@freemo Yeah, that is if you look at the individual perspective. Then you're absolutely right there.

But what if it's a group effort thing? A 'for the greater good' case?

@skells @b6hydra

@trinsec

The greater good would beserved equally well if everyone who wanted to worse hazmat suits actually. If you think about it it still offers 100% protection for everyone in the group, so the "greater good" of vaccination is still served. Plus it has the added benefit of allowing people personal freedom and opt out without disrupting the aforementioned positive effect... Therefore it would be an even greater good because you get personal freedom on top of preventing the virus.

@skells @b6hydra

@freemo Errr....

What? ;)

@skells @b6hydra

@trinsec

Well what is the greater good of vaccination? Remember none of the current vaccines could reach herd immunity even with 100% adoption. Also recall that being vaccinated does not stop you from transmitting it.

People dont die is the only greater good here, people who want to be protected can be by taking the vaccine and then they wont die, thats really the only greater good.

Ergo, by not making vaccines mandatory you can still get all the safety of a vaccine by taking the vaccine, and people not taking the vaccine in no way disrupts the "good" you get out of it, but it adds another level of "good" which is personal freedom. So not requiring vaccines produces a greater good than requiring it.

@skells @b6hydra

@freemo @trinsec @skells @b6hydra i think Pasteur figured they would make it so a person would not have to suffer through illnesses. I don't think they were ever thought to become an at-gunpoint thing.

@icedquinn

At the time I'm sure forced vaccinations would have been unthinkable really considering the sentiments of the period.

@b6hydra @skells @trinsec

@freemo @b6hydra @skells @trinsec forcing medical procedures on people carried the death penalty at one point although they since stopped caring for some reason

@freemo @icedquinn @b6hydra @skells @trinsec Only to those who didn't read a history book and didn't know about the American eugenics program. It really wasn't that long ago.

@DokiDoe

totally different. Most of the things like eugenics or force lobotomies or any of the many forced procedures all centered more around racism or sexism. You wont find many examples of people getting away with that on "respectable" white males.

@icedquinn @b6hydra @skells @trinsec

@freemo @DokiDoe @b6hydra @skells @trinsec medicine has always had autonomy problems. at one point they told people lobotomies were safe and effective and that's why it was OK for other people to have it done to you without consent.

@icedquinn @freemo @b6hydra @skells @trinsec There are so many times the Uberman and eugenics programs have been brought into society. It has been brought in socialism, under the nazis, Marxism in relatively recent times. It has the basis for Biological perfection is embedded in history. He pretends that was just muh racism, and we solved that so it could never happen again. The arrogance of white lab coats to take autonomy from the "unwashed masses" has been repeated numerous times.

@DokiDoe

No, dont put words in my mought.. I was explicitly talking about the USA, and much of what you just said doesnt apply to the USA. What examples we have tended to be very much limited to racism and sexism in the US thankfully.

@icedquinn @b6hydra @skells @trinsec

@freemo @icedquinn @b6hydra @skells @trinsec
>You wont find many examples of people getting away with that on "respectable" white males.
wtf do you imply with this retard?

@DokiDoe

Try reading, I just explained to you what I implied.. I was saying that phrase specifically in reference to the USA

@icedquinn @b6hydra @skells @trinsec

@freemo @icedquinn @b6hydra @skells @trinsec read what I wrote and the reflect. I addressed the point that just becuase we are very against racism now(compared to the past), doesn't mean that those types of programs won't come back. They aren't "totally" different, and it is dumb to think so.

@DokiDoe

You are arguing against a ghost of a thing I never said...

When did i ever claim they wont come back or that they arent an issue?

@icedquinn @b6hydra @skells @trinsec

@freemo @icedquinn @b6hydra @skells @trinsec
in response to me bring up that forced vaccination by the state isn't unthinkable because forced sterilization happened(something that happened up into the 70s).
>You: totally different.

>When did i ever claim they wont come back or that they arent an issue?

I'm telling you it isn't different and is following the same logic. White lab coats taking your autonomy to make informed decisions away and deciding you don't get a choice.

side note: Jacobson v Massachusetts is still president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

@DokiDoe

We can disagree on if its "different" or not, thats fine, and we do... not the same as me telling you that it could never happen however.

@icedquinn @b6hydra @skells @trinsec

@freemo @icedquinn @b6hydra @skells @trinsec At least you understand the disagreement that you initially raised. Enjoy your crt medicine aimed at health equity retard.
https://bostonreview.net/science-nature-race/bram-wispelwey-michelle-morse-antiracist-agenda-medicine

@freemo @icedquinn @b6hydra @skells @trinsec you are a retarded and will be blind sided when it comes again. By the time it comes and you see it, it will be too late.

