5 ms·

> Or perhaps it's a matter of personal principle. Personal conscience and conviction used to be held sacred in the US ... to the point that conscientious object

> Or perhaps it's a matter of personal principle. Personal conscience and conviction used to be held sacred in the US ... to the point that conscientious objectors wouldn't be forced to fight in wars It's a great argument, so long as "rejecting a vaccine during a pandemic" meets the same moral tests as "opposing war". In fact it does not, and so this "personal principle" is quite silly and actively harmful. The government has not done anything in mandating vaccination that it has not done, over and over again, with total societal unanimity. Until some people decided there was political hay to be made with a bad, dumb argument about "personal principle" and now tens of thousands of people are dead for no good reason. It's super dumb, and the "personal principle" argument fails every test you could throw at it.

TimTheTinker 5y ago
> It's a great argument, so long as "rejecting a vaccine during a pandemic" meets the same moral tests as "opposing war". In fact it does not You say this, but you don't name any criteria by which this judgment should be made. Could you elaborate?
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  Me opposing war doesn't kill my neighbor. Me opposing the war didn't kill 800,000 people. It didn't cause lifelong suffering for millions more. It's not hard to understand the difference. Why do the people that accept driving on the government mandated side of the road for public safety, who accept food being cooked to government standards for public safety, who have gotten the other multiple government mandated vaccines for public safety, who don't get into fights in stores for being required to wear shoes for public safety, who don't march against government mandated building codes for public safety, and so on for literally hundreds of items, suddenly obtain "personal liberty" for this particular vaccine, which has killed more Americans than any event in history? Because they've been fed a constant stream of chaos from the grifters milking them, grifters that mostly got the vaccine themselves. It's amazing what culture and virtue signaling can do.
  - spookthesunset 5y ago
    Well, perhaps they think that none of what we are doing kept those 800,000 out of the grave. Perhaps they, rightly in their mind, think there are far worse threats out there than Covid and being asked to make such a significant sacrifice doesn’t make sense. The fact that so many people disagree with your position seems to suggest that you might not be as correct in your thinking as you believe.
    - arrrg 5y ago
      In what sense is getting a vaccination that has been administered to literally billions of people, billions of times, with no serious adverse effects a significant sacrifice? That statement does not make sense under any possible rational interpretation.
      - mythrwy 5y ago
        Because it's an infringement of bodily autonomy. This is very serious to many people (myself included). I'd be more receptive to sacrifice on behalf of others if it looked like it was more effective and less performative. "No serious adverse effects" < Nonsense. People have been injured and died from these vaccines. Perhaps you meant to say "side effects so far appear very rare"? (which I'd agree with). If there are no serious side effects we can remove the liability protections drug companies currently enjoy right? I do agree the vaccines work to an extent for some months. They have reduced deaths. I'm glad they exist and would encourage any vulnerable person to take them. But my risk profile is very low. My Covid experience was a short cold a week ago. And the statistics aren't showing they do a whole lot to prevent transmission. So I won't be playing any level of Russian roulette with unneeded pharma products, even if it's a 1 in a million chance of serious issues or death.
        arrrg 5y ago
        A one in a million adverse effect is not in any way serious, even if it sometimes leads to death. This is deeply irrational and highly antisocial behavior. It it disgusting and awful. Bodily autonomy is not that important, either.

TimTheTinker 5y ago

> It's a great argument, so long as "rejecting a vaccine during a pandemic" meets the same moral tests as "opposing war". In fact it does not You say this, but you don't name any criteria by which this judgment should be made. Could you elaborate?

ChrisLomont 5y ago
Me opposing war doesn't kill my neighbor. Me opposing the war didn't kill 800,000 people. It didn't cause lifelong suffering for millions more. It's not hard to understand the difference. Why do the people that accept driving on the government mandated side of the road for public safety, who accept food being cooked to government standards for public safety, who have gotten the other multiple government mandated vaccines for public safety, who don't get into fights in stores for being required to wear shoes for public safety, who don't march against government mandated building codes for public safety, and so on for literally hundreds of items, suddenly obtain "personal liberty" for this particular vaccine, which has killed more Americans than any event in history? Because they've been fed a constant stream of chaos from the grifters milking them, grifters that mostly got the vaccine themselves. It's amazing what culture and virtue signaling can do.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  Well, perhaps they think that none of what we are doing kept those 800,000 out of the grave. Perhaps they, rightly in their mind, think there are far worse threats out there than Covid and being asked to make such a significant sacrifice doesn’t make sense. The fact that so many people disagree with your position seems to suggest that you might not be as correct in your thinking as you believe.
  - arrrg 5y ago
    In what sense is getting a vaccination that has been administered to literally billions of people, billions of times, with no serious adverse effects a significant sacrifice? That statement does not make sense under any possible rational interpretation.
    - mythrwy 5y ago
      Because it's an infringement of bodily autonomy. This is very serious to many people (myself included). I'd be more receptive to sacrifice on behalf of others if it looked like it was more effective and less performative. "No serious adverse effects" < Nonsense. People have been injured and died from these vaccines. Perhaps you meant to say "side effects so far appear very rare"? (which I'd agree with). If there are no serious side effects we can remove the liability protections drug companies currently enjoy right? I do agree the vaccines work to an extent for some months. They have reduced deaths. I'm glad they exist and would encourage any vulnerable person to take them. But my risk profile is very low. My Covid experience was a short cold a week ago. And the statistics aren't showing they do a whole lot to prevent transmission. So I won't be playing any level of Russian roulette with unneeded pharma products, even if it's a 1 in a million chance of serious issues or death.
      - arrrg 5y ago
        A one in a million adverse effect is not in any way serious, even if it sometimes leads to death. This is deeply irrational and highly antisocial behavior. It it disgusting and awful. Bodily autonomy is not that important, either.