5 ms·

I also fall under the libertarian bucket "it's your body, do what you want..." unfortunately there is a double standard for liberals where free choice only appl

I also fall under the libertarian bucket "it's your body, do what you want..." unfortunately there is a double standard for liberals where free choice only applies to some very specific carve outs (i.e. abortion) but other things (mandatory covid vaccines or banning smoking) they feel it's their moral duty to dictate to everybody.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Well, it's your body, do what you want... but don't smoke around me. And don't infect me. Your freedom to choose should not extend to imposing consequences on me. For that matter, it's your body, but a fetus isn't your body.
- totony 5y ago
  Well it's your body... But don't do X around me because it affects me in Y way. But I can do Z because I decide the tradeoffs. It's a flawed logic, because most actions extend consequences on others. Although I agree with not smoking in people's face.
- Rury 5y ago
  >Your freedom to choose should not extend to imposing consequences on me Conversely, your desire to be free from smoke should not extend to imposing consequences on those that don't. The problem is, at some point, there's a conflict on where to draw the line. Because, as soon as the line is drawn, freedoms have been limited/reduced/compromised in a way.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Absolutely true. Freedom given almost always equals the opposite freedom taken from someone else. So let me try again, hopefully with a bit more precision: If you want to do something to your own body in a way that doesn't affect me, then I have little basis for fighting over where the line should be drawn. You want to smoke in your house? Knock yourself out. You want to smoke in your car? Go for it. You want to smoke in my face? Now we have a battle about where that line is going to be drawn - whose freedom will be lost, yours or mine. Now I at least have legitimate grounds for arguing that your freedom should be the one to lose.
    - Rury 5y ago
      And I think that's plenty reasonable. Not trying to argue, was just pointing out the problem that underlies all politics: conflicts in wills (or even from strictly a libertarian viewpoint, conflict in freedoms, since freedom is a core principle held by libertarians).
  - current_mike 5y ago
    You can't twist this to make it about both parties. The burden is on the acting individual to not harm others with their choices. Real world personal responsibility is where the line is drawn. Not some idealistic notion of freedom to do whatever you want.
    - Rury 5y ago
      That's a political philosophy, not a fact. Just as libertarianism is a political philosophy.
- mariusor 5y ago
  Allow me to preface what I'm saying with the fact that I fully support abortion rights for women everywhere. However saying that abortion has no consequences on people around the mother is plainly naive. The father will be affected at the least. I've never heard anyone vocally supporting abortion rights consider for any moment if or how much of the decision should be made together with the father. That to me is wrong and equally immoral. It's always "my body, my rules", not "my baby, my rules" as I think it should be, at least to an extent.
  - mecha_ghidorah 5y ago
    > I've never heard anyone vocally supporting abortion rights consider for any moment if or how much of the decision should be made together with the father. That to me is wrong and equally immoral. It's always "my body, my rules", not "my baby, my rules" as I think it should be, at least to an extent. I absolutely 100% think ultimately women should have the right to choose an abortion or not but I've always found the way pro-abortion people suggest that those on the other side are motivated by wanting to take rights away from women. It seems pretty obvious to me that if you believe a fetus counts as a human being you'd be opposed to abortion because you don't like the idea of killing humans, not because you want to keep women down. I wonder if the rhetoric about choosing an abortion or not rarely even mentioning the father is partly to reinforce the branding of abortion as a women's rights type issue instead of a more general reproductive rights issue? Because as a man I'm pro-abortion not just for the good of pregnant women who want to choose to have one, but also for their partners who may not want to have a baby either. I certainly don't want a child (neither does my partner) and I certainly would worry about her somehow ending up pregnant if we didn't live somewhere you could get abortions
sneak 5y ago
Both failure to vaccinate as well as smoking causes direct and proximate damage to those around you. Say what you will about bodily autonomy, but there isn't a double standard. The right to swing your fist, et c. Abortion doesn't count under this scheme because of the postulate that a fetus is not a human being yet.
- nodesocket 5y ago
  Except that if you get vaccinated, why does it matter if hypothetically I am not vaccinated? True story, I got Moderna, three months later I got Covid along with a group of my friends all vaccinated with either Moderna or J&J. Anyway, don't want this to diverge into a covid shitshow argument. The problem is that the US government is trying to mandate if you don't get vaccinated then you lose your job. That's an issue for me.
  - HarryHirsch 5y ago
    [flagged]
  - sneak 5y ago
    The simple answer? Vaccinated people, while they can spread covid from a breakthrough infection, spread much less covid than unvaccinated people, and they have a shorter period of time while they are contagious. You significantly reduce the risk of transmitting covid to others (should you become infected) by being vaccinated. They're not trying to mandate that you lose your job, they're trying to mandate (as they already do - see OSHA's current body of regulations) that workplaces are safe physical environments for people to be in. It's the same story with workplaces without fire exits being illegal. Even if you don't agree with it, it is definitely logically coherent. As much as I don't want unvaccinated people around, I also disagree with violent coercion, so I'm not sure that I am 100% philosophically on board with the state's right to regulate trade between private parties whatsoever - but if they can rightfully require fire exits or building safety codes, they can require vaccinations in a work environment.
- totony 5y ago
  Parent is confusing liberalism with socialism. So is the US. Being liberal would mean embracing freedom. But socialist liberal is a mostly self contradicting ideological position, because you always have that "freedom until I decide that freedom affects me too much."
conqueso 5y ago
An individual's decision to terminate their pregnancy does have malignant effects on the general population. The same cannot be said for not getting vaccinated and smoking.
- conqueso 5y ago
  Correction: does not*

