Opticflash said: StarfireDragon said: Where is your rationale that government intervention is necessary? What are your justifications that civil liberties need to be curbed, when most other hospitals are capable of sorting this out voluntarily? If you are going to hold me to some standard, at least hold yourself to that same standard. Otherwise this argument is pointless. Again, I did not say that government intervention is necessary, only that it makes sense why some countries chose to make it mandatory. I am not strongly in favor of the decision nor strictly opposed to it. It is you who is strictly opposed to it, so it is your job to justify why instead of simply stating "but it doesn't justify X". I don't know how I can justify it anymore. To anyone who understands the concept of civil liberty this should be enough. You claim to be ambivalent, yet refuse to acknowledge that treading on civil liberties is even a valid position. But you've been more focused on reframing the argument, and playing devil's advocate than anything else, so in either scenario this is a waste of time. |
 This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
StarfireDragon said: Opticflash said: Again, I did not say that government intervention is necessary, only that it makes sense why some countries chose to make it mandatory. I am not strongly in favor of the decision nor strictly opposed to it. It is you who is strictly opposed to it, so it is your job to justify why instead of simply stating "but it doesn't justify X". I don't know how I can justify it anymore. To anyone who understands the concept of civil liberty this should be enough. You claim to be ambivalent, yet refuse to acknowledge that treading on civil liberties is even a valid position. But you've been more focused on reframing the argument, and playing devil's advocate than anything else, so in either scenario this is a waste of time. Of course it's understandable that "civil liberties" is important and that it's understandable for people to hold a staunch view in favor of it. However, the world is complex enough such that we usually don't just brush off everything as "freedom versus authoritarianism" without giving any justification whatsoever when passing laws. I am not dismissing your stance; I just want to hear why you hold such a view that is more in depth than simply because it takes people's freedom away. As an example, in almost every civilized country, seatbelts are mandatory. It restricts people's freedom (convenience, comfortability) in a car, yet, to almost everyone on earth, the necessity for seatbelts is common sense. If the discussion were as simple as freedom versus authoritarianism, then fines when not wearing seatbelts would not and should not be a thing. Often one avenue of discussion surrounds a cost benefit analysis of a law or policy. If we dictate that every person wears a seatbelt when driving a car, how much inconvenience is this for the average person? If we do not fine people for not wearing seatbelts, more dangerous accidents may occur, putting strain on the healthcare system, putting other people that require healthcare at risk, and indirectly limiting their freedom. You can certainly give a similar analysis in favor of more freedom to people in terms of getting vaccinated. For example, you can discuss the downsides of getting a vaccine (side effects, etc.,) versus the downsides of not having healthcare workers vaccinated (increased risk of spread to patients, etc.,). In short, the choices we make, and the laws and policies we employ, isn't as simple as freedom versus authoritarianism, and some rationale should be given as to why we should accept or reject those choices. |
OpticflashJul 18, 2021 3:51 PM
Opticflash said: StarfireDragon said: I don't know how I can justify it anymore. To anyone who understands the concept of civil liberty this should be enough. You claim to be ambivalent, yet refuse to acknowledge that treading on civil liberties is even a valid position. But you've been more focused on reframing the argument, and playing devil's advocate than anything else, so in either scenario this is a waste of time. Of course it's understandable that "civil liberties" is important and that it's understandable for people to hold a staunch view in favor of it. However, the world is complex enough such that we usually don't just brush off everything as "freedom versus authoritarianism" without giving any justification whatsoever when passing laws. I am not dismissing your stance; I just want to hear why you hold such a view that is more in depth than simply because it takes people's freedom away. As an example, in almost every civilized country, seatbelts are mandatory. It restricts people's freedom (convenience, comfortability) in a car, yet, to almost everyone on earth, the necessity for seatbelts is common sense. If the discussion were as simple as freedom versus authoritarianism, then fines when not wearing seatbelts would not and should not be a thing. Often one avenue of discussion surrounds a cost benefit analysis of a law or policy. If we dictate that every person wears a seatbelt when driving a car, how much inconvenience is this for the average person? If we do not fine people for not wearing seatbelts, more dangerous accidents may occur, putting strain on the healthcare system, putting other people that require healthcare at risk, and indirectly limiting their freedom. You can certainly give a similar analysis in favor of more freedom to people in terms of getting vaccinated. For example, you can discuss the downsides of getting a vaccine (side effects, etc.,) versus