Options

Is Civilization Really a Good Thing?

145791014

Posts

  • Options
    IsidoreIsidore Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    hey you are telling me what I have to do

    Welcome to society. Things you aren't allowed to do:
    -Kill people
    -Avoid taxes
    -Steal
    -Allow your kids to get polio, greatly increasing population-wide susceptibility to deadly disease.

    Isidore on
  • Options
    Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    For all the bitching people do about bureaucracy, myself included, it's a pretty great thing.

    And how do you know you want to live hunter/gatherer if you don't know how?

    I just like the idea of it I suppose. Also I don't see bureaucracy as a great thing at all, please do elaborate.

    It's what allows for the actual support and application of large organizations to enforce rules, regulations, etc. It sucks in that it can be annoying, but so do getting vaccines from a hypodermic needle. Nobody really likes either, but because of them lives are vastly improved.

    Funny you should say that. I am philosophically opposed to forced immunizations. I absolutely despise them in fact.

    Oh do go on.

    Tell me why I should die from polio because you don't want your kid immunized.

    How would YOU die of polio if you CHOSE to be immunized against it?

    Because mass immunization is how we stamp out diseases. Otherwise they mutate and spread.

    Immunization isn't a spot treatment, its a blanket reaction.

    No security without freedom. Its a fundamental philosophical difference that I do not believe will ever be resolved after debating with many many people. Sadly it will lead to wars, because hey you are telling me what I have to do. From your perspective you are right, and from my perspective you are dead wrong. Why can't people just live and let live? Is it that hard? Apparently it is.

    The freedom to swing your fist ends at my face. Not immunizing can put others in danger.

    Hexmage-PA on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    No security without freedom. Its a fundamental philosophical difference that I do not believe will ever be resolved after debating with many many people. Sadly it will lead to wars, because hey you are telling me what I have to do. From your perspective you are right, and from my perspective you are dead wrong. Why can't people just live and let live? Is it that hard? Apparently it is.

    Because it isn't live and let live. You're living and insisting deadly viruses be able to develop, mutate, and evolve in to deadlier forms inside your body that could kill vaccinated people. That is a legitimate downside to not being vaccinated.

    What is so important about not being vaccinated that you think more people should die?

    Quid on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Hunter-gatherer societies weren't more free than us. The means of coercion were just different.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    CasedOutCasedOut Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    For all the bitching people do about bureaucracy, myself included, it's a pretty great thing.

    And how do you know you want to live hunter/gatherer if you don't know how?

    I just like the idea of it I suppose. Also I don't see bureaucracy as a great thing at all, please do elaborate.

    It's what allows for the actual support and application of large organizations to enforce rules, regulations, etc. It sucks in that it can be annoying, but so do getting vaccines from a hypodermic needle. Nobody really likes either, but because of them lives are vastly improved.

    Funny you should say that. I am philosophically opposed to forced immunizations. I absolutely despise them in fact.

    Oh do go on.

    Tell me why I should die from polio because you don't want your kid immunized.

    How would YOU die of polio if you CHOSE to be immunized against it?

    Because mass immunization is how we stamp out diseases. Otherwise they mutate and spread.

    Immunization isn't a spot treatment, its a blanket reaction.

    No security without freedom. Its a fundamental philosophical difference that I do not believe will ever be resolved after debating with many many people. Sadly it will lead to wars, because hey you are telling me what I have to do. From your perspective you are right, and from my perspective you are dead wrong. Why can't people just live and let live? Is it that hard? Apparently it is.

    The freedom to swing your fist ends at my face. Not immunizing can put others in danger.

    So can driving a car. You never intend to crash but accidents happen. If we forced everyone in the US to walk, there would be ZERO deaths from automobile accidents. I admit this isnt the best analogy but shrug, its good enough I think. Especially considering the analogy you made of not being immunized is equivalent to me swinging my fist at your face. Since the two are not even remotely close.

    CasedOut on
    452773-1.png
  • Options
    IsidoreIsidore Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Interesting. One can revolt against a dictatorship, can reject capitalism, can abolish slavery; how do you fight the ravages of nature?

