Not quite. If you strap your kid with a ticking bomb and I’m wearing a BDU suit- I’m not scared of your kid. I know the suit works (to a point..) because science and experience show it does. I’m worried because not only did you strap your kid with a fucking bomb, but you brought them into a closed space with kids too young to be able to wear a BDU suit, and people who’s suits have been damaged or aged and likely won’t protect them the way my suit will. I’m worried because you’re dangerously self centered and ignorant and decided that because everyone else should have protection that it’s safe to walk around with a ticking time bomb without any thought to people who aren’t also protected- and I’m worried for your kid who will be hurt for sure if that bomb goes off.
not to mention that the ticking bomb can often make little versions of itself that get stuck on your suit and come off and get on everyone elses suit without actually going off until one gets stuck on someone whose suit damaged or worn down
Very true. So it’s less like a bomb and more like... a biological weapon. Then I wonder even more.... beyond questions of effectiveness of vaccines and ingredients of vaccines.... why one would think they were any more dangerous than strains of biological organisms so dangerous and contagious that they are literally useful weapons...?
@xandri- thank you. Long but interesting. Nothing new there for me, but still interesting and I think lots of people could pick some things up from it. I understand that people are... people. Not the best at math or logic, prone to bias, and there are valid arguments about some of the potential slippery slopes of vaccination that are good to discuss. But.... The gift of humans is self awareness. Like that video shows us- we can be aware and cognizant of our biases. We can identify them and resist them. We can force ourselves to let go of primitive thinking and primal emotional responses and instead make decisions intelligently. So most anti vaxxers aren’t bad people or inherently “dumb,” but the overwhelming consensus is that they are playing a dangerous game with the lives of others.
not a fan of violence but at this point i think when an antivaxer speaks the only proper response would be a swift slap round their noggin, gentle shushing noise and leaving briskly.
Actually they can. The vents can burn you and the propellant is an eye and skin irritant. The force of the airbag can cause injuries and even break bones. In a major accident any of these are better than the alternative. In many minor accidents where the airbag deploys a person can receive injuries they wouldn’t if they actually had no airbag- especially older air bags. But.... study after study shows that any potential harm of air bags is outweighed by the benefits. They are the “safer bet” over no air bags. It’s ultimately a personal choice if you want to have air bags or not- just as riding a motorcycle carries much higher risk than driving a car with or without air bags. You judge the risks and benefits yourself and make a decision that you can live with. Here’s the BUT:
BUT- vaccination doesn’t just effect your personal safety. It isn’t just you or your child who’s life you are making a decision for. It isn’t just you and those who know you who live with your choice. It’s humanity. It isn’t like driving without an airbag- it’s like placing a 12’ long double ended steel spike at eye level on your hood. If nothing ever goes wrong- everyone is fine. If one thing goes wrong- you’re getting spiked for sure- but so is anyone else you cross up with wether they have air bags or not. So that’s what needs to be clear here. Vaccines aren’t a personal choice that is about you. Vaccines effect the health and safety of everyone around you as well.
another apt comparison is the fact that new types of spikes keep appearing with slight variations over the last and the more people that dont prevent themselves from getting the old version of the spike attached to their car increases the chance that a spike will appear that is different enough from the original that gets past the "spike defenses" of other people
@harperfan7- there is a slippery slope for sure. It’s a dangerous precedent when we establish that a government should be able to mandate we put chemicals into our bodies let alone without question. The phrase “for a greater good” most often precedes something that is at the least morally questionable. History is full of examples like the Tuskegee experiments or the US using vaccination clinics over seas to gather information on people which would make us question the ability to trust absolutely in such things- and we don’t even need to list the reasons not to trust corporations. At some point when we put “society” ahead of individuals we become insects. Existing with single minded purpose for the “greater good” of our hive. We lose morality and beauty and replace it with cold utilitarianism and the value of a life becomes quantifiable instead of immeasurable.
@harperfan7- cont: HOWEVER- we are a society. A collective of individuals. The roads we drive on, cars we use, fuel that powers them, this internet and what you browse it with- these things exist because of and through society. We do not need these things. A person or small group of people can exist as our ancestors- surviving on only what they or their collective efforts can produce. That’s an option. But if one wants access to what society has to offer than one must pay the price for that- and that is some degree of conformity. Society can’t be all about an individual because a society in which each individual is free to their whims no matter how detrimental or destructive to the whole they are would not exist long as it would self destruct. So the cost of being able to enjoy the presence of and communal work of a large group of people is one must take prudent measures to coexist safely and amicably within that group.
If not- one is free to move to the wilderness and live as they please and their strengths allow. And before we get into a discourse about how a true libertarian society doesn’t have to be a savage utopia if people themselves choose to live better- that’s fine and good- but the same is true of anything. If people decide they want to get vaccinated then it isn’t needed to require them to is it? It becomes a circular argument of human nature. If people are good and naturally behave in a way that is conducive to society then we do not need rules to tell them to. If that were the case there also wouldn’t be corruption. If that were the case we wouldn’t have this discussion. So human nature is such that we know where there is a “utopia” some will rebel against it simply to reject conformity or collective thinking. As long as that’s true we need rules- and not being a walking biological weapon is as solid as any for a society to have.
literally where can you move to the wilderness and live off the land? Nowhere. All land is owned, you can't own land unless you can afford property taxes. The government demands your kids get some kind of education, and soon, vaccines. The powers that be have been making strong moves against off-the-grid types to where it's practically impossible now, especially for any sizeable group of people. We do not have those kinds of freedoms.
if you went off into the Yukon up north or the rainforests down south, you could very easily just live off of your own self and do whatever you pleased without interference simply because you'd be so far from everything else that youd likely never see another person again.