the downsides of not having healthcare workers vaccinated (increased risk of spread to patients, etc.,). In short, the choices we make, and the laws and policies we employ, isn't as simple as freedom versus authoritarianism, and [I]some[/] rationale should be given as to why we should accept or reject those choices. I went into more detail when talking to someone else Hospitals sorting out problems of their own accord is the crux of my argument, actually. If a hospital mandates that you take the jab to interact with patients, at least, you can do something else, until the pandemic blows over. Or, if they won't allow that, you can transfer to another hospital. This is not the case under these new regulations. If you are a health worker, regardless of what you do, you have absolutely no choice, but to take the jab. The government is not "just there to speed up the process", it is there to force you to take it. It's unjustified because you are effectively removing the element of choice from the individuals involved, even if they aren't interacting with patients directly. If a hospital dictates that you need to take the jab, in order to interact with patients, you can at least do something else in the meantime. But not under these regulations. It's overreaching because it is being used as a threat, all over something that can be easily sorted out by the people involved. At least by sorting it out voluntarily, it respects the individual's choice, without having to risk throwing everything away. Seatbelts are not an apt comparison. They do not explicitly target individuals who have worked their asses off to get to where they are today, nor does it threaten the income of individuals involved. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
StarfireDragon said: Opticflash said: Of course it's understandable that "civil liberties" is important and that it's understandable for people to hold a staunch view in favor of it. However, the world is complex enough such that we usually don't just brush off everything as "freedom versus authoritarianism" without giving any justification whatsoever when passing laws. I am not dismissing your stance; I just want to hear why you hold such a view that is more in depth than simply because it takes people's freedom away. As an example, in almost every civilized country, seatbelts are mandatory. It restricts people's freedom (convenience, comfortability) in a car, yet, to almost everyone on earth, the necessity for seatbelts is common sense. If the discussion were as simple as freedom versus authoritarianism, then fines when not wearing seatbelts would not and should not be a thing. Often one avenue of discussion surrounds a cost benefit analysis of a law or policy. If we dictate that every person wears a seatbelt when driving a car, how much inconvenience is this for the average person? If we do not fine people for not wearing seatbelts, more dangerous accidents may occur, putting strain on the healthcare system, putting other people that require healthcare at risk, and indirectly limiting their freedom. You can certainly give a similar analysis in favor of more freedom to people in terms of getting vaccinated. For example, you can discuss the downsides of getting a vaccine (side effects, etc.,) versus the downsides of not having healthcare workers vaccinated (increased risk of spread to patients, etc.,). In short, the choices we make, and the laws and policies we employ, isn't as simple as freedom versus authoritarianism, and [I]some[/] rationale should be given as to why we should accept or reject those choices. I went into more detail when talking to someone else Hospitals sorting out problems of their own accord is the crux of my argument, actually. If a hospital mandates that you take the jab to interact with patients, at least, you can do something else, until the pandemic blows over. Or, if they won't allow that, you can transfer to another hospital. This is not the case under these new regulations. If you are a health worker, regardless of what you do, you have absolutely no choice, but to take the jab. The government is not "just there to speed up the process", it is there to force you to take it. It's unjustified because you are effectively removing the element of choice from the individuals involved, even if they aren't interacting with patients directly. If a hospital dictates that you need to take the jab, in order to interact with patients, you can at least do something else in the meantime. But not under these regulations. It's overreaching because it is being used as a threat, all over something that can be easily sorted out by the people involved. At least by sorting it out voluntarily, it respects the individual's choice, without having to risk throwing everything away. Seatbelts are not an apt comparison. They do not explicitly target individuals who have worked their asses off to get to where they are today, nor does it threaten the income of individuals involved. You are speaking in terms of "forcing me to do A is wrong because if I don't do A then group X will threaten me" which I don't find makes much sense at all. To illustrate, I can give a dummy example that should highlight the point. Say someone asks you to draw a stick figure and if you don't then they'll go to your house and rob you. You might state that it's wrong for that person to force you to draw a stick figure, but you don't go into why doing the action itself (drawing a stick figure) is bad. After all, why not just draw the stick figure, a trivial exercise, and be done with it? Obviously this is a silly example because there are virtually no downsides and no upsides to doing the action itself. When people make decisions or policies, they tend to weigh the upsides and downsides to doing the action itself. This includes policies on seatbelts. So in the end, are you trying to say that the punishment for not doing action A (in this case, taking a vaccine) is disproportionate to the consequences of taking the action? Such as if you don't wear a seatbelt, a fine of $100,000 would be unreasonable? That's the only rationale I can clean from this. Lastly, do you have a problem if (private) hospitals themselves force their employees to take the vaccine or risk losing their job? |
