your next response included words like “snow” or “plow” or “stranded in your house by no fault of your own.” But please go on with your regurgitated Facebook nonsense about experiments or whatever. Sure, It doesn't matter what tasks the people under discussion are saddled with, up to and including dealing with snow, plowing, etc, and it doesn't matter what consequences the absence of their actions will result in, up to and including leaving people stranded in their house by no fault of their own. The logic still applies. Not wanting to take medication is not the same as actively wanting to inflict misery on other parties, and equating the two as you are continuously trying to do is false. Displaying hostility to parties responsible for hostile actions is about as newsworthy as "sun rises in morning". In fact the hostility you're displaying to them here is just as unsurprising and not the problem at all. The issue is purely one of logic; you're equating motivation to refuse a medicine with wanting to provoke misery for an opposing party. Clearly no such motivation exists. If it did exist, they would not have needed to say "I don't want to take this medicine, fire me if you have to." they could just jump straight to the end and go on strike to "own the libs" and no other reason.
  - newbie789 5y ago
    > Not wanting to take medication is not the same as actively wanting to inflict misery on other parties Did you see the part where I was talking about gloating about the harm they’re planning on causing? It includes (as the majority of folks) people that share their political views. I get that it didn’t jive with your narrative but it’s a reality that I’m describing, so sorry about that. Good job using the word “snow” in the middle of hand waving away actual material suffering while trying to accomplish… whatever. Are you personally willing to be unable to leave your house because it’s important to you that the municipal workers won’t be vaccinated?
    - etherael 5y ago
      > planning on causing? Refusing to take medicine is not the same thing as "planning on causing harm" no matter how many times you attempt to falsely equate the two things. > I get that it didn’t jive with your narrative Narrative has nothing to do with it, you can still believe what they're doing by refusing to take the medicine is the wrong choice and simultaneously acknowledge that their incorrect choice is not the same thing as the consequence levied upon them by a third party when they refuse to take the medicine. > but it’s a reality that I’m describing, so sorry about that. If you really think that's the case, then the inability to separate cause and effect is an enormous blind spot you should work on. > Good job using the word “snow” in the middle of hand waving away actual material suffering while trying to accomplish You were the one that insisted the word would change the underlying logical structure of the question, unsurprisingly it did not. That was my entire point all along. > Are you personally willing to be unable to leave your house because it’s important to you that the municipal workers won’t be vaccinated? That has absolutely nothing to do with the logical structure of coerced action resulting in a refusal and dismissal and the second order effects of that chain of events. But for the record, I am willing to suffer whatever consequences are necessary in order that the aggressive violation of individual bodily integrity and autonomy of peaceful people is unacceptable, up to and including the immediate destruction of the entire universe. A universe where peaceful people minding their own business are not free to make their own choices is not worthy of existence. Cross that line and you've gone most of the way down the road of justifying the worst excesses of authoritarian abuse throughout history. There's a very good reason it's in the Nuremberg codes, it wasn't an accident to be revoked next time there's some "catastrophic emergency" going on. There are certain lines you do not cross and that is one of them.

newbie789 5y ago

>All you’re doing here is restating your argument without actually understanding my criticism of it. My criticism of your argument is that it’s silly to decide that nobody in town can leave their houses during the winter because you don’t want to get a shot. Furthermore, it’s downright ghastly to gloat about the upcoming, totally avoidable, suffering that they’ll be imparting on people that _AGREE WITH THEM_ in order make their point and own the libs. Pro tip: We might actually be having a two way conversation if your next response included words like “snow” or “plow” or “stranded in your house by no fault of your own.” But please go on with your regurgitated Facebook nonsense about experiments or whatever. The only thing that’s important is that you’re right!

etherael 5y ago
> My criticism of your argument is that it’s silly to decide that nobody in town can leave their houses during the winter because you don’t want to get a shot. Once again, that's not what they're doing. "I'm not going to take the medicine so everybody has to stay inside" you will note was not part of the dialogue. > Furthermore, it’s downright ghastly to gloat about the upcoming, totally avoidable, suffering that they’ll be imparting on people that _AGREE WITH THEM_ in order make their point and own the libs. People have a history of hostility to those they perceive, whether rightly or wrongly, as unnecessarily depriving them of their livelihood. > We might actually be having a two way conversation if your next response included words like “snow” or “plow” or “stranded in your house by no fault of your own.” But please go on with your regurgitated Facebook nonsense about experiments or whatever. Sure, It doesn't matter what tasks the people under discussion are saddled with, up to and including dealing with snow, plowing, etc, and it doesn't matter what consequences the absence of their actions will result in, up to and including leaving people stranded in their house by no fault of their own. The logic still applies. Not wanting to take medication is not the same as actively wanting to inflict misery on other parties, and equating the two as you are continuously trying to do is false. Displaying hostility to parties responsible for hostile actions is about as newsworthy as "sun rises in morning". In fact the hostility you're displaying to them here is just as unsurprising and not the problem at all. The issue is purely one of logic; you're equating motivation to refuse a medicine with wanting to provoke misery for an opposing party. Clearly no such motivation exists. If it did exist, they would not have needed to say "I don't want to take this medicine, fire me if you have to." they could just jump straight to the end and go on strike to "own the libs" and no other reason.
- newbie789 5y ago
  > Not wanting to take medication is not the same as actively wanting to inflict misery on other parties Did you see the part where I was talking about gloating about the harm they’re planning on causing? It includes (as the majority of folks) people that share their political views. I get that it didn’t jive with your narrative but it’s a reality that I’m describing, so sorry about that. Good job using the word “snow” in the middle of hand waving away actual material suffering while trying to accomplish… whatever. Are you personally willing to be unable to leave your house because it’s important to you that the municipal workers won’t be vaccinated?
  - etherael 5y ago
    > planning on causing? Refusing to take medicine is not the same thing as "planning on causing harm" no matter how many times you attempt to falsely equate the two things. > I get that it didn’t jive with your narrative Narrative has nothing to do with it, you can still believe what they're doing by refusing to take the medicine is the wrong choice and simultaneously acknowledge that their incorrect choice is not the same thing as the consequence levied upon them by a third party when they refuse to take the medicine. > but it’s a reality that I’m describing, so sorry about that. If you really think that's the case, then the inability to separate cause and effect is an enormous blind spot you should work on. > Good job using the word “snow” in the middle of hand waving away actual material suffering while trying to accomplish You were the one that insisted the word would change the underlying logical structure of the question, unsurprisingly it did not. That was my entire point all along. > Are you personally willing to be unable to leave your house because it’s important to you that the municipal workers won’t be vaccinated? That has absolutely nothing to do with the logical structure of coerced action resulting in a refusal and dismissal and the second order effects of that chain of events. But for the record, I am willing to suffer whatever consequences are necessary in order that the aggressive violation of individual bodily integrity and autonomy of peaceful people is unacceptable, up to and including the immediate destruction of the entire universe. A universe where peaceful people minding their own business are not free to make their own choices is not worthy of existence. Cross that line and you've gone most of the way down the road of justifying the worst excesses of authoritarian abuse throughout history. There's a very good reason it's in the Nuremberg codes, it wasn't an accident to be revoked next time there's some "catastrophic emergency" going on. There are certain lines you do not cross and that is one of them.