    Isidore on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    So can driving a car.
    Which is why we have driver licenses. Minimization of danger through taking away freedom.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    IsidoreIsidore Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    It isn't a good enough analogy. A better analogy would be the ability to be immunised against a car accident ever happening in your community while still being able to drive your car as per normal.

    Is it not gross irresponsibility not to accept this immunisation, to be a person able to kill yourself and others for, almost literally, no reason?

    Isidore on
  • Options
    CasedOutCasedOut Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    No security without freedom. Its a fundamental philosophical difference that I do not believe will ever be resolved after debating with many many people. Sadly it will lead to wars, because hey you are telling me what I have to do. From your perspective you are right, and from my perspective you are dead wrong. Why can't people just live and let live? Is it that hard? Apparently it is.

    Because it isn't live and let live. You're living and insisting deadly viruses be able to develop, mutate, and evolve in to deadlier forms inside your body that could kill vaccinated people. That is a legitimate downside to not being vaccinated.

    What is so important about not being vaccinated that you think more people should die?

    Dude, I am vaccinated. I would gladly be vaccinated to help the world out, its the smart thing to do. I will gladly help my fellow man. I just don't want to do be coerced to help my fellow man. I want to do it of my own accord.

    CasedOut on
    452773-1.png
  • Options
    CasedOutCasedOut Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    So can driving a car.
    Which is why we have driver licenses. Minimization of danger through taking away freedom.


    You guys keep mentiong things I am against. I am against drivers licenses. If I own a car I should be allowed to drive it regardless of what the government tells me. That said I am all for safe driving.

    CasedOut on
    452773-1.png
  • Options
    EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    For all the bitching people do about bureaucracy, myself included, it's a pretty great thing.

    And how do you know you want to live hunter/gatherer if you don't know how?

    I just like the idea of it I suppose. Also I don't see bureaucracy as a great thing at all, please do elaborate.

    It's what allows for the actual support and application of large organizations to enforce rules, regulations, etc. It sucks in that it can be annoying, but so do getting vaccines from a hypodermic needle. Nobody really likes either, but because of them lives are vastly improved.

    Funny you should say that. I am philosophically opposed to forced immunizations. I absolutely despise them in fact.

    Oh do go on.

    Tell me why I should die from polio because you don't want your kid immunized.

    How would YOU die of polio if you CHOSE to be immunized against it?

    Because mass immunization is how we stamp out diseases. Otherwise they mutate and spread.

    Immunization isn't a spot treatment, its a blanket reaction.

    No security without freedom. Its a fundamental philosophical difference that I do not believe will ever be resolved after debating with many many people. Sadly it will lead to wars, because hey you are telling me what I have to do. From your perspective you are right, and from my perspective you are dead wrong. Why can't people just live and let live? Is it that hard? Apparently it is.

    The freedom to swing your fist ends at my face. Not immunizing can put others in danger.

    So can driving a car. You never intend to crash but accidents happen. If we forced everyone in the US to walk, there would be ZERO deaths from automobile accidents. I admit this isnt the best analogy but shrug, its good enough I think. Especially considering the analogy you made of not being immunized is equivalent to me swinging my fist at your face. Since the two are not even remotely close.

    The 'your freedom to swing fists stops at my face' is actually a really good analogy, because it's pointing out how your freedom ends where the security for all begins.

    And your freedom to drive a car absolutely ends where they safety of others begins. That's why we have restrictions, many restrictions, on what a person can do in a vehicle, as opposed to what they can do in their own home.

    I'm absolutely onboard with forcing immunizations. It's not my issue if you can't do math. By skipping immunizations, you fuck people up. More importantly, since immunizations mostly happen to children, you're fucking up kids. I don't think parents own their children, and I'm absolutely alright with the state insisting on the proper welfare of children when the parents are retards.

    edit: okay, you're just a wacky libertarian. Well, enjoy the civilization that makes your ideology safe to hold.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • Options
    CasedOutCasedOut Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Isidore wrote: »
    It isn't a good enough analogy. A better analogy would be the ability to be immunised against a car accident ever happening in your community while still being able to drive your car as per normal.

    Is it not gross irresponsibility not to accept this immunisation, to be a person able to kill yourself and others for, almost literally, no reason?

    I agree it is irresponsible to not be immunized. However, I think being FORCED to be immunized is completely and utterly wrong.