InsipidAsh03 said: You are implying - "just bad luck, if you're vulnerable too bad, I won't protect you and many others because I'm healthy"? Isn't that ridiculously selfish to say? You don't think it's selfish of the at-risk population to expect everyone else to bend over backwards for them? |
| その目だれの目？ |
Opticflash said: StarfireDragon said: I went into more detail when talking to someone else It's unjustified because you are effectively removing the element of choice from the individuals involved, even if they aren't interacting with patients directly. If a hospital dictates that you need to take the jab, in order to interact with patients, you can at least do something else in the meantime. But not under these regulations. It's overreaching because it is being used as a threat, all over something that can be easily sorted out by the people involved. At least by sorting it out voluntarily, it respects the individual's choice, without having to risk throwing everything away. Seatbelts are not an apt comparison. They do not explicitly target individuals who have worked their asses off to get to where they are today, nor does it threaten the income of individuals involved. You are speaking in terms of "forcing me to do A is wrong because if I don't do A then group X will threaten me" which I don't find makes much sense at all. To illustrate, I can give a dummy example that should highlight the point. That's because it is wrong, but I'll here you out. Say someone asks you to draw a stick figure and if you don't then they'll go to your house and rob you. You might state that it's wrong for that person to force you to draw a stick figure, but you don't go into why doing the action itself (drawing a stick figure) is bad. After all, why not just draw the stick figure, a trivial exercise, and be done with it? Obviously this is a silly example because there are virtually no downsides and no upsides to doing the action itself. When people make decisions or policies, they tend to weigh the upsides and downsides to doing the action itself. This includes policies on seatbelts. It's not drawing the stick figure that is the problem man. It is the threat of violence, as a result of not complying, that is the issue. Downsides, or not, you should not be put into that situation. And that's putting aside the fact, that you would have to be the most neurotic, weak person on planet earth to comply with this. What you are supposed to do, if someone is aggressing you, is grab a baseball bat, and beat the shit out of the fucker, for encroaching on your rights. You don't need to explain shit to your aggressor. They should not have been doing that in the first place, and it's plain as day that it is wrong. It's no different here. So in the end, are you trying to say that the punishment for not doing action A (in this case, taking a vaccine) is disproportionate to the consequences of taking the action? Such as if you don't wear a seatbelt, a fine of $100,000 would be unreasonable? That's the only rationale I can clean from this. Forcing people to take the vaccine, is a threat, by the state, to punish individuals for what they choose to do with their own bodies. Not only is the punishment disproportionate, it is a violation of human rights that should not have existed in the first place. Lastly, do you have a problem if (private) hospitals themselves force their employees to take the vaccine or risk losing their job? It is similarly aggressive for hospitals to force the vaccine on individuals. But at the very least, individuals should be able to negotiate with the management about this type of situation. It's unlikely that hospitals would just throw away qualified staff, so I am sure that they can come to some kind of a compromise. And if not, then there are always other hospitals. But that is not the case under this regulation. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
StarfireDragon said: Opticflash said: You are speaking in terms of "forcing me to do A is wrong because if I don't do A then group X will threaten me" which I don't find makes much sense at all. To illustrate, I can give a dummy example that should highlight the point. That's because it is wrong, but I'll here you out. Say someone asks you to draw a stick figure and if you don't then they'll go to your house and rob you. You might state that it's wrong for that person to force you to draw a stick figure, but you don't go into why doing the action itself (drawing a stick figure) is bad. After all, why not just draw the stick figure, a trivial exercise, and be done with it? Obviously this is a silly example because there are virtually no downsides and no upsides to doing the action itself. When people make decisions or policies, they tend to weigh the upsides and downsides to doing the action itself. This includes policies on seatbelts. It's not drawing the stick figure that is the problem man. It is the threat of violence, as a result of not complying, that is the