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

Well, it's your body, do what you want... but don't smoke around me. And don't infect me. Your freedom to choose should not extend to imposing consequences on me. For that matter, it's your body, but a fetus isn't your body.

totony 5y ago
Well it's your body... But don't do X around me because it affects me in Y way. But I can do Z because I decide the tradeoffs. It's a flawed logic, because most actions extend consequences on others. Although I agree with not smoking in people's face.
Rury 5y ago
>Your freedom to choose should not extend to imposing consequences on me Conversely, your desire to be free from smoke should not extend to imposing consequences on those that don't. The problem is, at some point, there's a conflict on where to draw the line. Because, as soon as the line is drawn, freedoms have been limited/reduced/compromised in a way.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Absolutely true. Freedom given almost always equals the opposite freedom taken from someone else. So let me try again, hopefully with a bit more precision: If you want to do something to your own body in a way that doesn't affect me, then I have little basis for fighting over where the line should be drawn. You want to smoke in your house? Knock yourself out. You want to smoke in your car? Go for it. You want to smoke in my face? Now we have a battle about where that line is going to be drawn - whose freedom will be lost, yours or mine. Now I at least have legitimate grounds for arguing that your freedom should be the one to lose.
  - Rury 5y ago
    And I think that's plenty reasonable. Not trying to argue, was just pointing out the problem that underlies all politics: conflicts in wills (or even from strictly a libertarian viewpoint, conflict in freedoms, since freedom is a core principle held by libertarians).
- current_mike 5y ago
  You can't twist this to make it about both parties. The burden is on the acting individual to not harm others with their choices. Real world personal responsibility is where the line is drawn. Not some idealistic notion of freedom to do whatever you want.
  - Rury 5y ago
    That's a political philosophy, not a fact. Just as libertarianism is a political philosophy.
mariusor 5y ago
Allow me to preface what I'm saying with the fact that I fully support abortion rights for women everywhere. However saying that abortion has no consequences on people around the mother is plainly naive. The father will be affected at the least. I've never heard anyone vocally supporting abortion rights consider for any moment if or how much of the decision should be made together with the father. That to me is wrong and equally immoral. It's always "my body, my rules", not "my baby, my rules" as I think it should be, at least to an extent.
- mecha_ghidorah 5y ago
  > I've never heard anyone vocally supporting abortion rights consider for any moment if or how much of the decision should be made together with the father. That to me is wrong and equally immoral. It's always "my body, my rules", not "my baby, my rules" as I think it should be, at least to an extent. I absolutely 100% think ultimately women should have the right to choose an abortion or not but I've always found the way pro-abortion people suggest that those on the other side are motivated by wanting to take rights away from women. It seems pretty obvious to me that if you believe a fetus counts as a human being you'd be opposed to abortion because you don't like the idea of killing humans, not because you want to keep women down. I wonder if the rhetoric about choosing an abortion or not rarely even mentioning the father is partly to reinforce the branding of abortion as a women's rights type issue instead of a more general reproductive rights issue? Because as a man I'm pro-abortion not just for the good of pregnant women who want to choose to have one, but also for their partners who may not want to have a baby either. I certainly don't want a child (neither does my partner) and I certainly would worry about her somehow ending up pregnant if we didn't live somewhere you could get abortions

sneak 5y ago

Both failure to vaccinate as well as smoking causes direct and proximate damage to those around you. Say what you will about bodily autonomy, but there isn't a double standard. The right to swing your fist, et c. Abortion doesn't count under this scheme because of the postulate that a fetus is not a human being yet.

nodesocket 5y ago
Except that if you get vaccinated, why does it matter if hypothetically I am not vaccinated? True story, I got Moderna, three months later I got Covid along with a group of my friends all vaccinated with either Moderna or J&J. Anyway, don't want this to diverge into a covid shitshow argument. The problem is that the US government is trying to mandate if you don't get vaccinated then you lose your job. That's an issue for me.
- HarryHirsch 5y ago
  [flagged]
- sneak 5y ago
  The simple answer? Vaccinated people, while they can spread covid from a breakthrough infection, spread much less covid than unvaccinated people, and they have a shorter period of time while they are contagious. You significantly reduce the risk of transmitting covid to others (should you become infected) by being vaccinated. They're not trying to mandate that you lose your job, they're trying to mandate (as they already do - see OSHA's current body of regulations) that workplaces are safe physical environments for people to be in. It's the same story with workplaces without fire exits being illegal. Even if you don't agree with it, it is definitely logically coherent. As much as I don't want unvaccinated people around, I also disagree with violent coercion, so I'm not sure that I am 100% philosophically on board with the state's right to regulate trade between private parties whatsoever - but if they can rightfully require fire exits or building safety codes, they can require vaccinations in a work environment.
totony 5y ago
Parent is confusing liberalism with socialism. So is the US. Being liberal would mean embracing freedom. But socialist liberal is a mostly self contradicting ideological position, because you always have that "freedom until I decide that freedom affects me too much."

conqueso 5y ago

An individual's decision to terminate their pregnancy does have malignant effects on the general population. The same cannot be said for not getting vaccinated and smoking.

conqueso 5y ago
Correction: does not*