5 ms·

Are you sure you are on the right side of the argument yourself? Suppose next year, the government mandate that you lose weight, or stop smoking or run everyda

Are you sure you are on the right side of the argument yourself? Suppose next year, the government mandate that you lose weight, or stop smoking or run everyday, all that of course for the "greater good". And then the year after that, it requires that you give pills to your children because that makes them "less indisciplined" and so on and so forth. Stop being so certain and think a little bit. By accepting this mandate we're not only accepting this jab, we're accepting all the future crazy ideas that the government will come with.

krapp 5y ago
>By accepting this mandate we're not only accepting this jab, we're accepting all the future crazy ideas that the government will come with. No we're not. Accepting mandates doesn't somehow force everyone to automatically accept anything any politician claims or does in the future. That's not how anything works.
- alea_iacta_est 5y ago
  > That's not how anything works. That's how everything works, it's called a precedent.
  - batty 5y ago
    That's not even how a precedent works.
    - alea_iacta_est 5y ago
      Oxford definition: "an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances."
      - giaour 5y ago
        The operative word there is "similar."
        alea_iacta_est 5y ago
        Yes, similar as in "if we don't do that, insert_whatever_crazy_idea_here, we're gonna overwhelm the hospitals!!!" Because it's been the justification from day 1: "not overwhelm hospitals".
        giaour 5y ago
        Yeah, that's not how precedent works. Precedent is used to justify the means, not to point out that past actions had the same or similar ends.
  - giaour 5y ago
    In this case, the precedent would be *vaccine mandates*, not government-mandated kale with every meal. You're conflating mandates for which there are precedents with completely novel and exotic government actions.
    - alea_iacta_est 5y ago
      Exotic like what, lockdowns for example? How crazy of me...
      - giaour 5y ago
        Quarantines are not a novel or exotic public health measure. Try again. You specifically called out the government making you quit smoking or forcing you to eat better in your original post.
        alea_iacta_est 5y ago
        Lockdown and quarantine are very different. And it's you who mentionned "completely novel and exotic government actions", to which I point out that it's already happened with lockdowns. There's nothing in history that resemble what has happened in those last 2 years, whether you agree or not won't change that fact.
        giaour 5y ago
        My dude, "nothing in history" is a very strong statement. You should read up about what state actors did to limit the spread of the plague. I'm sure someone could find something older, but lockdowns are attested to as a public health measure since at least ~500 BCE (whenever Leviticus was written). I don't feel like you're engaging in good faith, so I'm going to go ahead and quit responding.
        alea_iacta_est 5y ago
        Keep your condescending tone for your friends "my dude".
- gruez 5y ago
  There's literally people in this thread that are justifying vaccine mandates because we had them before.
  - culi 5y ago
    In order to show that literally it turned out fine. It didn't turn into us being mandated to lose weight or whatever that commentator is scared of happening It's justification for the sake of allaying that commentator's fears. Most people that support the mandate support it because it makes sense and they've thought about it. In fact, I'd wager that those who are against the mandate are more often susceptible to being brainwashed than those who are enthusiastically for it
    - alea_iacta_est 5y ago
      Let's see, those for freedom and individual choice would be more brainwashed that those against? Interesting theory.
stirfish 5y ago
That's a pretty cool slippery slope you just constructed. You've almost convinced me, but you forgot to tell me that they'll take my guns and make me gay.
criley2 5y ago
This is a classic slippery slope argument. Losing weight is not the same thing as a pandemic like this. The two-fold reason that these measures are taken is A) over-filling of hospitals and shut-down of all non-emergency services and B) extremely high death rate. Smoking or whatever scary slippery slope you think we're on is not the same thing as the ICU's filling up way over capacity and hundreds of thousands of people dropping dead that normally wouldn't. The idea that we should be against common-sense measures to promote herd immunity during a very real pandemic because "the government will make you stop smoking" is frankly an outrageously claim. It's long been held, since at least America began, that herd immunity is vital to the success and security of a nation. Our militaries require these vaccinations because a fighting force must be healthy. Our schools require these vaccines because sick kids and sick cities don't learn. The idea that a vaccine mandate is anything more than a century-old, bog-standard, completely required part of the human war against disease is a radical and anti-civilized position. Herd immunity is non-negotiable for our level of modern society to exist. I swear, we are killing ourselves. Dense civilization requires trade offs, and in the war against pandemic disease, that does include vaccination.
- stirfish 5y ago
  This thread doesn't deserve your patience, and yet we are still blessed by this comment. We could all (myself included) try to be more like you.
- alea_iacta_est 5y ago
  Ok so what about lockdowns then?
- naasking 5y ago
  > ICU's filling up way over capacity and hundreds of thousands of people dropping dead that normally wouldn't This claim is mostly overblown at this point. It was a legitimate concern early on, but it hasn't been true for some time. The vaccine claims are also misleading. Herd immunity by vaccination is not the only way to protect society, and the distinct lack of discussion or recognition of immunity from infection is conspicuous. COVID's infection fatality rate for certain cohorts is low enough that vaccination isn't strictly needed, and arguably taking a different tack on this could potentially have saved far more lives. For instance, consider if we had only isolated and vaccinated those at greatest risk of death and complications from COVID (40 and older, immunocompromised, comorbidities), and then shipped the remaining vaccine supply to the third world to suppress the emergence of variants. We might not have had Delta or Omicron at all. It's not at all clear that this would not have saved more people in the long run. Beating this vaccine mandate drum is blinding people to other rational solutions. It's not going to end well. This convoy is probably only the beginning.
pessimizer 5y ago
I can't catch fat. Suppose next year, people who are asymptomatic typhoid carriers aren't allowed to work in food service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon
Ekaros 5y ago
- stirfish 5y ago
- NationalPark 5y ago
  This strikes me as a false equivalency made in bad faith.
  - infamouscow 5y ago
seized 5y ago
No, that's absurd. You need to think a bit first. Those things are more easily taxed to "solve". And you being fat doesn't impact me in the least, unless I am unfortunately stuck next to you on a plane. I can't catch it from you. So that isn't comparable to COVID. Notice how smoking has long been regulated and limited, but not banned? That slippery slope argument doesn't work either. And the bit about giving kids pills is paranoid nonsense. And ironically, kids have had required vaccines for a very long time. With no sliding down any slopes.

