Increase in vaccine coercion

[Parththakkar12]

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

and it does matter to people, so you're whole naturalistic tirade is a fugazi.

But, 'people' are not all of nature! They are a part of nature, but they're not all of nature. So, in order to align yourself with nature, you would have to look past your biases as a 'human'!

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Parththakkar12 said:

But, 'people' are not all of nature! They are a part of nature, but they're not all of nature. So, in order to align yourself with nature, you would have to look past your biases as a 'human'!

Align yourself with nature and become a broccoli. Turn yourself into ashes now!

Edited August 7, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[impulse9]

You're trying to use the same arguments against me that you claim I'm using against you. You say that people shouldn't have the freedom to reject the vaccine, but in the same breath you also claim that people should be free to roam around unhealthy. So which is it, do you prefer security or do you prefer freedom?

[Carl-Richard]

10 minutes ago, impulse9 said:

You're trying to use the same arguments against me that you claim I'm using against you. You say that people shouldn't have the freedom to reject the vaccine, but in the same breath you also claim that people should be free to roam around unhealthy. So which is it, do you prefer security or do you prefer freedom?

I actually think people have the right to be unhealthy as long as it doesn't hurt OTHER PEOPLE in immediately obvious ways. However, that was just a rhetorical device to point out a fatal flaw in your argument. Maybe read it in context with the following paragraph.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[Parththakkar12]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

Align yourself with nature and become a broccoli. Turn yourself into ashes now!

That's not what it means to me to 'align with nature'. If that's what it means for you to align yourself with nature, you are free to do that!

The point being, to align yourself with nature is an alternative possibility to being scared of it. It's understandable to be scared, but the mistake would be to react to that fear. My suggestion was to face that fear, if you remember!

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Parththakkar12 said:

My suggestion was to face that fear, if you remember!

The problem is that this doesn't sell.

[impulse9]

@Carl-Richard Do you have any idea how many lives the pharmaceutical industry ruins? How many families irreparably torn apart by the opioid epidemic alone? How much untold suffering unravels because people are free to go around and ignore their own health? You don't seem to have any problem with that, but you have no problems flaunting moral superiority when it comes to a virus that the vast majority of healthy people get over just fine. Health is a complex subject and I'll be the first to tell you that I for sure don't have all the answers. It looks to me like you're not self-aware of your own biases.

[Parththakkar12]

16 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The problem is that this doesn't sell.

You know what? You're right! Making bank on the vaxes isn't such a bad idea, now that I think about it! You get to tell people that there's a new variant, then everyone gets scared, then you get to sell a vax! Third booster-shot, fourth booster-shot. The big pharma gravy-train is just never-ending!

What a lucky accident for big pharma.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Parththakkar12

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, impulse9 said:

Do you have any idea how many lives the pharmaceutical industry ruins? How many families irreparably torn apart by the opioid epidemic alone?

I did not order this red herring, sir.

 

3 minutes ago, impulse9 said:

How much untold suffering unravels because people are free to go around and ignore their own health? You don't seem to have any problem with that, but you have no problems flaunting moral superiority when it comes to a virus that the vast majority of healthy people get over just fine. Health is a complex subject and I'll be the first to tell you that I for sure don't have all the answers. It looks to me like you're not self-aware of your own biases.

People are free to go around ignoring their own health as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Viruses hurt other people. This is the argument.

Sure, maybe if people were more healthy, it would lead to a marginally higher overall resistance against COVID-19, thus it would technically hurt less people, but which lane are you then choosing?: increased COVID-19 fatalities or decreased COVID-19 fatalities?

[impulse9]

The opioid epidemic doesn't hurt other people?

I'm not even remotely against vaccines. I'm against people thinking that freedom is something we should happily give away whenever danger appears on the horizon. Freedom was hard earned and if all it takes is one virus to diminish it, then it's not freedom at all. Educate people instead of scaring them.

[Parththakkar12]

And by the way, this whole conversation about 'nature being on your side' also applies to climate-change. Nature is a lot bigger than CO2-emissions by humans!

