3 ms·
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
by 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 agoIn 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.