5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - newbie789 5y ago
    >Better dead than enslaved. and >I advocate for nothing… are incompatible statements. Either you are stating that you would prefer that people (other than yourself) die rather than being “enslaved” (having an employer exercise at-will employment) or you’re not. The irony of literally calling for the deaths of people that don’t adhere to your specific set of beliefs while decrying “slavery” is genuinely hilarious. What other bits of “slavery” do you think justify murdering people over? Seat belt laws? Age of consent laws? Prohibition of trading human organs? Edit: I literally laughed out loud when I read the implication that I’m a communist because uh, I don’t think it’s a moral good to indiscriminately harm people as some sort of temper tantrum over a vaccine. I genuinely hope that every person that chose to become unemployed because of their Facebook-informed selective definition of inflammatory words like “slavery” remain unemployed indefinitely. This will create more positions for vaccinated people. Ironically, the “live free or die” folks really seem to think that the state owes them jobs and money, and the average citizen is obligated to suffer under their arbitrary rules that they make up on the fly. While you feel righteous, that feeling doesn’t actually mean that anybody has to listen to you or your ridiculous opinions, let alone act on them. I understand that only Big Brain Geniuses ever arrive at fascinating unique positions like “everything I don’t like is slavery”, but even that caliber of dazzling wit doesn’t actually mean logical people will naturally agree with your Completely Objective Philosophy. Real slavery is when I can’t force somebody to give me a job!

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.
- newbie789 5y ago
  >Better dead than enslaved. and >I advocate for nothing… are incompatible statements. Either you are stating that you would prefer that people (other than yourself) die rather than being “enslaved” (having an employer exercise at-will employment) or you’re not. The irony of literally calling for the deaths of people that don’t adhere to your specific set of beliefs while decrying “slavery” is genuinely hilarious. What other bits of “slavery” do you think justify murdering people over? Seat belt laws? Age of consent laws? Prohibition of trading human organs? Edit: I literally laughed out loud when I read the implication that I’m a communist because uh, I don’t think it’s a moral good to indiscriminately harm people as some sort of temper tantrum over a vaccine. I genuinely hope that every person that chose to become unemployed because of their Facebook-informed selective definition of inflammatory words like “slavery” remain unemployed indefinitely. This will create more positions for vaccinated people. Ironically, the “live free or die” folks really seem to think that the state owes them jobs and money, and the average citizen is obligated to suffer under their arbitrary rules that they make up on the fly. While you feel righteous, that feeling doesn’t actually mean that anybody has to listen to you or your ridiculous opinions, let alone act on them. I understand that only Big Brain Geniuses ever arrive at fascinating unique positions like “everything I don’t like is slavery”, but even that caliber of dazzling wit doesn’t actually mean logical people will naturally agree with your Completely Objective Philosophy. Real slavery is when I can’t force somebody to give me a job!