I somewhat agree. But how do you make laws for forcing people to get vaccines, yet let them choose to have abortions, or refuse medical care, or eat garbage food, drink alcohol etc, for example?
Like, how would you define that on a societal level, and also have exceptions for situations the law doesnt account for?
These things dont exactly equate, but I can see why being forced by the government to get a vaccines irks some people. I think it all stems from them thinking that vaccines harm you, or cause autism or whatever. That and that we haven’t had a truly deadly pandemic or disease going around in living memory (thanks again to science and our predecessors getting vaccinated) that would cause people to prefer the vaccine over say polio. People are losing fath in institutions and we are not educating our children with critical thinking enough.
I bet the believe in magical sky men that can bring back ppl from the dead too. When you take that stance you’re kinda not a critical thinker. I prefer to learn from ppl that know a lot.
The only one in there you listed that doesn’t affect only the person making the decision is vaccines.
The classic quote is something like “Your freedom to swing your fist ends at someone’s face.”
Its not as absolute as it sounds. While vaccines do have externalities (eg: protection of others via herd immunity), so do the others I mentioned:
Refusing medical care can increase long-term public healthcare costs, especially in countries with socialized medicine, luke Canada
Eating garbage food or drinking excessively leads to chronic disease burdens (obesity, diabetes, liver disease), again impacting public systems and reducing workforce productivity. You could argue that this is mitigate through alcohol tax.
Abortion is more complicated, but opponents would argue there’s another life at stake, so from their moral framework, it’s not purely personal either.
The “freedom ends at someone else’s face” is useful but oversimplified. The real challenge is defining when individual choices cross the line into collective consequences, and which ones merit state intervention. Vaccines are one of the clearest examples, yes, but they’re not the only ones with spillover effects.
So my point is how do you define that line, legally? I think it needs to remain pragmatic. Societies change faster than laws do.
The other comments put it well in saying that vaccines affect other people. Though, oddly enough, we do need better laws regarding what food can be sold as far as that one goes because companies making sugar-filled, addictive food very much on purpose is an action they take for personal gain that relies on hurting others.
For sure people are losing faith in institutions, and that is largely because of the critical thinking issues you mentioned and also the fact that we can’t help ourselves but elect at least a few untrustworthy people into office. The people who attended the convoy were largely Conservative voters and if they have a problem with the government they’re only going to make it that much worse by putting the scummiest people you know into positions of power.
These also aren’t really problems if you think about them or look to places that have already worked them out.
I agree. I’m from Australia, and vaccinations are mandatory and required, like you will be ordered by a court, and have your children removed if they are not vaccinated type of thing. I agree with this law.
I think people downvoting here are not understanding what I’m saying, or I didn’t explain it well enough. I’m not saying anti vaxxers are right. I am saying they have some merit with their arguments, but ultimately they only think these ideas due to lack of education and critical thinking.
Because you are saying, with near equal weight, both that mandatory vaccines are important and also body autonomy to do whatever(including vaccines). It has the same energy as “no offense but [offensive thing]” in that it sounds like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth and we need to be extra sure you’re not just trying to cover your ass while spouting a bad opinion.
Every comment you make is one that is essentially in a vaccuum. I don’t know you, I don’t know your history, I just see a very weirdly placed comment saying that you agree in mandatory vaccination but also the convoy people have a point in a way that goes completely opposite to this first thing you believe. You’re also saying that the good point they have was only reached because they’re not smart, which is a weird thing to say. And Canada’s vaccination laws are way less intense than the ones you’re talking about, too, which just adds to the confusion.
I’m glad you believe that we need to do things to take care of one another in dangerous times but after that I really have no clue what you’re on about, to be honest.
I agree that vaccines should be mandatory. I’m fully vaxxed on basically everything and even my dog gets their vaccinations. I trust in science and data.
That said, forcing people to do something they don’t want to do is not good for social cohesion. A better way is meeting them where they are and educating them. This is not happening and instead we are belittling them, ostracizing them etc. This is why they are protesting, pushing back and being a problem, because they feel attacked.
It doesn’t matter who is right because both think they are right.
Their arguments do have some merit, ie the government can’t just decide for you to under go a procedure. We shouldn’t just trust governments or scientists blindly or “it’s for the greater good”, that is basically the same as religion. They should instead be educated on why they can at least trust scientists and why scientists come to the conclusions they do, even if they aren’t biologists themselves. And why the government makes the decisions it does. Like sure, YOU probably won’t get sick, but when you’re dealing with millions and millions of people, a single sub percentage point can make the difference between everyone getting through it, or the health system buckling under pressure and failing, letting hundreds of thousands die.
They dont think like that. They’ve never been taught to, and that’s a failing of the education system.
Sure you will always have dissenters, but the point is to minimize them so they don’t affect the outcome much by refusing treatment.
Ok, for the sake of not having this conversation spiral out of control, I’m going to throw out your use of the word mandatory. You can’t say that you believe vaccines should be mandatory and also that you support the idea that people should be able to decide for themselves, no matter how much you would hope that education would lead to mass vaccination and generally doing the right thing.