issue. Downsides, or not, you should not be put into that situation. And that's putting aside the fact, that you would have to be the most neurotic, weak person on planet earth to comply with this. What you are supposed to do, if someone is aggressing you, is grab a baseball bat, and beat the shit out of the fucker, for encroaching on your rights. You don't need to explain shit to your aggressor. They should not have been doing that in the first place, and it's plain as day that it is wrong. It's no different here. So in the end, are you trying to say that the punishment for not doing action A (in this case, taking a vaccine) is disproportionate to the consequences of taking the action? Such as if you don't wear a seatbelt, a fine of $100,000 would be unreasonable? That's the only rationale I can clean from this. Forcing people to take the vaccine, is a threat, by the state, to punish individuals for what they choose to do with their own bodies. Not only is the punishment disproportionate, it is a violation of human rights that should not have existed in the first place. Lastly, do you have a problem if (private) hospitals themselves force their employees to take the vaccine or risk losing their job? It is similarly aggressive for hospitals to force the vaccine on individuals. But at the very least, individuals should be able to negotiate with the management about this type of situation. It's unlikely that hospitals would just throw away qualified staff, so I am sure that they can come to some kind of a compromise. And if not, then there are always other hospitals. But that is not the case under this regulation. Okay, so I am more or less correct in saying that it is (at least partially) to do with the disproportionality of the punishment. If, for example, the law on driving changed such that your license will be revoked and you will be fined $10,000 if you don't wear a seatbelt, I assume you will have the same reaction as towards the mandatory vaccines. The other aspect I see from your post is akin to a strong "don't boss me around" or "don't tell me what to do" attitude. I am not going to say that this attitude is right or wrong, but I will say that we do things for others all the time. For example, if your boss assigns you a task and you don't do it, you risk losing your job. If the assigned task is of critical value to the company, then not doing it for sure will get you fired or demoted. We do things at the request of others all the time in real life, but what we also do is evaluate the pros and cons of doing the action itself. |
Opticflash said: StarfireDragon said: That's because it is wrong, but I'll here you out. It's not drawing the stick figure that is the problem man. It is the threat of violence, as a result of not complying, that is the issue. Downsides, or not, you should not be put into that situation. And that's putting aside the fact, that you would have to be the most neurotic, weak person on planet earth to comply with this. What you are supposed to do, if someone is aggressing you, is grab a baseball bat, and beat the shit out of the fucker, for encroaching on your rights. You don't need to explain shit to your aggressor. They should not have been doing that in the first place, and it's plain as day that it is wrong. It's no different here. Forcing people to take the vaccine, is a threat, by the state, to punish individuals for what they choose to do with their own bodies. Not only is the punishment disproportionate, it is a violation of human rights that should not have existed in the first place. It is similarly aggressive for hospitals to force the vaccine on individuals. But at the very least, individuals should be able to negotiate with the management about this type of situation. It's unlikely that hospitals would just throw away qualified staff, so I am sure that they can come to some kind of a compromise. And if not, then there are always other hospitals. But that is not the case under this regulation. Okay, so I am more or less correct in saying that it is (at least partially) to do with the disproportionality of the punishment. If, for example, the law on driving changed such that your license will be revoked and you will be fined $10,000 if you don't wear a seatbelt, I assume you will have the same reaction as towards the mandatory vaccines. That is... essentially what I have been arguing, yes. I would embellish the specifics a little bit more, but that's not incorrect to say that the punishment outweighs the "crime". The other aspect I see from your post is akin to a strong "don't boss me around" or "don't tell me what to do" attitude. I am not going to say that this attitude is right or wrong, but I will say that we do things for others all the time. For example, if your boss assigns you a task and you don't do it, you risk losing your job. If the assigned task is of critical value to the company, then not doing it for sure will get you fired or demoted. We do things at the request of others all the time in real life, but what we also do is evaluate the pros and cons of doing the action itself. While, it is true, that, we do stuff for others, the dichotomy of mutual benefit that you would get when dealing with a private business is absent when when you are dealing with the state. When agreeing to work for a company, you agree to do what they ask, in exchange for money. There is a financial incentive for both of you to co-operate with each other. The same cannot be said for the state, who, in most cases, has very little incentive to listen to anything you say. It's not just about being bossed around. I choose to wear masks on people's property, if they ask for it. But I object to encroachment, on an individual's freedom, regarding what they put in their body. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