    CasedOut on
    452773-1.png
  • Options
    RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    No security without freedom. Its a fundamental philosophical difference that I do not believe will ever be resolved after debating with many many people. Sadly it will lead to wars, because hey you are telling me what I have to do. From your perspective you are right, and from my perspective you are dead wrong. Why can't people just live and let live? Is it that hard? Apparently it is.

    I think the part that you are missing is the fact that there are several medical conditions that prevent people from getting vaccinations. They're protected from diseases because enough other people get the vaccine that the disease can't spread around.

    In short, getting the vaccine protects you and others who are not fortunate enough to be able to take the vaccine. Does this not fit your definition of "live and let live"? Why do you believe you should have a fundamental right to endanger the safety of your child and others?

    RandomEngy on
    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    So can driving a car.
    Which is why we have driver licenses. Minimization of danger through taking away freedom.


    You guys keep mentiong things I am against. I am against drivers licenses. If I own a car I should be allowed to drive it regardless of what the government tells me. That said I am all for safe driving.

    I don't even what is this?

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I just don't want to do be coerced to help my fellow man. I want to do it of my own accord.
    You fellow man don't give a shit. Neither do other members of a hunter-gatherer group. Violation of the rules will have you punished.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    IsidoreIsidore Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Isidore wrote: »
    It isn't a good enough analogy. A better analogy would be the ability to be immunised against a car accident ever happening in your community while still being able to drive your car as per normal.

    Is it not gross irresponsibility not to accept this immunisation, to be a person able to kill yourself and others for, almost literally, no reason?

    I agree it is irresponsible to not be immunized. However, I think being FORCED to be immunized is completely and utterly wrong.

    And have yet to set out an argument as to why.

    The freedom to become a sociopath at will is not one I respect.

    Isidore on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Not being vaccinated puts everybody in danger for no reason. This is unacceptable in any culture.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    Z0reZ0re Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut why do you believe in ownership if you are against coercion? Why can't I just take your stuff?

    Z0re on
  • Options
    EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Isidore wrote: »
    It isn't a good enough analogy. A better analogy would be the ability to be immunised against a car accident ever happening in your community while still being able to drive your car as per normal.

    Is it not gross irresponsibility not to accept this immunisation, to be a person able to kill yourself and others for, almost literally, no reason?

    I agree it is irresponsible to not be immunized. However, I think being FORCED to be immunized is completely and utterly wrong.

    Welcome to real life. How would you run a functional society without the ability to force people to pay taxes? How would you deal with crime without being able to compel criminals because 'omg freedom' ?

    Ego on
    Erik
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Isidore wrote: »
    It isn't a good enough analogy. A better analogy would be the ability to be immunised against a car accident ever happening in your community while still being able to drive your car as per normal.

    Is it not gross irresponsibility not to accept this immunisation, to be a person able to kill yourself and others for, almost literally, no reason?

    I agree it is irresponsible to not be immunized. However, I think being FORCED to be immunized is completely and utterly wrong.

    Welcome to real life. How would you run a functional society without the ability to force people to pay taxes?

    Or a functional hunter-gatherer group without the ability to prevent the village idiot from constantly making unsafe fires or causing stampedes.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    CasedOutCasedOut Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    No security without freedom. Its a fundamental philosophical difference that I do not believe will ever be resolved after debating with many many people. Sadly it will lead to wars, because hey you are telling me what I have to do. From your perspective you are right, and from my perspective you are dead wrong. Why can't people just live and let live? Is it that hard? Apparently it is.

    I think the part that you are missing is the fact that there are several medical conditions that prevent people from getting vaccinations. They're protected from diseases because enough other people get the vaccine that the disease can't spread around.

    In short, getting the vaccine protects you and others who are not fortunate enough to be able to take the vaccine. Does this not fit your definition of "live and let live"? Why do you believe you should have a fundamental right to endanger the safety of your child and others?

    You are stretching the bounds of responsibility here. You are basically saying if I have the power to save a human life, I absolutely should be forced to use that power. Right now, I have enough money in my bank account to feed dozens of children who are starving throughout the world. However, I do not act on this, by my inaction you are saying I am responsible for the deaths of these children. By my inaction of not getting a vaccine according to you, I am responsible for the spread of deadly diseases.