“Mandatory” specifcally means that whether or not you want it, you have to get it. There is no choice in anything “mandatory” and if there is then it is definitionally not mandatory. I understand your point, and I don’t even fully disagree as I would also love to live in a world where people actually do the right thing without being forced to.
I think they were protesting that it was mandatory, when it shouldn’t of had to of been mandatory in the first place, if I understand you? If so then yeah.
I think you brought up valid points and people are kind of over reacting. I agree education is the problem but what you said also got me to see the “not vaccinating myself is causing harm to others” viewpoint. Some here are being rude instead of engaging in better conversation. Your comment got me to think and read others.
Some here are being rude instead of engaging in better conversation.
People are tired. People still hold the feelings of frustration over the needless deaths, life-altering conditions and overworked medical staff who quit over the workload and aggressive and violent patients – all of it needless, all of it prolonged needlessly by the ignorant people whose personal importance overshadowed their community obligations and risked the 1:1000000 with actual issues and others who needed to rely on ‘herd’ immunity.
You know this. You saw this. You MUST understand this. Some of us lost friends and family, and in the last months of it we knew those lost would have been safe if the ignorant gits actually took their medicine. We hear the logic of the anti-vaxxer, we hear how it sounds like a drunk driver saying “but I need to drive home”, and we see anti-vaxxers who avoided the single most tested set of vaccines as the same as those negligent, homicidal drunks.
We’re not rude intentionally. We’re frustrated and tired at explaining something as simple as “trees are wood” to people retorting with “needles are scary so let the others die”. We’re annoyed we had to say it twice, let alone all the hundred of times after. And now someone says “but I’m important and I know more than doctors” and we aren’t at our best in that moment.
But how is “I see the point of anti-vax narcissists” not just trolling by now?
People aren’t forced to get vaccines. They are forced to live with the consequences of whatever they decide. If it is in the interest of public health that people who are not vaccinated stay away from public places or immune compromised places like hospitals, then people who make the choice not to get vaccinated, make themselves unable to participate. No one gets held down and forced to be vaccinated however they may lose some privileges (temporarily) that go with being vaccinated. Once the pandemic was under control and people weren’t dying in large numbers every day, those limitations went away.
I somewhat agree. But how do you make laws for forcing people to get vaccines, yet let them choose to have abortions, or refuse medical care, or eat garbage food, drink alcohol etc, for example?
Like, how would you define that on a societal level, and also have exceptions for situations the law doesnt account for?
These things dont exactly equate, but I can see why being forced by the government to get a vaccines irks some people. I think it all stems from them thinking that vaccines harm you, or cause autism or whatever. That and that we haven’t had a truly deadly pandemic or disease going around in living memory (thanks again to science and our predecessors getting vaccinated) that would cause people to prefer the vaccine over say polio. People are losing fath in institutions and we are not educating our children with critical thinking enough.
someone’s abort doesn’t kill a strangers kids or grand parents. Come on use your brain or stop being disingenuous.
I agree with you, but that is not THEIR perspective. Many of them believe abortion IS murder.
I bet the believe in magical sky men that can bring back ppl from the dead too. When you take that stance you’re kinda not a critical thinker. I prefer to learn from ppl that know a lot.
The only one in there you listed that doesn’t affect only the person making the decision is vaccines. The classic quote is something like “Your freedom to swing your fist ends at someone’s face.”
Its not as absolute as it sounds. While vaccines do have externalities (eg: protection of others via herd immunity), so do the others I mentioned:
Refusing medical care can increase long-term public healthcare costs, especially in countries with socialized medicine, luke Canada
Eating garbage food or drinking excessively leads to chronic disease burdens (obesity, diabetes, liver disease), again impacting public systems and reducing workforce productivity. You could argue that this is mitigate through alcohol tax.
Abortion is more complicated, but opponents would argue there’s another life at stake, so from their moral framework, it’s not purely personal either.
The “freedom ends at someone else’s face” is useful but oversimplified. The real challenge is defining when individual choices cross the line into collective consequences, and which ones merit state intervention. Vaccines are one of the clearest examples, yes, but they’re not the only ones with spillover effects.
So my point is how do you define that line, legally? I think it needs to remain pragmatic. Societies change faster than laws do.
This is another issue I’m surprised we’re still even debating.
You’re stretching so much.
You know what else cost a lot to society? Old people. So let’s kill them all right?
There’s a difference between “this is expensive” and “this will actively kill people”.
We’ve banned smoking indoors because it affects other people, and, for a time, we banned unvaccinated people indoors for the same reason.
The line is super clear: will this directly affect others.
The other comments put it well in saying that vaccines affect other people. Though, oddly enough, we do need better laws regarding what food can be sold as far as that one goes because companies making sugar-filled, addictive food very much on purpose is an action they take for personal gain that relies on hurting others.
For sure people are losing faith in institutions, and that is largely because of the critical thinking issues you mentioned and also the fact that we can’t help ourselves but elect at least a few untrustworthy people into office. The people who attended the convoy were largely Conservative voters and if they have a problem with the government they’re only going to make it that much worse by putting the scummiest people you know into positions of power.
These also aren’t really problems if you think about them or look to places that have already worked them out.
