3 ms·

> Forced vaccinations are far more effective than national guard in this situation And Chinese style hard lockdowns of whole cities are even more effective tha

> Forced vaccinations are far more effective than national guard in this situation And Chinese style hard lockdowns of whole cities are even more effective than that. Doesn't mean I want the government to have that power.

dragontamer 5y ago
Jacobson v. Massachusetts 1905. The state has a right, (7-2 decision, hardly controversial) to forcibly vaccinate its citizens against Smallpox. It doesn't matter what you "want". There's well over 100 years of precedent on this particular issue. Go fight with history if you're really pissed.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  OK, so now people are framed as fighting against history. What does that change? Everything is just as controversial and the issues are the same. Jacobson v. Massachusetts said the solution to compulsory vaccination is democratically repealing policy and law. This is exactly what these people want and are fighting for
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    > OK, so now people are framed as fighting against history. What does that change? Are you complaining that I'm using rhetorical techniques against you? The smallpox and 1918 flu pandemics from 100 years ago are guidance for what is going on today. We can look at how our grandfathers solved the issue in their time, and compare-and-contrast with what worked today. As you mentioned, it was controversial back then. Both you and I have arguments we can borrow from them. --------- How about instead of arguing against history, you actually take those arguments and use them for yourself? Or perhaps you recognize that the arguments said 100+ years ago weren't actually that strong or powerful. > Jacobson v. Massachusetts said the solution to compulsory vaccination is democratically repealing policy and law. This is exactly what these people want and are fighting for Cool. Now explain how you'd get rid of smallpox in the early 1900s.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      It seemed like you felt including that case precedent somehow reframed the discussion. I don't see that it adds anything
      - dragontamer 5y ago
        > It seemed like you felt including that case precedent somehow reframed the discussion. I don't see that it adds anything You're welcome to add whatever you think adds to the discussion. Or do you just sit around and counterpunch in discussions, never actually contributing directly? There's a reason why sitting around and just countering arguments is called the "fallacy fallacy" / "Argument from fallacy". -------- I bring up smallpox and "Jacobson v. Massachusetts" for a few reasons. 1. We defeated smallpox. It took decades, but it was soundly defeated. 2. Legally, there's a strong set of arguments that prove that these measures are constitutional. 3. There were big controversies in the early 1900s over these arguments, and we can replay those arguments again if you so desire. In effect, we know that the state's right to protect our health care system trumps the individual's choice on whether-or-not to get the vaccine.
- aserdf 5y ago
  Jacobson was not force vaccinated. he paid a $5 fine following the ruling.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    My point: compulsory vaccination laws are legal and have been upheld by the supreme court. I dare you to find a proper legal counterexample.
    - aserdf 5y ago
      your original comment was that the state has a right to forcibly vaccinate citizens. i am simply contending that was not a result of jacobson v ma.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - dragontamer 5y ago
        > - What level of state-sponsored violence is justifiable to further reduce that risk? This is the line I'm responding to. ------ You know damn well that libertarians do this bullshit when playing with "use of force" language in these discussion. A fine is "government use of force" to a libertarian. I'd rather not get stuck in the weeds over such details. But you're trying to pin me from the other side, and I don't appreciate it.

dragontamer 5y ago

Jacobson v. Massachusetts 1905. The state has a right, (7-2 decision, hardly controversial) to forcibly vaccinate its citizens against Smallpox. It doesn't matter what you "want". There's well over 100 years of precedent on this particular issue. Go fight with history if you're really pissed.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
OK, so now people are framed as fighting against history. What does that change? Everything is just as controversial and the issues are the same. Jacobson v. Massachusetts said the solution to compulsory vaccination is democratically repealing policy and law. This is exactly what these people want and are fighting for
- dragontamer 5y ago
  > OK, so now people are framed as fighting against history. What does that change? Are you complaining that I'm using rhetorical techniques against you? The smallpox and 1918 flu pandemics from 100 years ago are guidance for what is going on today. We can look at how our grandfathers solved the issue in their time, and compare-and-contrast with what worked today. As you mentioned, it was controversial back then. Both you and I have arguments we can borrow from them. --------- How about instead of arguing against history, you actually take those arguments and use them for yourself? Or perhaps you recognize that the arguments said 100+ years ago weren't actually that strong or powerful. > Jacobson v. Massachusetts said the solution to compulsory vaccination is democratically repealing policy and law. This is exactly what these people want and are fighting for Cool. Now explain how you'd get rid of smallpox in the early 1900s.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    It seemed like you felt including that case precedent somehow reframed the discussion. I don't see that it adds anything
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      > It seemed like you felt including that case precedent somehow reframed the discussion. I don't see that it adds anything You're welcome to add whatever you think adds to the discussion. Or do you just sit around and counterpunch in discussions, never actually contributing directly? There's a reason why sitting around and just countering arguments is called the "fallacy fallacy" / "Argument from fallacy". -------- I bring up smallpox and "Jacobson v. Massachusetts" for a few reasons. 1. We defeated smallpox. It took decades, but it was soundly defeated. 2. Legally, there's a strong set of arguments that prove that these measures are constitutional. 3. There were big controversies in the early 1900s over these arguments, and we can replay those arguments again if you so desire. In effect, we know that the state's right to protect our health care system trumps the individual's choice on whether-or-not to get the vaccine.
aserdf 5y ago
Jacobson was not force vaccinated. he paid a $5 fine following the ruling.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  My point: compulsory vaccination laws are legal and have been upheld by the supreme court. I dare you to find a proper legal counterexample.
  - aserdf 5y ago
    your original comment was that the state has a right to forcibly vaccinate citizens. i am simply contending that was not a result of jacobson v ma.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      > - What level of state-sponsored violence is justifiable to further reduce that risk? This is the line I'm responding to. ------ You know damn well that libertarians do this bullshit when playing with "use of force" language in these discussion. A fine is "government use of force" to a libertarian. I'd rather not get stuck in the weeds over such details. But you're trying to pin me from the other side, and I don't appreciate it.