@harperfan7- plenty of places around the world. Bethorien gives examples (and unlike the other thread I really mean @bethorien this time lol.) Where I live there are plenty of homeless shanty towns and there’s a couple places in state that have no or effectively no government here. I’m sure all over- they wouldn’t be doing a good job if you’d heard of them no? “But-“ you will say- “that’s still squatting.” Yes. Yes young padawan it is. That’s how the “natural order” works. If there is no civilization- part of why we developed civilization- you are on your own. Territory belongs to the person or group who can hold it, and only for as long as they can. There has never been a point in human history unless we go to creation ethos where someone couldn’t just take what you call yours. Unless someone bigger stopped them. So it’s no different than any two baboons fighting over a tree.
The baboon that is stronger, or the one who had a troop behind it will get the tree if there is a disagreement as to who it belongs to. I never said you wouldn’t have to have the strength to make your own life- that is natural to not living in civilization. I said you can reject civilization and go live as you like- the eternal caveat is that freedom to do what we like isn’t the same as having the the power to make it happen. A cave man is free to eat any animal he sees- if he can catch it. No one will stop him from killing a bison- except maybe the bison. So he wants it, he has the freedom to try for it, if he eats bison or not depends on if he can find a trick or tool or the strength or cunning to kill it.
So- a civilization of the people acts to lend strength. The one look out for the many and the many look out for the one- but you will generally have certain obligations. The least of which is to not erode the society or endanger it from within. If one wants the benefits of society, one must accept the obligations. If one wants the freedom from society, one must have the power to live by natural order. Either strength to take and keep what they want, cunning to sneak it, power or money to secure it- whatever. There are many paths. Most are hard or have risk. That’s... why we have civilization. A person has the option to live within its protection or without- but if they live outside it and the two should cross each other- it’s one against 7billion and you won’t get your way unless you can beat all 7 billion. That’s the savage utopia- the natural law which exists before and after civilization and in all strata of the animal kingdom. It is not born of man or inherent to man. It just is.
since the 90s at least, you can't just live in the yukon
they regularly scan those areas with heat-sensing satellites to make sure people don't do just that
you can live freely in the wilderness in the exact same way that you could before the modern age, as long as you can keep anyone from taking it away from you. If you cant keep the government from taking it from you that is your fault
@harperfan7- Bethorien sums it up well. What do you mean by “free”? If you’re all alone in the whole world- your subject to the rules of nature and physics. You can’t jump up and touch the sun even if you want to. No person is stopping you, you are constrained by reality. Not totally free are you? Your body sends chemicals and signals and the like and compels you to do things. A great question of philosophy that remains not unequivocally resolved is if man is free at all or if we follow a program like little robots. Or what combination is true. But let’s ignore all that and say you are free to do whatever you like. The second another sentient being appears someone loses that.
Let’s say you are Adam or eve and the corresponding Adam or eve comes along. You want to kiss them. They don’t want to kiss you. Well- now either there is something you cannot do and you lose your absolute freedom, or you force yourself on them and they lose their absolute freedom. Either way- someone loses their absolute freedom. The moment you like that bush how it is and they don’t, you want to be alone and they want to follow you- someone loses their absolute freedom. So there is No reasonable scenario on earth where you have absolute freedom.
@harperfan7- tl:dr- what’s different about that? If you want to have a home in the city there is a cost. If you want to have a home in the country there is a cost. If you lived 10,000 years before the first human and wanted to make a home in the wild there is a cost. Money, effort, whatever it is. Money just represents time and work units anyway. They are traded interchangeably as practical. You aren’t safe in your cave from creatures and critter that would make it their own or eat you as a meal. All the way to nature if something besides you lives you must be able to defend yourself and what you have or lose it, the world today isn’t different beyond the methods of defense.
I trying hard but you don’t seem to grasp the root concept so it seemed prudent to explain it. You’re free to tell your boss or teacher or parents to “eat shit.” That’s a right you have by law and by nature. But what happens if you do? They are also free to act aren’t they? You are free to live anywhere you want. That is a natural right you do not need society for. You walk in to the White House and say “I own this land and am not leaving...” You can do that. Someone else thinks they own it though. They are free to act as well no? You are as free as you posses the force to act on your will. The freedom inherent to nature is the freedom of the powerful to do as they wish over the weaker. So you are free to live anywhere you want the same as if there were no property laws. Without society there are no property laws. Without property laws if 2 people say they want the same thing the stronger one- or group- gets it.
hell, i think you might need to have a look at a lot of native tribes. It was only back in wilma mankiller's administration that Bell got running water. At my familie's land in Kenwood we have a water pump and a creek for our water supply and the only thing we get from the outside there is the electric and we barely use that just for electric lights in the single room bathroom (basically an outhouse with running water and a sink and enough room to walk around in.)
we hunt and grow our own food when we can and i know good portions of that area like the back of my hand.
The hick part of my family (mixed bloods rather than full bloods) have a bunch of land over in cookson hills which is exactly the same situation, both of which are native owned lands, we hunted there for part of last year.
they regularly scan those areas with heat-sensing satellites to make sure people don't do just that
we hunt and grow our own food when we can and i know good portions of that area like the back of my hand.
The hick part of my family (mixed bloods rather than full bloods) have a bunch of land over in cookson hills which is exactly the same situation, both of which are native owned lands, we hunted there for part of last year.