    Do you see what I am trying to say here? I am not doing a great job admittedly trying to get to my point. Its like saying god is responsible for all suffering in the world because he has the power to stop it in essence. Despite how much using that power would affect his own life. I have the power to feed starving children, but then I would be unable to buy lots of video games. Am I responsible for the deaths of those children?

    CasedOut on
    452773-1.png
  • Options
    CasedOutCasedOut Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Z0re wrote: »
    CasedOut why do you believe in ownership if you are against coercion? Why can't I just take your stuff?

    I fail to see the connection? Could you please elaborate?

    CasedOut on
    452773-1.png
  • Options
    Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    So can driving a car.
    Which is why we have driver licenses. Minimization of danger through taking away freedom.


    You guys keep mentiong things I am against. I am against drivers licenses. If I own a car I should be allowed to drive it regardless of what the government tells me. That said I am all for safe driving.

    Wait, what?

    No, seriously, hold on.

    I have no experience whatsoever driving a car. But you'd be perfectly okay with me going out and buying one and driving on the same roads as you if the laws allowed it? This wouldn't bother you?

    Raiden333 on
    There was a steam sig here. It's gone now.
  • Options
    DuffelDuffel jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    People seem to have taken some of the things I've said to strange and ridiculous extremes. I don't know how on earth you go from "end of life in modern civilization is still pretty terrible" to "we should never try to assist people who are hungry or needy".

    Duffel on
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    No security without freedom. Its a fundamental philosophical difference that I do not believe will ever be resolved after debating with many many people. Sadly it will lead to wars, because hey you are telling me what I have to do. From your perspective you are right, and from my perspective you are dead wrong. Why can't people just live and let live? Is it that hard? Apparently it is.

    I think the part that you are missing is the fact that there are several medical conditions that prevent people from getting vaccinations. They're protected from diseases because enough other people get the vaccine that the disease can't spread around.

    In short, getting the vaccine protects you and others who are not fortunate enough to be able to take the vaccine. Does this not fit your definition of "live and let live"? Why do you believe you should have a fundamental right to endanger the safety of your child and others?

    You are stretching the bounds of responsibility here. You are basically saying if I have the power to save a human life, I absolutely should be forced to use that power. Right now, I have enough money in my bank account to feed dozens of children who are starving throughout the world. However, I do not act on this, by my inaction you are saying I am responsible for the deaths of these children. By my inaction of not getting a vaccine according to you, I am responsible for the spread of deadly diseases.

    Do you see what I am trying to say here? I am not doing a great job admittedly trying to get to my point. Its like saying god is responsible for all suffering in the world because he has the power to stop it in essence. Despite how much using that power would affect his own life. I have the power to feed starving children, but then I would be unable to buy lots of video games. Am I responsible for the deaths of those children?

    What? No. We're saying you need to get immunizations so that you don't spread polio, we're saying you need to have a driver's license so that we can be at least somewhat sure you won't kill some kid crossing the road.

    Making you feed the poor has fuck-all nothing to do with it.

    This is like Libertarian++

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Z0re wrote: »
    CasedOut why do you believe in ownership if you are against coercion? Why can't I just take your stuff?

    I fail to see the connection? Could you please elaborate?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

    Because the logical conclusion of your argument is that, despite something being good for all (vaccinations) and it's lack of participation posing a real threat, people should not be forced to participate because forcing means no freedom.

    So, while not having your shit stolen is nice for the good of all, people should not be forced to participate in this 'no stealing' business, because that restricts freedom.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • Options
    CasedOutCasedOut Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    No security without freedom. Its a fundamental philosophical difference that I do not believe will ever be resolved after debating with many many people. Sadly it will lead to wars, because hey you are telling me what I have to do. From your perspective you are right, and from my perspective you are dead wrong. Why can't people just live and let live? Is it that hard? Apparently it is.

    I think the part that you are missing is the fact that there are several medical conditions that prevent people from getting vaccinations. They're protected from diseases because enough other people get the vaccine that the disease can't spread around.

    In short, getting the vaccine protects you and others who are not fortunate enough to be able to take the vaccine. Does this not fit your definition of "live and let live"? Why do you believe you should have a fundamental right to endanger the safety of your child and others?

