6 ms·

> 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

• 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
    > 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. This is the most psychotic take I’ve read on this topic. Not only are you willing to get stuck in your home so some stranger doesn’t have to get a vaccine, you’re willing to inflict that same suffering on an infinite number of people in order to get your way. Considering “destruction of the universe” would include a lot of innocent deaths, your weird moralizing sounds even more like schizophrenic word salad. You literally advocate for murdering both those that agree with you and those that don’t, as well as yourself, because things aren’t the way you want them to be. Let me guess, you’re in your mid teens and recently read The Fountainhead?
    • etherael 5y ago
      > This is the most psychotic take I’ve read on this topic. The opposing position is ironically that of those who inflicted hundreds of millions of deaths, the largest cause of non natural death in fact, on the entire species in the previous century, so you'll excuse me if I take your view with several solar masses of sodium chloride. > you’re willing to inflict that same suffering on an infinite number of people in order to get your way. Exactly the opposite, I'm not willing to inflict any aggression on any number of peaceful people minding their own business, period. > Considering “destruction of the universe” would include a lot of innocent deaths Better dead than enslaved. > You literally advocate for murdering both those that agree with you and those that don’t, as well as yourself, because things aren’t the way you want them to be. I advocate for nothing, I merely do not accept that slavery is a valid institution, and it doesn't matter what you put in the alternative column against it. The alternative of violating the autonomy and integrity of peaceful people doing me no harm is once again, the worst possible outcome. > Let me guess, you’re in your mid teens and recently read The Fountainhead? Over 40, read it a long, long time ago, has nothing to do with my position on live free or die. Slavery is outright unacceptable. If you do not have the right to choose which drugs you must take, you are a slave. It cannot get more simple than that. That has nothing at all to do with the sensibility of taking the drugs in question, it has nothing to do with whether the drugs in question are good or bad. It could be the most obvious choice in the world, and the drugs in question could be a panacea that brings about a world utopia, and the logic of enslaving people would still be utterly unacceptable. The ends do not justify the means. Multiple world changing extremely violent wars were fought over just these issues. Your side always lost. This was not a controversial position for the past half century plus, the fact that it is now should make you very cautious. Although with bloody-handed "for the greater good" communism by another name in such vogue these days, I expect that it won't at all. I'm sorry, I find this conversation extremely depressing and I'm going to leave it at that, you have a nice life. EDIT; for the record, the disgusting strawmen in response to this message do not warrant their own response regardless of how idiotic they are. And I will not be providing one.