Do you have any kind of response to my argument? — Bartricks

That was my response.

Well, it was stupid. It had no philosophical content. Try thinking about the op rather than asking inane questions that go nowhere.

Folks, Bartricks denies that refusing to take a vaccine entails risks to others than himself. Such silliness is not to be reasoned with. Is he that stupid? — tim wood

He's coming at it from a philophical perspective.

Well, it was stupid. It had no philosophical content. — Bartricks

Okay. Where can i read up about the philosophy of COVID viruses? I need to be infomed.

philosophy of COVID viruses — Wheatley

Irony, yes?

Dangerous irony. :death:

In the OP. I am a philosopher and I wrote the OP.

This isn't a medical issue. It's a philosophical one. Not that many are capable of drawing this distinction (including the WHO, which makes ethical judgements it is not qualified to make).

Now, if you need the use of my kidneys for 9 months or you'll die are you entitled to make me give you the use of them? No.

Apply the lesson.

I am opposed to enforced lockdowns to protect us against viruses. — Bartricks

How is that philosophy?? It's a political statement! :roll:

No, it is an expression of my view, which is then followed by a rational defence. That is, I explain why I think my view is correct: I think it is correct because it is implied by widely shared intuitions about relevantly analogous cases.

But anyway, you're either being tedious for the sake of sadistic delight (oo, look at me being torturously stupid to a clever person), or you're genuinely baffled, in which case you need to work with your hands and leave the thinking to others.

But anyway, you're either being tedious for the sake of sadistic delight (oo, look at me being torturously stupid to a clever person), or you're genuinely baffled, in which case you need to work with your hands and leave the thinking to others. — Bartricks

:victory:

It continues.