4 ms·
Yes — they were coerced by the state including having normal freedoms removed, which is what generally defines “legal obligation”.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
Yes — they were coerced by the state including having normal freedoms removed, which is what generally defines “legal obligation”.
- pests 2y agoYet here I am, with all my freedoms intact, and still not vaccinated.
- threeseed 2y agoIf you're talking about legal matters then words are important. No one was ever forced to take a vaccine. Nor were they coerced by the state.
- bdangubic 2y agomeaning like losing a job unless you get a jab, considering that a significant force?
- Retric 2y agoNo. Making hard choices inherently implies options. Vaccines saved well over a million people’s lives at negligible heath impact for the wider population, that’s simply what states are going to do in an epidemic.
- threeseed 2y agoThat is a private company making a decision about their work environment. You don't have the right to demand that they cater to your requirements.
- bdangubic 2y agoI work for the government
- Dylan16807 2y agoThen they're just an employer to you. They're not acting as rule-maker. It's very different from a legal requirement that applies to all jobs.
- bdangubic 2y agothis would be true… if you lived in fucking china or north korea and someone controller “all jobs”
- Retric 2y agoYou have that relationship reversed. If you work for the FBI you can quit at any time and work for a different companies with different rules. You can’t work for a company that gets to ignore minimum wage laws.
- bdangubic 2y agothis all makes sense of course, I am not forced to stay at the FBI. however, I just might: - love what I do and love the team I am on a my mission. - have a career at fbi, not a “job” I am willing to change like underwear - be gs-15 few years away from retirement/pension/… you can technically say this is a “free” country and all that but it is just semantics
- Retric 2y ago
- zmgsabst 2y agoThey were coerced by the state: they issued mandates which required vaccination to engage in normal rights. That’s the literal definition of coercion. I think it’s interesting how many people deny that — almost as if you know what was done is morally repugnant.
- nkrisc 2y agoViruses are not concerned with ethics and morals.
- zmgsabst 2y agoOkay — but we have more concerns than a single virus. It’s entirely possible to engage in net-negative behaviors because you fixate on a singular goal — a human version of the “paperclip optimizer”: we became “COVID optimizers” and produced suboptimal results. Ethics and morals are time-honed heuristics to avoid those failures. “Freedom” is the heuristic that distributed risk assessment and planning out perform centralized versions — and we forgot that in our panic.
- nkrisc 2y agoAnd some day there may be another epidemic for which we optimize for freedom, and after which there will be no human left to enjoy the freedom (or those left will be too busy surviving to worry about things such as “freedom”). It is fortunate that the COVID-19 pandemic did not rise to that level. Maybe it couldn’t have, but that’s easier to say with the benefit of hindsight. Or some other catastrophe that threatens us. My point is that natural things do not care for artificial concepts such as “freedoms” and “rights” and “morality”.
- zmgsabst 2y agoYou say that as if the recommendations for freedom weren’t based on the initial medical data. But they were and you’re inventing a false dichotomy whereby we had to engage in totalitarianism contrary to evidence of COVID’s deadliness or some hypothetical infinite bad might have happened. That’s nothing but bullshit, from somebody who was wrong.