    You are stretching the bounds of responsibility here. You are basically saying if I have the power to save a human life, I absolutely should be forced to use that power. Right now, I have enough money in my bank account to feed dozens of children who are starving throughout the world. However, I do not act on this, by my inaction you are saying I am responsible for the deaths of these children. By my inaction of not getting a vaccine according to you, I am responsible for the spread of deadly diseases.

    Do you see what I am trying to say here? I am not doing a great job admittedly trying to get to my point. Its like saying god is responsible for all suffering in the world because he has the power to stop it in essence. Despite how much using that power would affect his own life. I have the power to feed starving children, but then I would be unable to buy lots of video games. Am I responsible for the deaths of those children?

    What? No. We're saying you need to get immunizations so that you don't spread polio, we're saying you need to have a driver's license so that we can be at least somewhat sure you won't kill some kid crossing the road.

    Making you feed the poor has fuck-all nothing to do with it.

    You are forcing me to take an action to save lives in either scenario. What is the difference?

    CasedOut on
    452773-1.png
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    No security without freedom. Its a fundamental philosophical difference that I do not believe will ever be resolved after debating with many many people. Sadly it will lead to wars, because hey you are telling me what I have to do. From your perspective you are right, and from my perspective you are dead wrong. Why can't people just live and let live? Is it that hard? Apparently it is.

    I think the part that you are missing is the fact that there are several medical conditions that prevent people from getting vaccinations. They're protected from diseases because enough other people get the vaccine that the disease can't spread around.

    In short, getting the vaccine protects you and others who are not fortunate enough to be able to take the vaccine. Does this not fit your definition of "live and let live"? Why do you believe you should have a fundamental right to endanger the safety of your child and others?

    You are stretching the bounds of responsibility here. You are basically saying if I have the power to save a human life, I absolutely should be forced to use that power. Right now, I have enough money in my bank account to feed dozens of children who are starving throughout the world. However, I do not act on this, by my inaction you are saying I am responsible for the deaths of these children. By my inaction of not getting a vaccine according to you, I am responsible for the spread of deadly diseases.

    Do you see what I am trying to say here? I am not doing a great job admittedly trying to get to my point. Its like saying god is responsible for all suffering in the world because he has the power to stop it in essence. Despite how much using that power would affect his own life. I have the power to feed starving children, but then I would be unable to buy lots of video games. Am I responsible for the deaths of those children?

    What? No. We're saying you need to get immunizations so that you don't spread polio, we're saying you need to have a driver's license so that we can be at least somewhat sure you won't kill some kid crossing the road.

    Making you feed the poor has fuck-all nothing to do with it.

    You are forcing me to take an action to save lives in either scenario. What is the difference?
    Reasonable expectations. Its not an undue strain to make you get a vaccination.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    You are forcing me to take an action to save lives in either scenario. What is the difference?

    Honestly the only difference is that your government, and the vast focus of all government right now, is based on taking responsibility for those within it's borders (like styro just said, reasonable expectations.) If there's ever a one-world government, guess what: people are going to make you spend money to feed starving people (because at that point it would be a reasonable expectation.)

    The same way the government currently takes money from you to feed starving people within it's own borders.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    So can driving a car.
    Which is why we have driver licenses. Minimization of danger through taking away freedom.


    You guys keep mentiong things I am against. I am against drivers licenses. If I own a car I should be allowed to drive it regardless of what the government tells me. That said I am all for safe driving.

    Wait, what?

    No, seriously, hold on.

    I have no experience whatsoever driving a car. But you'd be perfectly okay with me going out and buying one and driving on the same roads as you if the laws allowed it? This wouldn't bother you?

    I'm going to go to his house and light a fire across the street. I shouldn't be forced not to be a reckless moron!

    Couscous on
  • Options
    CasedOutCasedOut Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Z0re wrote: »
    CasedOut why do you believe in ownership if you are against coercion? Why can't I just take your stuff?

    I fail to see the connection? Could you please elaborate?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

    Because the logical conclusion of your argument is that, despite something being good for all (vaccinations) and it's lack of participation posing a real threat, people should not be forced to participate because forcing means no freedom.