krapp 5y ago

>By accepting this mandate we're not only accepting this jab, we're accepting all the future crazy ideas that the government will come with. No we're not. Accepting mandates doesn't somehow force everyone to automatically accept anything any politician claims or does in the future. That's not how anything works.

alea_iacta_est 5y ago
> That's not how anything works. That's how everything works, it's called a precedent.
- batty 5y ago
  That's not even how a precedent works.
  - alea_iacta_est 5y ago
    Oxford definition: "an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances."
    - giaour 5y ago
      The operative word there is "similar."
      - alea_iacta_est 5y ago
        Yes, similar as in "if we don't do that, insert_whatever_crazy_idea_here, we're gonna overwhelm the hospitals!!!" Because it's been the justification from day 1: "not overwhelm hospitals".
        giaour 5y ago
        Yeah, that's not how precedent works. Precedent is used to justify the means, not to point out that past actions had the same or similar ends.
- giaour 5y ago
  In this case, the precedent would be *vaccine mandates*, not government-mandated kale with every meal. You're conflating mandates for which there are precedents with completely novel and exotic government actions.
  - alea_iacta_est 5y ago
    Exotic like what, lockdowns for example? How crazy of me...
    - giaour 5y ago
      Quarantines are not a novel or exotic public health measure. Try again. You specifically called out the government making you quit smoking or forcing you to eat better in your original post.
      - alea_iacta_est 5y ago
        Lockdown and quarantine are very different. And it's you who mentionned "completely novel and exotic government actions", to which I point out that it's already happened with lockdowns. There's nothing in history that resemble what has happened in those last 2 years, whether you agree or not won't change that fact.
        giaour 5y ago
        My dude, "nothing in history" is a very strong statement. You should read up about what state actors did to limit the spread of the plague. I'm sure someone could find something older, but lockdowns are attested to as a public health measure since at least ~500 BCE (whenever Leviticus was written). I don't feel like you're engaging in good faith, so I'm going to go ahead and quit responding.
        alea_iacta_est 5y ago
        Keep your condescending tone for your friends "my dude".
gruez 5y ago
There's literally people in this thread that are justifying vaccine mandates because we had them before.
- culi 5y ago
  In order to show that literally it turned out fine. It didn't turn into us being mandated to lose weight or whatever that commentator is scared of happening It's justification for the sake of allaying that commentator's fears. Most people that support the mandate support it because it makes sense and they've thought about it. In fact, I'd wager that those who are against the mandate are more often susceptible to being brainwashed than those who are enthusiastically for it
  - alea_iacta_est 5y ago
    Let's see, those for freedom and individual choice would be more brainwashed that those against? Interesting theory.