StarfireDragon said: That is... essentially what I have been arguing, yes. I would embellish the specifics a little bit more, but that's not incorrect to say that the punishment outweighs the "crime". Well then in that case obviously I agree for the hypothetical scenario where you lose your driver's license and pay $10,000 for not wearing a seatbelt. The vaccine scenario is a bit more complicated because the benefit for being vaccinated is quite critical in preventing sickness and death - so I weigh in the pros (and cons) of the action itself. StarfireDragon said: While, it is true, that, we do stuff for others, the dichotomy of mutual benefit that you would get when dealing with a private business is absent when when you are dealing with the state. When agreeing to work for a company, you agree to do what they ask, in exchange for money. There is a financial incentive for both of you to co-operate with each other. The same cannot be said for the state, who, in most cases, has very little incentive to listen to anything you say. It's not just about being bossed around. I choose to wear masks on people's property, if they ask for it. But I object to encroachment, on an individual's freedom, regarding what they put in their body. This is where the pros and cons of the action itself kicks in. For example, if I were a healthcare worker, I know that getting vaccinated helps myself, my coworkers, and my patients, and provides for a more safe community and minimizes sickness and death. These are all pros. The cons are, almost always the time, some minor side effects for a day or two but these are well studied, so the cons are actually minimal. So if I were a healthcare worker, and I was ordered to take the vaccine, it makes complete sense for me to take it because it is beneficial for me and others; the morally good thing to do. Regardless if I was told by the state or by my boss and regardless of what the repercussions are for not taking it, taking it is the obvious choice because of the aforementioned pros and cons. We also make similar assessments for the state where the reward of doing something is usually minimal for ourselves and the repercussions is a legal battle and potential jail time. Taxes are the obvious example for most people (even though you may despise them). We pay taxes so that it goes towards infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc., which are beneficial and vital for society as a whole. This is the pro of paying taxes; not necessarily for our own direct benefit but for the benefit of society as a whole and functions as a collective group. Having taxes going towards universal healthcare for example creates a safety net for everybody including myself, which is overall a good thing (the issue of abuse of the healthcare system and over capacity is another issue altogether). Contributing to road infrastructure is a good thing; the morally good choice for all. The con is facing legal repercussions for not paying taxes. |
Opticflash said: StarfireDragon said: That is... essentially what I have been arguing, yes. I would embellish the specifics a little bit more, but that's not incorrect to say that the punishment outweighs the "crime". Well then in that case obviously I agree for the hypothetical scenario where you lose your driver's license and pay $10,000 for not wearing a seatbelt. The vaccine scenario is a bit more complicated because the benefit for being vaccinated is quite critical in preventing sickness and death - so I weigh in the pros (and cons) of the action itself. StarfireDragon said: While, it is true, that, we do stuff for others, the dichotomy of mutual benefit that you would get when dealing with a private business is absent when when you are dealing with the state. When agreeing to work for a company, you agree to do what they ask, in exchange for money. There is a financial incentive for both of you to co-operate with each other. The same cannot be said for the state, who, in most cases, has very little incentive to listen to anything you say. It's not just about being bossed around. I choose to wear masks on people's property, if they ask for it. But I object to encroachment, on an individual's freedom, regarding what they put in their body. This is where the pros and cons of the action itself kicks in. For example, if I were a healthcare worker, I know that getting vaccinated helps myself, my coworkers, and my patients, and provides for a more safe community and minimizes sickness and death. These are all pros. The cons are, almost always the time, some minor side effects for a day or two but these are well studied, so the cons are actually minimal. So if I were a healthcare worker, and I was ordered to take the vaccine, it makes complete sense for me to take it because it is beneficial for me and others; the morally good thing to do. Regardless if I was told by the state or by my boss and regardless of what the repercussions are for not taking it, taking it is the obvious choice because of the aforementioned pros and cons. If you want to take the vaccine, you should. If you don't want to take it, you should not be forced too. That's how I see it. I don't personally see it as a moral good, but I don't see it as a moral bad, either. It's just another decision that you can make. We also make similar assessments for the state where the reward of doing something is usually minimal for ourselves and the repercussions is a legal