    So, while not having your shit stolen is nice for the good of all, people should not be forced to participate in this 'no stealing' business, because that restricts freedom.

    I am fine with forced inaction in some situations such as not stealing/killing etc. That is different than being forced to do something. Is that distinction not clear?

    CasedOut on
    452773-1.png
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    You are stretching the bounds of responsibility here. You are basically saying if I have the power to save a human life, I absolutely should be forced to use that power. Right now, I have enough money in my bank account to feed dozens of children who are starving throughout the world. However, I do not act on this, by my inaction you are saying I am responsible for the deaths of these children. By my inaction of not getting a vaccine according to you, I am responsible for the spread of deadly diseases.

    Do you see what I am trying to say here? I am not doing a great job admittedly trying to get to my point. Its like saying god is responsible for all suffering in the world because he has the power to stop it in essence. Despite how much using that power would affect his own life. I have the power to feed starving children, but then I would be unable to buy lots of video games. Am I responsible for the deaths of those children?
    We already make you feed the poor.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program

    Couscous on
  • Options
    Z0reZ0re Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Z0re wrote: »
    CasedOut why do you believe in ownership if you are against coercion? Why can't I just take your stuff?

    I fail to see the connection? Could you please elaborate?

    I want to know your reasoning why my stealing your stuff is bad. When I have the framework you operate under I can logically show you how getting vaccinated is not exactly different.

    Z0re on
  • Options
    CasedOutCasedOut Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    No security without freedom. Its a fundamental philosophical difference that I do not believe will ever be resolved after debating with many many people. Sadly it will lead to wars, because hey you are telling me what I have to do. From your perspective you are right, and from my perspective you are dead wrong. Why can't people just live and let live? Is it that hard? Apparently it is.

    I think the part that you are missing is the fact that there are several medical conditions that prevent people from getting vaccinations. They're protected from diseases because enough other people get the vaccine that the disease can't spread around.

    In short, getting the vaccine protects you and others who are not fortunate enough to be able to take the vaccine. Does this not fit your definition of "live and let live"? Why do you believe you should have a fundamental right to endanger the safety of your child and others?

    You are stretching the bounds of responsibility here. You are basically saying if I have the power to save a human life, I absolutely should be forced to use that power. Right now, I have enough money in my bank account to feed dozens of children who are starving throughout the world. However, I do not act on this, by my inaction you are saying I am responsible for the deaths of these children. By my inaction of not getting a vaccine according to you, I am responsible for the spread of deadly diseases.

    Do you see what I am trying to say here? I am not doing a great job admittedly trying to get to my point. Its like saying god is responsible for all suffering in the world because he has the power to stop it in essence. Despite how much using that power would affect his own life. I have the power to feed starving children, but then I would be unable to buy lots of video games. Am I responsible for the deaths of those children?

    What? No. We're saying you need to get immunizations so that you don't spread polio, we're saying you need to have a driver's license so that we can be at least somewhat sure you won't kill some kid crossing the road.

    Making you feed the poor has fuck-all nothing to do with it.

    You are forcing me to take an action to save lives in either scenario. What is the difference?
    Reasonable expectations. Its not an undue strain to make you get a vaccination.

    This is where your argument breaks down, because what is "reasonable" to one person might not be "reasonable" to another person.

    CasedOut on
    452773-1.png
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    This is where your argument breaks down, because what is "reasonable" to one person might not be "reasonable" to another person.
    Society decides. It has always decided since the first hunter-gather group formed.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Z0re wrote: »
    CasedOut why do you believe in ownership if you are against coercion? Why can't I just take your stuff?

    I fail to see the connection? Could you please elaborate?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

    Because the logical conclusion of your argument is that, despite something being good for all (vaccinations) and it's lack of participation posing a real threat, people should not be forced to participate because forcing means no freedom.

    So, while not having your shit stolen is nice for the good of all, people should not be forced to participate in this 'no stealing' business, because that restricts freedom.

    I am fine with forced inaction in some situations such as not stealing/killing etc. That is different than being forced to do something. Is that distinction not clear?

