I recognize that you were not trying to allude to the countless times where the limitation of rights were used to cause harm. I also recognize that good and bad

I recognize that you were not trying to allude to the countless times where the limitation of rights were used to cause harm. I also recognize that good and bad justifications are not the same thing. My thinking is simply that there are better examples than Syphilis and HIV, such as seat belts or speed limits. What I saw you say was "You live in a society that actively limits the spread of these diseases" and I'm saying that is a poor example of justification for such limitations because: 1) The listener might be disease-free regardless of society's efforts (the limitation's benefit might not be relatable) 2) We live in a society that actively spreads diseases in the name of protection and profit (the justification behind limitations might be engineered) 3) These diseases still exist in unknown quantities (the limitations might be ineffective) A better example would be something like seat belts or speed limits because: 1) The listener is far more likely to have been in or around a vehicle than they are to have contracted syphilis. (the limitation's benefit is relatable) 2) There are no instances of seat belts or speed limits having been used to justify excessive harm. (the limitation's benefit cannot be argued as having been engineered) 3) The impact on safety is far easier to measure and compare. (the limitation's effectiveness can be measured immediately) But if you don't believe any of this to be relevant, then I must accept that. Thank you for your time.