stirfish 5y ago

That's a pretty cool slippery slope you just constructed. You've almost convinced me, but you forgot to tell me that they'll take my guns and make me gay.

criley2 5y ago

This is a classic slippery slope argument. Losing weight is not the same thing as a pandemic like this. The two-fold reason that these measures are taken is A) over-filling of hospitals and shut-down of all non-emergency services and B) extremely high death rate. Smoking or whatever scary slippery slope you think we're on is not the same thing as the ICU's filling up way over capacity and hundreds of thousands of people dropping dead that normally wouldn't. The idea that we should be against common-sense measures to promote herd immunity during a very real pandemic because "the government will make you stop smoking" is frankly an outrageously claim. It's long been held, since at least America began, that herd immunity is vital to the success and security of a nation. Our militaries require these vaccinations because a fighting force must be healthy. Our schools require these vaccines because sick kids and sick cities don't learn. The idea that a vaccine mandate is anything more than a century-old, bog-standard, completely required part of the human war against disease is a radical and anti-civilized position. Herd immunity is non-negotiable for our level of modern society to exist. I swear, we are killing ourselves. Dense civilization requires trade offs, and in the war against pandemic disease, that does include vaccination.

stirfish 5y ago
This thread doesn't deserve your patience, and yet we are still blessed by this comment. We could all (myself included) try to be more like you.
alea_iacta_est 5y ago
Ok so what about lockdowns then?
naasking 5y ago
> ICU's filling up way over capacity and hundreds of thousands of people dropping dead that normally wouldn't This claim is mostly overblown at this point. It was a legitimate concern early on, but it hasn't been true for some time. The vaccine claims are also misleading. Herd immunity by vaccination is not the only way to protect society, and the distinct lack of discussion or recognition of immunity from infection is conspicuous. COVID's infection fatality rate for certain cohorts is low enough that vaccination isn't strictly needed, and arguably taking a different tack on this could potentially have saved far more lives. For instance, consider if we had only isolated and vaccinated those at greatest risk of death and complications from COVID (40 and older, immunocompromised, comorbidities), and then shipped the remaining vaccine supply to the third world to suppress the emergence of variants. We might not have had Delta or Omicron at all. It's not at all clear that this would not have saved more people in the long run. Beating this vaccine mandate drum is blinding people to other rational solutions. It's not going to end well. This convoy is probably only the beginning.

pessimizer 5y ago

I can't catch fat. Suppose next year, people who are asymptomatic typhoid carriers aren't allowed to work in food service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

Ekaros 5y ago

stirfish 5y ago
NationalPark 5y ago
This strikes me as a false equivalency made in bad faith.
- infamouscow 5y ago

seized 5y ago

No, that's absurd. You need to think a bit first. Those things are more easily taxed to "solve". And you being fat doesn't impact me in the least, unless I am unfortunately stuck next to you on a plane. I can't catch it from you. So that isn't comparable to COVID. Notice how smoking has long been regulated and limited, but not banned? That slippery slope argument doesn't work either. And the bit about giving kids pills is paranoid nonsense. And ironically, kids have had required vaccines for a very long time. With no sliding down any slopes.