I agree. I’m from Australia, and vaccinations are mandatory and required, like you will be ordered by a court, and have your children removed if they are not vaccinated type of thing. I agree with this law.
I think people downvoting here are not understanding what I’m saying, or I didn’t explain it well enough. I’m not saying anti vaxxers are right. I am saying they have some merit with their arguments, but ultimately they only think these ideas due to lack of education and critical thinking.
Because you are saying, with near equal weight, both that mandatory vaccines are important and also body autonomy to do whatever(including vaccines). It has the same energy as “no offense but [offensive thing]” in that it sounds like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth and we need to be extra sure you’re not just trying to cover your ass while spouting a bad opinion.
Every comment you make is one that is essentially in a vaccuum. I don’t know you, I don’t know your history, I just see a very weirdly placed comment saying that you agree in mandatory vaccination but also the convoy people have a point in a way that goes completely opposite to this first thing you believe. You’re also saying that the good point they have was only reached because they’re not smart, which is a weird thing to say. And Canada’s vaccination laws are way less intense than the ones you’re talking about, too, which just adds to the confusion.
I’m glad you believe that we need to do things to take care of one another in dangerous times but after that I really have no clue what you’re on about, to be honest.
My explanation is:
I agree that vaccines should be mandatory. I’m fully vaxxed on basically everything and even my dog gets their vaccinations. I trust in science and data.
That said, forcing people to do something they don’t want to do is not good for social cohesion. A better way is meeting them where they are and educating them. This is not happening and instead we are belittling them, ostracizing them etc. This is why they are protesting, pushing back and being a problem, because they feel attacked.
It doesn’t matter who is right because both think they are right.
Their arguments do have some merit, ie the government can’t just decide for you to under go a procedure. We shouldn’t just trust governments or scientists blindly or “it’s for the greater good”, that is basically the same as religion. They should instead be educated on why they can at least trust scientists and why scientists come to the conclusions they do, even if they aren’t biologists themselves. And why the government makes the decisions it does. Like sure, YOU probably won’t get sick, but when you’re dealing with millions and millions of people, a single sub percentage point can make the difference between everyone getting through it, or the health system buckling under pressure and failing, letting hundreds of thousands die.
They dont think like that. They’ve never been taught to, and that’s a failing of the education system.
Sure you will always have dissenters, but the point is to minimize them so they don’t affect the outcome much by refusing treatment.
I hope that makes sense.
Ok, for the sake of not having this conversation spiral out of control, I’m going to throw out your use of the word mandatory. You can’t say that you believe vaccines should be mandatory and also that you support the idea that people should be able to decide for themselves, no matter how much you would hope that education would lead to mass vaccination and generally doing the right thing.
“Mandatory” specifcally means that whether or not you want it, you have to get it. There is no choice in anything “mandatory” and if there is then it is definitionally not mandatory. I understand your point, and I don’t even fully disagree as I would also love to live in a world where people actually do the right thing without being forced to.
I think they were protesting that it was mandatory, when it shouldn’t of had to of been mandatory in the first place, if I understand you? If so then yeah.
I think you brought up valid points and people are kind of over reacting. I agree education is the problem but what you said also got me to see the “not vaccinating myself is causing harm to others” viewpoint. Some here are being rude instead of engaging in better conversation. Your comment got me to think and read others.
People are tired. People still hold the feelings of frustration over the needless deaths, life-altering conditions and overworked medical staff who quit over the workload and aggressive and violent patients – all of it needless, all of it prolonged needlessly by the ignorant people whose personal importance overshadowed their community obligations and risked the 1:1000000 with actual issues and others who needed to rely on ‘herd’ immunity.
You know this. You saw this. You MUST understand this. Some of us lost friends and family, and in the last months of it we knew those lost would have been safe if the ignorant gits actually took their medicine. We hear the logic of the anti-vaxxer, we hear how it sounds like a drunk driver saying “but I need to drive home”, and we see anti-vaxxers who avoided the single most tested set of vaccines as the same as those negligent, homicidal drunks.
We’re not rude intentionally. We’re frustrated and tired at explaining something as simple as “trees are wood” to people retorting with “needles are scary so let the others die”. We’re annoyed we had to say it twice, let alone all the hundred of times after. And now someone says “but I’m important and I know more than doctors” and we aren’t at our best in that moment.
But how is “I see the point of anti-vax narcissists” not just trolling by now?
People aren’t forced to get vaccines. They are forced to live with the consequences of whatever they decide. If it is in the interest of public health that people who are not vaccinated stay away from public places or immune compromised places like hospitals, then people who make the choice not to get vaccinated, make themselves unable to participate. No one gets held down and forced to be vaccinated however they may lose some privileges (temporarily) that go with being vaccinated. Once the pandemic was under control and people weren’t dying in large numbers every day, those limitations went away.
You’re preaching to the quirky here. I’m just saying it’s not so black and white, and that what we’re seeing is the symptom of a larger issue.
Edit: lmao quirky. I’m gonna leave that autocorrect in cause it’s hilarious.
I get you are trying to open a philosophical debate, people are seeing it as strictly antivax, probably the wrong forum to discuss philosophy