battle and potential jail time. Taxes are the obvious example for most people (even though you may despise them). We pay taxes so that it goes towards infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc., which are beneficial and vital for society as a whole. This is the pro of paying taxes; not necessarily for our own direct benefit but for the benefit of society as a whole and functions as a collective group. Having taxes going towards universal healthcare for example creates a safety net for everybody including myself, which is overall a good thing (the issue of abuse of the healthcare system and over capacity is another issue altogether). Contributing to road infrastructure is a good thing; the morally good choice for all. The con is facing legal repercussions for not paying taxes. It's not a moral good. A lot of bad comes from it. Billions of tax payer dollars always go to wealthy corporations, in the form of subsidies, and corporate welfare. Billions of dollars have gone into post secondary education, but the tuition fees keep rising. Both scenarios make it difficult for competition to arise, which creates more expensive services. What the community actually sees from it, is largely a small representation. There are many other reason why I am against taxation but I'll spare you my ranting. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
StarfireDragon said: Opticflash said: Well then in that case obviously I agree for the hypothetical scenario where you lose your driver's license and pay $10,000 for not wearing a seatbelt. The vaccine scenario is a bit more complicated because the benefit for being vaccinated is quite critical in preventing sickness and death - so I weigh in the pros (and cons) of the action itself. This is where the pros and cons of the action itself kicks in. For example, if I were a healthcare worker, I know that getting vaccinated helps myself, my coworkers, and my patients, and provides for a more safe community and minimizes sickness and death. These are all pros. The cons are, almost always the time, some minor side effects for a day or two but these are well studied, so the cons are actually minimal. So if I were a healthcare worker, and I was ordered to take the vaccine, it makes complete sense for me to take it because it is beneficial for me and others; the morally good thing to do. Regardless if I was told by the state or by my boss and regardless of what the repercussions are for not taking it, taking it is the obvious choice because of the aforementioned pros and cons. If you want to take the vaccine, you should. If you don't want to take it, you should not be forced too. That's how I see it. I don't personally see it as a moral good, but I don't see it as a moral bad, either. It's just another decision that you can make. The cons of not taking it are increased risks towards the patients. This is why there is pressure to make it mandatory. It is akin to trying to force someone to do good for the benefit of others as well as yourself with virtually no cons. Regardless of whether it was instructed by the state or a hospital, or what the repercussion is for not obliging, I do not see any reason why anyone would reject this, unless they believe the cons are worse than they are or they are deliberately trying to do bad. We also make similar assessments for the state where the reward of doing something is usually minimal for ourselves and the repercussions is a legal battle and potential jail time. Taxes are the obvious example for most people (even though you may despise them). We pay taxes so that it goes towards infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc., which are beneficial and vital for society as a whole. This is the pro of paying taxes; not necessarily for our own direct benefit but for the benefit of society as a whole and functions as a collective group. Having taxes going towards universal healthcare for example creates a safety net for everybody including myself, which is overall a good thing (the issue of abuse of the healthcare system and over capacity is another issue altogether). Contributing to road infrastructure is a good thing; the morally good choice for all. The con is facing legal repercussions for not paying taxes. It's not a moral good. A lot of bad comes from it. Billions of tax payer dollars always go to wealthy corporations, in the form of subsidies, and corporate welfare. Billions of dollars have gone into post secondary education, but the tuition fees keep rising. Both scenarios make it difficult for competition to arise, which creates more expensive services. What the community actually sees from it, is largely a small representation. There are many other reason why I am against taxation but I'll spare you my ranting. I am not here to debate on how taxes are used and managed, but what I was trying to emphasize was that most people have no problems with the state's demands if there are pros such as for altruistic reasons. If you believe taxes are improperly used by the state, feel free to message me with reasons why and what you have read to support this. |
