Life nor citizenship is something the individual voluntarily participates in - these are imposed by their parents and the state respectively.

"If you don't like it go away" makes as little sense when said by a state as it does when said by a child's parents.

One key difference is that (good) parents will support their child in gaining indepence and eventually will relinquish their authority over it.

The rise of radicalism was sparked by global powers like the US, Russia, China, etc. to influence the region.

These global powers could send money and arms to the factions they want to see in power, however civilized people are unlikely to go to war simply because a large nation wants them to.

Religious extremism was the spark that was needed for people to take up arms.

As to why: natural resources, military industrial complex, Israeli geopolitics, to name a few.

You can frame it any way you like - it doesn't change what taxation is.

Should people who misbehave in a restaurant be served even though they paid? — Benkei

You are not forced under threat of violence to go to a restaurant.

On another note, I must say it is a bit disheartening to see grand ideals of healthcare for all be dismissed at the first sign of trouble.

healthcare is a privilege not a right and we can and should establish requirements as to when you get that privilege. — Benkei

And clearly then, those who do not receive such a priviledge should not have to pay?

Yes, you have opinions about what belongs to who, and use those opinions to justify the use of violence. A system of "might makes right."

it's a rather clear hypothetical that people on the other side of the argument seem to refuse to want to answer because the answer seems rather clear - ethically speaking. — Benkei

Everything must seem rather clear if you believe your own perspectice is all that exists. Moral flag-waving is not very convincing when it is done with lack of understanding or utter disregard for other people's viewpoints.

But alas, you are free to believe your contrived hypotheticals of perfect knowledge contribute to anything other than your own satisfaction.

Don't mind James. I think he is roleplaying as his avatar, Travis Bickle - a man stuck in a hero fantasy that he himself undermines through his propensity for violence.

It seems to me a moral person would champion universal, single payor health care for 8 billion people and then calculate how much kit and how many health care workers would be required to respond to a pandemic that makes covid look like an inconvenient pimple. — James Riley

As noble as that may sound, that universal healthcare is paid for by forcing individuals to part with their wealth under threat of violence.

In fact, the majority of political opinions are of this nature - opinions about what one believes governments should force others to do.

I don't believe what constitutes a moral person is whether they have opinions of this nature. As far as I am concerned opinions aren't very important at all in that regard, but such opinions seem to sooner contribute to the immorality of a person.

Let's assume you have perfect knowledge and there are two patients, male, 26-years old, both have COVID, one is vaccinated the other isn't. Both need a vent and there's only one vent. Who gets the vent? Is this an obvious case to you? If not, why not? — Benkei

The further we dive into hypotheticals, the more I am convinced the point of this is allowing you to fantasize of the punishment you would so eagerly apply to people whose choices you disagree with.

Maybe, in such a case as you describe, it is enough to consider it a devilish dilemma that I would not wish upon anyone. To have to make such a choice may haunt someone for the rest of their life, yet here you are treating it like you have all the answers - like it is a game.

Was there any attempt made at warning this person?

If not, there is something seriously wrong with the moderation on this site.

PS: Turns out he was warned, so fair is fair.

Of course, it has to do with revenge.

Some consequences ought to be felt. — Benkei

Your disdain for people who make different decisions than you, regardless of their reasons, shines clearly through your posts. You dislike these people, and wish them to be punished for their mistakes. The fact that they were forced to pay their entire lives for collective healthcare - ergo for a large part paid for bad decisions of others - apparently irrelevant.

I've told you before, your opinions seem based on surface level representations of a problem, and you don't make the slightest attempt at looking beyond your own moral framework - apparently even when it concerns matters of life and death.

Like it is a game, it is stated that "people should be booted out of the IC."

Finally, if a hospital is ever faced with a triage situation they ought to boot unvaccinated Covid patients out of the IC regardless of other considerations like age, likelihood of survival, etc. Some consequences ought to be felt. — Benkei

Your idea of "ought to" is for medical professionals to carry out petty revenge fantasies?

What an utterly sick statement you made - I find it hard to believe you really meant it, and I question your sanity if you do.

The Netherlands.

To give further context, the link shows an official communication of the government and primarily summarizes an analysis that was done by a department of the Ministry of Finance.

I've tried to find links that leads to one of the studies this analysis was based on, but was greeted by a paywall: https://esb.nu/incoming/20061414/een-eerste-kwantitatieve-analyse-van-de-nederlandse-coronamaatregelen

This matter was discussed in the House of Representatives, so there is no question as to whether this analysis was made.

Doesn't sound of much use here then? Is it just your word against his, or do you have some sources? — Isaac

To emphasize, the MP did not deny the existence of the cost-benefit analysis that was made - he just claimed to never have seen it.

The document can be found here, when the link to "2 MKBA versie 1 en 2.pdf" is followed, but it is not in English.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17nAOd5mXetuaNqKe9MXLLEQxjjYE1z-s

But since when have we made all our decisions on the basis of which course of action leads to the least risk of adverse health outcomes, and nothing else? — Isaac

And whether those actions lead to the least risk is up for debate.

A while back my government had a cost-benefit analysis done weighing the benefits of the Covid-19 measures versus the indirect consequences.

The conclusion was that the Covid-19 measures were estimated to produce around 100,000 healthy life years, and cost over FIVE TIMES that number; around 520,000 healthy life years.

This analysis was of course ignored and the Covid-19 measures were taken anyway.

