@b6hydra my central issue is failure to apply the precautionary principle - quarantines (people coming into the country have to spend 2 weeks or so without contact) have been used for millennia and rare is the case where 2 weeks in a room causes long term health issues.

However, the vaccines are new technology ( I know mRNA have been used before but only on very sick people, never rolled out into the general populace.) I've often brought up the case of Thalidomide in these conversations - the word for word response seems to be "times have moved on from then"

Indeed, our medical tech has become considerably more complicated - our means of communication more manipulable.

That several repurposed drugs have been suppressed is sufficient for me to disregard all health authorities. Lord knows they've fucked up plenty of times in the past.

@skells Well I'm certainly not saying we should throw caution to the wind. Nor do I believe that social, economic, and political conditions have changed so drastically since the 50s that this question is no longer relevant. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."

My point was more that I don't want to take a hard line either way. Rights-based ethical frameworks have a tendency toward being used in such a way. Either you have a right or you don't, no middle. This is useful when we want freedom _from_ something like self incrimination. Less so when we want to promote something, such as public health. I'm way out of scope now haha but I don't think your right to control your body is mutually exclusive with the utilitarian goal of providing for 'the good.'

@b6hydra i see where you're coming from but as someone who hasn't got the vax, and is seeing various forms of arm-twisting becoming the new governmental fashion, it's no longer a theoretical question.

@skells Well my non-theoretical answer is still "no," you shouldn't be forced to get it.

As for government arm-twisting, that's the only tool a nation state has at it's core, and from where all other powers are derived. The monopoly on the use of force is what keeps governments in power, and policing is merely the government's use of that force against it's own citizens.

That sounds really theoretical again but it does have real world implications. Should we allow governments the power to police what we do with our own bodies? No, I think that's a terrible idea.

@b6hydra The responses to my question have all been the same, what bothers me is the varying degrees of writhing it takes to get that hard no.

To be frank, if I'd been asked the same question a year a go I would've been on of the prime writhers.

Life comes at you quick.

@skells That's fair. I did say I was on the no side early on, but my statement was deliberately qualified.

I will also admit I'm someone who likes to ramble and discuss. Even if you had asked a year ago there's no guarantee I wouldn't have delved into ethical and political theory...

@skells
Sorry it took me a minute to complete my thought in the reply and I didn't see your response first.

@skells Usually I'd agree with 'my body, my choice'. But this is a virus which affects other people too... Not sure if that's still 100% a 'my body, my choice' case.

Just something to ponder about philosophically. I know my government is not going to enforce vaccination, but a lot of people in my country are willing to vaccinate so it's thankfully not a terribly huge point of discussion here.

@b6hydra

@trinsec

The thing is, other people can get the virus, wear masks, wear full hazmat suits if they like. So the whole argument of bodily autonomy not being valid goes out the window

@skells @b6hydra

@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

@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.

@galena
Using slippery slope logic and straw men only proves that you can't defend your position, not that the discussion was pointless. It's like saying someone is "like Hitler." You haven't proven anything other than your willingness to rely on the absurd to shut people up and pretend you've won.
@freemo @trinsec @skells

@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.

@galena
I get that. It wasn't my intention to attack you personally but to point out that style of arguing doesn't accomplish anything. Where I disagreed with you is that I don't think killing the discussion in such a way was the correct course, despite the aggravation or back and forth it might have saved.
@freemo @trinsec @skells

@galena @freemo @trinsec @skells
Sorry for going full meta, that's all I meant though. Sorry if it seemed like I was going after you.

@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

@galena
No worries, at least we aren't on twitter or reddit. Our only recourse then would be a fight to the death 🤣
@freemo @trinsec @skells

@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

@freemo @trinsec @skells I disagree. It's not that bodily autonomy goes out the window - it's a question of how much autonomy we should be forced to sacrifice. I am 100% for mask mandates, distancing, and so on, but I am 100% against forced injections.

@trinsec @skells @b6hydra
> my body my choice [..] affects other people to
well i mean. abortion certainly affects the life of the baby being aborted

@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

@icedquinn @skells @trinsec Point of order, the term "pro-abortionist" is a red herring. Do you also call pro-life folks "anti-choice?" I think not.