    Nope. Not unless you can point out reasonably why it would be so. Particularly when you already said you're not okay with forced inaction for driving cars unlicensed. So let's just keep the goal-posts where you set them.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • Options
    CasedOutCasedOut Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Z0re wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Z0re wrote: »
    CasedOut why do you believe in ownership if you are against coercion? Why can't I just take your stuff?

    I fail to see the connection? Could you please elaborate?

    I want to know your reasoning why my stealing your stuff is bad. When I have the framework you operate under I can logically show you how getting vaccinated is not exactly different.

    Okay, if you steal my stuff you are directly taking action against me.

    If I choose not to get vaccinated, that is an inaction that is not directly affecting you.

    CasedOut on
    452773-1.png
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    No security without freedom. Its a fundamental philosophical difference that I do not believe will ever be resolved after debating with many many people. Sadly it will lead to wars, because hey you are telling me what I have to do. From your perspective you are right, and from my perspective you are dead wrong. Why can't people just live and let live? Is it that hard? Apparently it is.

    I think the part that you are missing is the fact that there are several medical conditions that prevent people from getting vaccinations. They're protected from diseases because enough other people get the vaccine that the disease can't spread around.

    In short, getting the vaccine protects you and others who are not fortunate enough to be able to take the vaccine. Does this not fit your definition of "live and let live"? Why do you believe you should have a fundamental right to endanger the safety of your child and others?

    You are stretching the bounds of responsibility here. You are basically saying if I have the power to save a human life, I absolutely should be forced to use that power. Right now, I have enough money in my bank account to feed dozens of children who are starving throughout the world. However, I do not act on this, by my inaction you are saying I am responsible for the deaths of these children. By my inaction of not getting a vaccine according to you, I am responsible for the spread of deadly diseases.

    Do you see what I am trying to say here? I am not doing a great job admittedly trying to get to my point. Its like saying god is responsible for all suffering in the world because he has the power to stop it in essence. Despite how much using that power would affect his own life. I have the power to feed starving children, but then I would be unable to buy lots of video games. Am I responsible for the deaths of those children?

    What? No. We're saying you need to get immunizations so that you don't spread polio, we're saying you need to have a driver's license so that we can be at least somewhat sure you won't kill some kid crossing the road.

    Making you feed the poor has fuck-all nothing to do with it.

    You are forcing me to take an action to save lives in either scenario. What is the difference?
    Reasonable expectations. Its not an undue strain to make you get a vaccination.

    This is where your argument breaks down, because what is "reasonable" to one person might not be "reasonable" to another person.

    Yup, luckily society manage to go on anyway. And as has been pointed out you are already forcibly feeding the poor.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    No security without freedom. Its a fundamental philosophical difference that I do not believe will ever be resolved after debating with many many people. Sadly it will lead to wars, because hey you are telling me what I have to do. From your perspective you are right, and from my perspective you are dead wrong. Why can't people just live and let live? Is it that hard? Apparently it is.

    Because it isn't live and let live. You're living and insisting deadly viruses be able to develop, mutate, and evolve in to deadlier forms inside your body that could kill vaccinated people. That is a legitimate downside to not being vaccinated.

    What is so important about not being vaccinated that you think more people should die?

    Dude, I am vaccinated. I would gladly be vaccinated to help the world out, its the smart thing to do. I will gladly help my fellow man. I just don't want to do be coerced to help my fellow man. I want to do it of my own accord.

    You're not being coerced in to helping them. You're being coerced in to not killing them with whatever horrible virus your body can mutate.

    Also, the car analogy doesn't work. Cars provide a multitude of benefits to society. Furthermore risk is minimized with them. Not being vaccinated provides zero benefits and there's no way to minimize risk without cutting that person off from society.

    Quid on
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Z0re wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Z0re wrote: »
    CasedOut why do you believe in ownership if you are against coercion? Why can't I just take your stuff?

    I fail to see the connection? Could you please elaborate?

    I want to know your reasoning why my stealing your stuff is bad. When I have the framework you operate under I can logically show you how getting vaccinated is not exactly different.

    Okay, if you steal my stuff you are directly taking action against me.

    If I choose not to get vaccinated, that is an inaction that is not directly affecting you.

    How the fuck is you getting polio and spreading it not directly affecting me, or anyone else?

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
This discussion has been closed.