This was discussed in the House of Representatives long after the fact, where the MP (predictably) denied ever having seen the analysis. (In a time of supposed crisis, a cost-benefit analysis of measures that infringed upon citizen's fundamental rights was not read by the MP?)

Why do you think there is so much resistance? Because the sacrifices are a lot higher than you care to admit. We've talked about this earlier: you accuse people of not caring about others, but you show not the slightest ability to understand others either. It makes all this yelling from a moral pedestal is very unconvincing.

Even if you would multiply that number by five, it would still leave 99% of people having to make permanent sacrifices in their way of living. That's beyond all proportionality to me.

First of all, we'd have to define "miniscule." 600k dead in the U.S alone, — James Riley

Roughly 0.2%, no?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the miniscule percentage of the population that runs a risk of getting seriously ill from covid to make that sacrifice? I think it does.

Because anthropologists, archeologists, sociologists and other experts have shown that man is a social creature. A pack animal, if you will. Public life has been there since the cave and before. Discos, not so much. — James Riley

Well, even someone who doesn't partake in public life can still be social, but in their private lives.

Why is the baseline at participation in public life? And why is participation not a luxury like discos?

A small bit of information from the country I live in was recently released: a report done for the government to evaluate the effects of a lockdown estimated the amount of healthy life years to be saved by the covid measures to be 100,000. The amount lost was estimated around 520,000.

Perhaps not directly related, but something to think about.

Why is wanting to go to the disco selfish, and wanting to participate in public life (even though you're afraid that getting coughed on kills you) isn't?

Is inept rage your only mode of response?

The result would be that a woman is forced to give birth against her will, or perhaps worse, attempt to terminate the pregnancy herself.

I honestly can't see how this can be acceptable, whether she is deemed irrational or not.

It is a rock and a hard place, but I know to which side I am leaning.

its risks are less than the risks of COVID. — Michael

Vaccines have already been put on hold, for example in Denmark, because exactly this was suspected not to be the case.

Besides, to say the vaccine is safe is a guarantee no one can make. For one, there is no way the long-term effects could have been mapped, because the vaccines do not exist long enough for that. Secondly, for certain persons the vaccine has proven to be very much not safe, as they have suffered serious side-effects or even death.

Would you deny a woman who is deemed irrational beyond a reasonable doubt her right to have an abortion?

If so, what good would it bring?

Mhm. Of course. And if what you determined is a psychosis persists you force her to have the baby?

Sure you are. And if the reasons for a woman to have an abortion are irrational by your standards, should she not be allowed to have?

Didn't know you were the arbitrator of what is rational and what is not.

Abortions affect others as well.

What people inject into their bodies is no business but their own. Whatever reasons they may have, no matter how illogical to outsiders, does not factor into whether they should have the right to make their own decision. To me, this discussion is as clear cut as abortion.

Policy, or law, is a fancy word we use to disguise impositions made by governments through threats of violence. That to me is irreconcilable with love.

Maybe we are drifting a bit off-topic.

To maintain a degree of legitimacy I suppose.

They sure are.

Because emotions are very subjective and can inhibit one's ability for rational thought. Governance and policy are about forcing people to do things. In my eyes, those things don't mix.

Regardless, it seems academic if your loved one is dead or dying. — James Riley

However sad that may be, policy should not be determined by emotions.

Compare that question with the inconvenience of distancing, masking and vaxxing. — James Riley

Much has been said about the effectiveness, side-effects and potential dangers of those things.

The body needs contact with others to maintain a healthy immune system, for example. The thing that ensures the vast majority of people are absolutely safe from covid AND other diseases.

Further, masks were never made for prolonged and daily use and ironically the way they are being used now also forms a potential risk to the immune and respiratory systems.

This discussion has been had probably a dozen of times in this thread alone - lets not have it again. I understand your part of the argument, and I have hopes you understand mine. My bottomline is, people need to decide for themselves in this uncertain time what risks they are willing to accept and which ones they aren't.

Some flus cause more deaths than others. Covid-19 has a comparable IFR to flus that kill a relatively large amount of people, the difference being that those flus do not have mass hysteria as a side-effect.

I fully agree: infections mean nothing for a virus that cause little to no effects in the vast, vast majority of people. Here too, much has been said of covid-19 being noted as the cause of death even if it did not contribute to the actual death of the patient. What is true of all this, I honestly do not know.

However, I prefer to use numbers that are official, and even then I prefer to use high estimates, so as to give people no excuses to ignore them.

The IFR of covid-19 isn't very far from a serious flu.

Violence rules the land of the dead, in both the physical, intellectual and spiritual sense.

That doesn't quite work, because one's own evaluation of what belongs to who can be completely different from the evaluation of another, hence the slippery slope — khaled

I was talking about the individual's physical body. I hope we can agree that the individual's physical body belongs to the individual.

So you can't impose anything on anyone unless they impose first?

Say there is a drowning person and a sleeping ex-lifeguard on the beach. You can't swim to save them. Do you impose on the sleeping ex-lifeguard to wake them up? — khaled

The nature of the examples you are comparing is different. I can explain to you why, but you are smart enough to see it yourself.

As I said earlier, impositions, if they are to be done at all, must be done with the utmost carefulness. Does the individual possess enough wisdom and insight to judge this situation accurately: a life can be saved and at most what can be lost is the lifeguard's temporary sleep.

Then perhaps he may take the risk of imposing. But even then it is a risk, you see? It required an accute situation of distress to force our hand, no time to discuss and deliberate.