Opticflash said: StarfireDragon said: If you want to take the vaccine, you should. If you don't want to take it, you should not be forced too. That's how I see it. I don't personally see it as a moral good, but I don't see it as a moral bad, either. It's just another decision that you can make. The cons of not taking it are increased risks towards the patients. This is why there is pressure to make it mandatory. It is akin to trying to force someone to do good for the benefit of others as well as yourself with virtually no cons. Regardless of whether it was instructed by the state or a hospital, or what the repercussion is for not obliging, I do not see any reason why anyone would reject this, unless they believe the cons are worse than they are or they are deliberately trying to do bad. It's not a moral good. A lot of bad comes from it. Billions of tax payer dollars always go to wealthy corporations, in the form of subsidies, and corporate welfare. Billions of dollars have gone into post secondary education, but the tuition fees keep rising. Both scenarios make it difficult for competition to arise, which creates more expensive services. What the community actually sees from it, is largely a small representation. There are many other reason why I am against taxation but I'll spare you my ranting. I am not here to debate on how taxes are used and managed, but what I was trying to emphasize was that most people have no problems with the state's demands if there are pros such as for altruistic reasons. If you believe taxes are improperly used by the state, feel free to message me with reasons why and what you have read to support this. Altruism does not come from the barrel of a gun. If it's by force, it's coercion. Simple as that. It's very dangerous to conflate government force with altruism. It's how socialist governments get elected, and destroy their countries. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
StarfireDragon said: Opticflash said: The cons of not taking it are increased risks towards the patients. This is why there is pressure to make it mandatory. It is akin to trying to force someone to do good for the benefit of others as well as yourself with virtually no cons. Regardless of whether it was instructed by the state or a hospital, or what the repercussion is for not obliging, I do not see any reason why anyone would reject this, unless they believe the cons are worse than they are or they are deliberately trying to do bad. I am not here to debate on how taxes are used and managed, but what I was trying to emphasize was that most people have no problems with the state's demands if there are pros such as for altruistic reasons. If you believe taxes are improperly used by the state, feel free to message me with reasons why and what you have read to support this. Altruism does not come from the barrel of a gun. If it's by force, it's coercion. Simple as that. It's very dangerous to conflate government force with altruism. It's how socialist governments get elected, and destroy their countries. The point here isn't solely what the demands of the state (or any other person or entity) are and what the consequences are for disobeying; people tend to also weigh in the pros and cons of the action itself in their evaluation of the demand. The pros can be any reason that is valuable to the person taking an action such as altruism. If there are next to no cons, most people do not complain. It's like if the state coerced you to receive $1 mil with no strings attached or otherwise face jail time, virtually nobody would complain and happily walk away with that $1 mil. Universal healthcare is a good example of a policy that some people tend to call "socialistic", yet most people in the first world want this. They do not complain about what the repercussions are for not paying taxes that go towards healthcare (provided it is used resourcefully), it is the pros that they care about which is a safety net for all including themselves. So the bottom line I was making was that it isn't simply that there is coercion involved, but that pros and cons of the action also factor heavily into the reception of the law or policy. |
| I haven’t bothered following rona news recently but I support mandatory vaccinations for the whole population and for Bill Gates to inject those fabled 5G microchips specifically into the veins of anti-vaxxers. Peace out |
 Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
Comic_Sans said: I haven’t bothered following rona news recently but I support mandatory vaccinations for the whole population and for Bill Gates to inject those fabled 5G microchips specifically into the veins of anti-vaxxers. Peace out Of all the possible threads over these past two years where your wisdom was needed, you chose that one? Must be a vaccine side effect. |
Noboru said: InsipidAsh03 said: You do realize that virus mutations are naturally and will occur even when people are vaccinated?You do realise that when unvaccinated people get the virus, there is a chance of it mutating and creating a new variant which could potentially be more virulent, or lead to the virus mutating to a variant that the vulnerable vaccinated people are no longer immune to? Also, mutations tend to get in the direction of becoming more transmissible, but less harmful Far less when people are vaccinated against it, because if you're immune your body will shoot down the reproduction of this virus.. the virus would not be spread as much or reproduce as much, therefore a lot less chance of mutation.. |
 |
InsipidAsh03 said: If you believe thatNoboru said: You do realize that virus mutations are naturally and will occur even when people are vaccinated? Also, mutations tend to get in the direction of becoming more transmissible, but less harmful Far less when people are vaccinated against it, because if you're immune your body will shoot down the reproduction of this virus.. the virus would not be spread as much or reproduce as much, therefore a lot less chance of mutation.. The virus is already harmless to the vast majority of population |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |