Yes, the government doesn’t own anyone’s body. The legitimacy of government authority over someone’s body has never been justified. It’s as simple as that. — NOS4A2
Yes, the government doesn’t own anyone’s body. — NOS4A2
The legitimacy of government authority over someone’s body has never been justified. It’s as simple as that. — NOS4A2
Your rights stop when you effect others with your body. — Xtrix
If you don’t own anyone’s body, what gives you the right to force vaccines upon them, make medical decisions for them, or otherwise attempt to assert your will with theirs? Nothing. — NOS4A2
The problem is you don’t know whether I’m affecting people or not. — NOS4A2
Straw man.
If you live in society, you are. We do know. Which is why we mandate vaccines in schools and many workplaces.
Yours is an idiotic and inconsistent view. But I expect nothing else from you.
It’s my argument, not a breakdown of yours. So maybe you can dispute it. — NOS4A2
You don’t know. You’re ignorant. You’re scared. Fear and ignorance is the premise you use to justify denying bodily autonomy. — NOS4A2
It's a straw man. Not an argument.
If you want to make choices that harm no one else, fine. Do what you want. But, again, sorry to remind you, but we live in a society.
We do know, because we know how viruses spread.
Fear and ignorance is on your side -- fear of, and ignorance of, vaccines. That's all this boils down to: sheer ignorance on your part. Like with almost everything you discuss.
If you don’t own anyone’s body, what gives you the right to force vaccines upon them, make medical decisions for them, or otherwise attempt to assert your will with theirs? Nothing. — NOS4A2
Fixed. There is no reason to confine causality to certain "physical" events and not others. This is the essence of compatibilism. Reason is a type of cause. — Olivier5
Such a fact is meaningless when it comes to imposing your will on others. — NOS4A2
That fact of being in a majority does not justify you imposing your will on a minority. — NOS4A2
I fear vaccine mandates — NOS4A2
We always have to balance the interests of the individual against the interests of society at large; there is no blanket expectation that one will always trump the other. It depends on the right that will be infringed, to what degree it will be infringed, the seriousness of the state's interest, and the tailoring of state action to further the interest of society as a whole while minimizing the infringement of the rights of individuals. At least in the US, I believe that's how it's supposed to work. — Srap Tasmaner
The ACLU’s initial reaction to the idea of COVID-vaccine mandates was skepticism. In a piece published in March, the senior policy analyst Jay Stanley warned that “there’s a lot that can go wrong” with vaccine passports, citing the potential for privacy abuses and lack of universal access associated with forcing people to provide digital proof of their immunization. But last week, the organization endorsed vaccine requirements, adopting the argument that mandatory inoculations against COVID-19 “further civil liberties” by protecting the most vulnerable. “We see no civil liberties problem with requiring Covid-19 vaccines in most circumstances,” wrote David Cole, the ACLU’s legal director, and Daniel Mach, the director of its program on freedom of religion and belief.
In a recent interview, Cole told me that the organization had assigned a working group of lawyers to consult with public-health experts over the past several months in order to develop its position. But he suggested that it was not a particularly close call. “Whether it’s bodily integrity, personal autonomy, or religious freedom, they’re all rights that are recognized in the Constitution, but they’re not absolute rights,” Cole said. “You don’t have the right to inflict harm on third parties, and that’s what you’re doing when you refuse to take a safe and effective vaccine to a very infectious virus.”
According to an article in The Atlantic, the ACLU has come out in favour of COVID Vaccine Mandates: — Wayfarer
Society is composed of individuals. — NOS4A2
The interests of the individual is the interest of society at large. — NOS4A2
. . .no one, including the state, can know what “the interest of society” is. — NOS4A2
That’s what we’re dealing with here: the interest of some group, in this case the interest of the state and those who seek to gain from the exercise of state power. — NOS4A2
For a hard determinist there are no non-physical events — Janus
Most people here see getting the shot as doing almost nothing, practically zero-cost. Even small marginal benefit is a good bet for close to zero cost. — Srap Tasmaner
only that some individuals are trying to impose their will on other individuals, which is closer to the spirit of war than any defense of fundamental rights. — NOS4A2
And nowhere does it state that we have to mandate people to take a vaccine and deny them access to society if they do not. — NOS4A2
And nowhere does it state that we have to mandate people to take a vaccine and deny them access to society if they do not. It’s a simple moral decision. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.