[Windappreciator]

47 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

And by the way, this whole conversation about 'nature being on your side' also applies to climate-change. Nature is a lot bigger than CO2-emissions by humans!

@Ananta@Carl-Richard Mistake Tag, can't remove.

@Parththakkar12 Nah, you gotta go vegan Parth, it save planet and you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, impulse9 said:

The opioid epidemic doesn't hurt other people?

Yeah let's abolish all medicine.

 

2 hours ago, impulse9 said:

I'm against people thinking that freedom is something we should happily give away whenever danger appears on the horizon. Freedom was hard earned and if all it takes is one virus to diminish it, then it's not freedom at all. Educate people instead of scaring them.

Individual freedom is only granted to you by the existence of a collective in the first place. If you're willing to let it all burn to the ground, then there will be no freedom anyway.

[Blackhawk]

I don't know if this has been posted here already but..

Jennifer Aniston says goodbye to her anti-vaxxer friends ?: https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-jennifer-aniston-clarifies-comments-about-cutting-off-her-unvaccinated-friends-12374434

"In her interview with InStyle, published on Tuesday, Aniston said: 'There's still a large group of people who are anti-vaxxers or just don't listen to the facts. It's a real shame.'"

"a lot of opinions don't feel based in anything except fear or propaganda."

 

CNN fires all their anti-vaxxer employees ?: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58112125

"'Let me be clear - we have a zero-tolerance policy on this,' Mr Zucker, chairman of news and sports for WarnerMedia, is quoted as saying."

"Many large firms - including Facebook and Google - say they will require employees to be vaccinated when offices fully re-open in the months ahead."

 

I love such stuff.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Blackhawk

[Blackhawk]

Btw if Leo would be a anti-vaxxer I would of course immediately leave this place and never look back.

[Carl-Richard]

@impulse9 @Parththakkar12 Let's entertain the idea of not just "nature" but "human nature" for a while. Isn't it true that humans were obligate collectivists for most of evolutionary history? After all, what was the societal structure before the advent of agriculture? Pre- Dunbar number tribal bands. There was no such thing as "individual rights" back then. Survival of the individual was synonymous with the survival of the tribe. This actually never changed – it's still true today. It has just been forgotten because of the massive survival success of the collective, and now when the collective is threatened, people are confused when one considers implementing collective measures. So if humans are fundamentally collective creatures, why are you guys so against human nature?

Edited August 8, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[impulse9]

Excuse me for having doubts when certain people are profiting literally billions of dollars from this. I'm sure it's all just a humanitarian measure, and all the money is a happy side effect.

[Consept]

5 minutes ago, impulse9 said:

Excuse me for having doubts when certain people are profiting literally billions of dollars from this. I'm sure it's all just a humanitarian measure, and all the money is a happy side effect.

What about Astra-Zeneca and J&J who have pledged not to make a profit until the pandemic is over. The A-Z shot is only $2.15 each in europe, so even if they were making a profit its very minimal. Pfizer are making a profit on it of course, estimates will be around $3.6 billion for the year in profit but when you consider the pharma industry in the US is worth $1.2 trillion it is really a drop in the ocean. Vaccines arent in general big money spinners, they cost a lot to develop and usually are only taken once in a lifetime, or at most once a year 

[impulse9]

Maybe, idk.

 So if humans are fundamentally collective creatures

I don't really believe this to be the case. I know Leo's all about hurr durr collective,  but I'm not. History is produced and written by the individual, the masses are just along for the ride.

[Carl-Richard]

35 minutes ago, impulse9 said:

I don't really believe this to be the case. I know Leo's all about hurr durr collective,  but I'm not. History is produced and written by the individual, the masses are just along for the ride.

Care to elaborate on that? It's kinda the crux of the issue here: what role does the collective play in individual freedoms?

My point is that these two "opposites" exist in a dialectical relationship. A functional set of individual freedoms arises in tandem with a functional collective. If you weaken one of them in sufficient amounts, both will suffer. It's therefore not simply an either/or question of choosing individual freedoms over collective stability and vice versa.