4 ms·

Endless war, cars and cigarettes cause far more death than non-vaxxers. Are you sure that you've gotten your priorities straight here?

kstrauser 12y ago
That's laughable. The flu of 1918 killed 3% to 5% of the world's population that year, and killed somewhere between 10% and 20% of the people who got it. Your position is only defensible if you don't believe that there are diseases that can kill or cripple you. While I wish that were true, that's not the world we live in.
- WorldWideWayne 12y ago
  You're conflating "death from the flu" with "death from a low percentage of people who didn't take a flu virus". Can you cite a number of deaths that took place from the latter?
dullcrisp 12y ago
You're right. In a perfect world we would have some legislation regarding wars, cars, and cigarettes as well.
krschultz 12y ago
You're deflecting, which is usually when I walk away from these things. However I think it's important to make this point. I agree with you on the things you are trying to distract with. You want to smoke? Great, that only impacts you. I want you to be able to make that choice for weed and heroin too. I'm with you on the wars, but that's so far from what we're talking about here it's not worth getting into. I was a registered capital-L libertarian for many years. I campaigned for Ron Paul before the words "Tea Party" were anything other than a chapter in a history book. I get it. But the libertarian (small-L) philosophy is let someone have the freedom to do anything they want, as long as it doesn't impact other people's freedoms. This is one of those things. Anti-vax people are impacting my life, are impacting my kids life, impinging on my safety and well being and my kids well being. If society isn't going to enforce a law about that, then what's the point?
- WorldWideWayne 12y ago
  So, you support a law that every eligible person be forced to take a vaccine that has a small chance of death or serious illness? How does that square with your desire to not have other people's decisions forced on your own kids? A more reasonable approach would be to bar non-vaccinated kids from public school and let private schools and home schooled children decide for themselves. That's the only law that I support.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- jklein11 12y ago
  Your definition of the libertarian philosophy (small-L) is an oversimplification and idealistic. We live in a world with finite resources; every action we make impacts others. At some point the line needs to be drawn as to what constitutes an 'impact' on other people. My understanding of small-L libertarianism was that this line shouldn't be drawn.
lkbm 12y ago
Cars provide definite economic utility. I'm happy we're moving toward self-driving cars, but in the meantime, even as a non-driver, I don't want them banned. We let you trade our safety for your economic benefit (partly because our current economy depends on it). We've regulated cigarettes to the point where they're mostly a threat to those who choose to use them. We let you trade your own health/safety for your own liberty. Choosing not to vaccinate doesn't benefit anyone and does cause harm to other people. We're letting you trade our health/safety for your own liberty. If you want to harm yourself, that's okay. If you want to put people at risk for society's benefit, that's okay. If you want to put society at risk because you don't believe in science, that's not okay. Granted, war sucks.
- anotherherring 12y ago
  "If you want to put society at risk because you don't believe in science, that's not okay." WHAT?! Let me fix that for you so that it actually follows the scenario: "If you want to put society at risk because you don't want to [potentially] harm yourself (it happens with vaccines), that's not okay." And that is crap. Society (as government) has the right to force every individual to play Russian roulette?
  - lkbm 12y ago
    In Russian roulette, the chance of injury if you play is 1/6 and 0/6 if you don't. With vaccination the risk of injury is several orders of magnitude lower if you get it v. if you don't. And the risk from not getting it effects not just yourself. So, yeah, were the odds in Russian Roulette were such that playing it dramartically increased your health and safety and the health and safety of those around you, yes, the government should require it. But since those aren't the odds of Russian Roulette, it seems like a pretty dishonest analogy to use.

kstrauser 12y ago

That's laughable. The flu of 1918 killed 3% to 5% of the world's population that year, and killed somewhere between 10% and 20% of the people who got it. Your position is only defensible if you don't believe that there are diseases that can kill or cripple you. While I wish that were true, that's not the world we live in.

WorldWideWayne 12y ago
You're conflating "death from the flu" with "death from a low percentage of people who didn't take a flu virus". Can you cite a number of deaths that took place from the latter?

dullcrisp 12y ago

You're right. In a perfect world we would have some legislation regarding wars, cars, and cigarettes as well.

krschultz 12y ago

You're deflecting, which is usually when I walk away from these things. However I think it's important to make this point. I agree with you on the things you are trying to distract with. You want to smoke? Great, that only impacts you. I want you to be able to make that choice for weed and heroin too. I'm with you on the wars, but that's so far from what we're talking about here it's not worth getting into. I was a registered capital-L libertarian for many years. I campaigned for Ron Paul before the words "Tea Party" were anything other than a chapter in a history book. I get it. But the libertarian (small-L) philosophy is let someone have the freedom to do anything they want, as long as it doesn't impact other people's freedoms. This is one of those things. Anti-vax people are impacting my life, are impacting my kids life, impinging on my safety and well being and my kids well being. If society isn't going to enforce a law about that, then what's the point?

WorldWideWayne 12y ago
So, you support a law that every eligible person be forced to take a vaccine that has a small chance of death or serious illness? How does that square with your desire to not have other people's decisions forced on your own kids? A more reasonable approach would be to bar non-vaccinated kids from public school and let private schools and home schooled children decide for themselves. That's the only law that I support.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
jklein11 12y ago
Your definition of the libertarian philosophy (small-L) is an oversimplification and idealistic. We live in a world with finite resources; every action we make impacts others. At some point the line needs to be drawn as to what constitutes an 'impact' on other people. My understanding of small-L libertarianism was that this line shouldn't be drawn.

lkbm 12y ago

Cars provide definite economic utility. I'm happy we're moving toward self-driving cars, but in the meantime, even as a non-driver, I don't want them banned. We let you trade our safety for your economic benefit (partly because our current economy depends on it). We've regulated cigarettes to the point where they're mostly a threat to those who choose to use them. We let you trade your own health/safety for your own liberty. Choosing not to vaccinate doesn't benefit anyone and does cause harm to other people. We're letting you trade our health/safety for your own liberty. If you want to harm yourself, that's okay. If you want to put people at risk for society's benefit, that's okay. If you want to put society at risk because you don't believe in science, that's not okay. Granted, war sucks.

anotherherring 12y ago
"If you want to put society at risk because you don't believe in science, that's not okay." WHAT?! Let me fix that for you so that it actually follows the scenario: "If you want to put society at risk because you don't want to [potentially] harm yourself (it happens with vaccines), that's not okay." And that is crap. Society (as government) has the right to force every individual to play Russian roulette?
- lkbm 12y ago
  In Russian roulette, the chance of injury if you play is 1/6 and 0/6 if you don't. With vaccination the risk of injury is several orders of magnitude lower if you get it v. if you don't. And the risk from not getting it effects not just yourself. So, yeah, were the odds in Russian Roulette were such that playing it dramartically increased your health and safety and the health and safety of those around you, yes, the government should require it. But since those aren't the odds of Russian Roulette, it seems like a pretty dishonest analogy to use.