@freemo Aha, that's a clearer explanation, thanks. In this case I'd be inclined to agree with you by the mere fact that the vaccins don't give full herd immunity. It does help, however, so it should still be highly encouraged. The infection % does get lower and the hospitals do get burdened less. So... in a way... it's not totally unreasonable to somewhat limit 'my body, my choice' there, I think. But as @b6hydra mentioned, having other rules in effect still (distancing, masks) can help with trying to keep said freedom.

@skells @b6hydra

@trinsec

I am all for fairly and honestly encouraging vaccination. Though I do think we need to be patient and not rush vaccines too. I think we skipped some important steps to get it out the door too quickly. But thats not enough of a reason to discourage them either. I just think some degree of caution or delay in this case makes some sense.

That said, I do agree in the case of herd immunity the argument shifts in your favor in terms of having some reason to argue your perspective logically and all. But even if that were the case I would say vaccination should be something you achieve through education, not force.

In fact the more I see it being forced on people in the USA (albeit indirectly for the moment) the more people resist it and the fewer people are willing to get it. So I'm not sure its a good tactic no matter how you dice it.

@b6hydra @skells

@trinsec @freemo @skells @b6hydra You can justify literally any human rights violation as being "for the greater good". The oppressors aren't concerned with whether or not their victims benefit from "the greater good".

@galena I'm always amazed that when the term 'for the greater good' is used, people somehow manage to twist it towards something that might eventually lead to a Godwin.

What if it's not used like 'enforcing' it, but philosophically like I intended?

@freemo @b6hydra @skells

@trinsec @freemo @b6hydra @skells Well yes, the term is literally saying it's okay to do evil if you're capable of justifying it somehow, its entire reason to exist is to justify evil.

@trinsec

to be fair some of the worst evils have been perpetrated in the name of a "greater good"... the name itself implies one must suffer a lesser evil to achieve a greater good. So I think its understandable why the term is always viewed critically, as well it should be.

@galena @b6hydra @skells

@freemo On the other hand, those kind of reactions eliminates any discussion of some sort. I'm not a person in power, so when I say 'for the greater good', maybe it's a nice idea to discuss the why and why not, and not the 'it justifies all bad stuff' conversation killer.

You do make a point, of course. But it sure kills the discussion to just chop it off like that. ;)

@galena @b6hydra @skells

@trinsec

fair

@galena @b6hydra @skells

@trinsec @freemo @b6hydra @skells Perhaps killing the discussion like that is the correct response. Perhaps that shows that the discussion in question had nowhere good to go.

@b6hydra @freemo @trinsec @skells Hey, he's the one who dropped Godwin. I gave my stance on "for the greater good" arguments and then he refused to continue the discussion, rather than attempting to argue that some evil is justified, or that it isn't evil, or even to try arguing with my assertion that any human rights violation could be justified that way by trying to give an example of a human rights violation that it can't justify. There were numerous different ways to counter my claim, and he chose to shut down the discussion instead.

@b6hydra @galena @freemo @trinsec god b6 you're just like hitler

@skells @b6hydra @freemo @trinsec We're all someone's Hitler.

@b6hydra @freemo @trinsec @skells I was probably being overly aggressive, sorry

@b6hydra @freemo @trinsec @skells I don't have a high enough IQ for a reddit account

@trinsec

my issue with "the greater good" are these points:

- "good" is really flexible in it's definition

- we (humanity) tried it often enough. it almost never worked in a way which one would consider moral in retrospective. it's seductive to do things for "the greater good" because it makes one _feel_ good. taking action "for the cause" combined with "no pain no gain". i'd say it's at the time of not going down that well trodden path and thinking of other solutions, especially if it's regarding the bodily integrity of people.

@galena @freemo @b6hydra @skells

@icedquinn
I'm not seeing the relevance of an abortion with a pandemic, sorry.

@b6hydra @skells

@trinsec @b6hydra @skells you're using a politicized phrase taken from abortion and then saying "but in this case it affects other people."

... yeah, and the problem you took the phrase from affects another living person too.

@icedquinn Politicized phrase...? Whut? I think you're going on about something different here and I'm not following along.

@b6hydra @skells

@trinsec @b6hydra @skells where exactly do you think the phrase "my body my choice" comes from?

it does not originate with the no-covid-vax crowd.

its originally a phrase used by pro-abortionists to say it's their body so they get to choose whether to kill the baby.

the phrase was adopted by no-covid-vax folk to highlight the hypocrisy of creating "body autonomy" arguments and then immediately turning around and saying you have none for vaccines.

@icedquinn Ah, you meant it that way. I wasn't associating that phrase with the abortions at all in this case, I see it as a seperate entity. So that's where the confusion comes from.

@b6hydra @skells