Let's all be sure to exalt form over substance. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Boy would I love to be able to trace Covid by a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. But that's the thing about viruses: some filthy POS can spread it all over hell and gone and not be caught. That's why suing is fundamentally stupid, like those who would propose it under current scopes and standards of review and burdens of proof. That's why government comes in and forces the filthy POS to isolate, mask or vax. Government IS the solution in this case.

So you confess this discussion was worthless from the beginning, then proceed to blame the worthlessness of it on someone else? — Derrick Huestis

No.

"But should we engage for the sake of others who are rational but "on the fence"?"

That was the question.

The discussion with Baker wasn't a complete waste, I suppose. Now I know something about engaging with him in the future.

Government IS the solution in this case. — James Riley

Don't forget what you discussed with me on my discussion, x=x and ~x, so therefore the government is the solution and the problem, we should promote it and get it out of the way. That is, unless you suddenly changed your mind about all that...

That is, unless you suddenly changed your mind about all that... — Derrick Huestis

I didn't change my mind. I just distinguish between the metaphysical and the political. You know, I don't conflate two different discussions. But yeah, if you want to, I'll not only say government is the solution, but it's the problem, and there is no government, no individual, and yet there is. And there is no problem, and you and I aren't even having this converstation.

So there's that.

:lol: :up:

I think the "principle" is, though agreeable, only a truism which cannot survive contact with any enemy who's declared war (on reason? on science? on evidence? on public health? on democracy? on the rule of law? on "those people"?) — 180 Proof

But it's not what they say.

You might be right. I tend to agree with your diagnosis. I tend to think you and I are on the side of reason and democracy and all that's good. I tend to think some of the loudest voices on the other side are just plain lying when they say they're standing up for what we are actually standing up for.

But I don't believe that the entire audience for those folks knows they're lying. I think a lot of them believe it. There's some bad faith there, no doubt; some of that audience eagerly laps up the rationalizations offered for their prejudices. It's a fact. But it's not all of them.

And it's not what any of them say. Both sides in our culture war claim to be the good guys. I think when it comes to the exemplars on this forum, both sides actually believe it. Both sides think the other side is the enemy of everything good in the world. (Okay, obviously there we have to make an exception for evangelicals because they wouldn't piss on the world if it was on fire. And it is.)

Do we just try to bully them into a Are we are the baddies? epiphany?

The next president is probably going to be a Trump clone, so all the flat earthers will be in charge again. Should you consider expatriation so as to find valuable community members?

It becomes your problem if you set out to change their minds. — baker

Experience is the mother of wisdom, don't you find? It doesn't matter much what I say.

Should you consider expatriation so as to find valuable community members? — frank

No, I have friends in low places.

Do we just try to bully them into a Are we are the baddies? epiphany? — Srap Tasmaner

Power is usually frugal, starting nice and working up. When it fails to persuade with reason, power just bullies; but not into an epiphany. These people will never agree they are wrong. But the subjective understanding of the oppressed is irrelevant. Gubmn't asked nicely; no joy. Next step, passports, mandates, etc. The oppressed will have a choice: Come around, suffer the consequences of not coming around, or revolution. These people will come around. But why try to convince them? That horse done left the barn. They've killed untold numbers of people already. Time to turn up the temp and listen to them wail about fascism. Talk to the hand, bitches.

That is unless the Supreme Court rules that power overstepped it's bounds, but we aren't there yet.

Come around, suffer the consequences of not coming around, or revolution. These people will come around. But why try to convince them? That horse done left the barn. They've killed untold numbers of people already. Time to turn up the temp and listen to them wail about fascism. Talk to the hand, bitches. — James Riley

Right. This is happening, one way or another. It's completely legitimate. Refusal to understand or "agree with" the law isn't an excuse when you're pulled over for drunk driving. Nor is it an excuse when asked to leave a restaurant for smoking inside.

They're killing people and prolonging this pandemic with their ignorance and stupidity. The ones who are really to blame are the people they trust: talk radio conservatives, Fox News pundits, social media stars, misinformation super spreaders, and politicians along for the ride.

When Trump gets booed for saying "Take the vaccine, it's good" -- you know the monster is unleashed and there's no going back. Still, it was Trump who helped create the monster.

What is an anti-vaxxer? It is unclear to me.

Is it someone who is opposed to vaccinations?

Or is it someone who does not want to get a vaccine themselves, but is fine with others getting one?

Or is it someone who is fine with getting one themselves, and fine with others getting one, but doesn't believe others should be 'made' to get one?

I mean, I am an anti-vaxxer in the third sense (although I'd say 'anti-vaxxer' would be a misleading term to refer to me by, as I am not opposed to vaccinations and am very much in favour of me getting one).

I don't think there's any reasonable, ethical basis for forcing people to get vaccinated. You have the right to refuse medical treatment. And in this case, refusing to be vaccinated means one exposes oneself and others who have made the same free decision as oneself to greater risks, not innocent others. Unless, that is, the vaccine is not very effective - but then it'd still be unjust to force others to take it, for if it is unjust to force people to take an effective vaccine, then a fortiori it is unjust to force people to take an ineffective one.

https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1437172664821600262?s=20

Just came across this. Seems about right.

What is an anti-vaxxer? It is unclear to me. — Bartricks

There's plenty of literature on this. It has been a movement for a while, in fact. Generally it's exactly what the label says: being anti-vaccines. Won't get their kids vaccinated, believe vaccines cause autism (yes, that's still out there), etc.

I remember hearing years ago about how the flu vaccines have mercury in them, how they "give you" the flu, etc. So the seeds have been there for a long time.

Or is it someone who is fine with getting one themselves, and fine with others getting one, but doesn't believe others should be 'made' to get one? — Bartricks

So far no one is being forced to get one by law. That's not what's being proposed. Mandates, so far, are about workplaces and schools mostly. Many have the option to either get vaccinated or get tested more frequently. Everyone has the "option" to resign (or not go to school) if they don't like either. It's odd that mostly conservatives are screaming about this, yet are the first to say "You're free to leave your job and work somewhere else" when poor working conditions are brought up. But when a legitimate reason is given, suddenly they all become Eugene Debbs.

I don't think there's any reasonable, ethical basis for forcing people to get vaccinated. — Bartricks

If by "forcing" you mean what I described above, there is most definitely an ethical reason for doing so: the lives of those OTHER PEOPLE who share a space with said refusers.

It's baffling this is hard to understand, considering we've had school (and work) vaccination requirements for DECADES -- for reasons very easy to understand.

And in this case, refusing to be vaccinated means one exposes oneself and others who have made the same free decision as oneself to greater risks, not innocent others. — Bartricks

No. This is a mistake. Listen to what the overwhelming medical consensus say about this -- it's not hard to do. Takes a few minutes, and is well advised.

This is not simply an individual choice. If it were, there would be no push for it.

Generally it's exactly what the label says: being anti-vaccines. Won't get their kids vaccinated, believe vaccines cause autism (yes, that's still out there), etc. — Xtrix

That's still ambiguous between being opposed to anyone taking them, and simply being opposed to taking them oneself.

For instance, I think crystals are a waste of time. But I am not opposed to people decking themselves out in them if they really want.

So, I am opposed - very opposed - to anyone being made to get a vaccine. I think it is wise to get one. I think it is irrational not to, given that any risks that attend the vaccine are likely to be even greater from the virus itself. But I am opposed to anyone being made to get one. And I am very much opposed to the state using the powers at its disposal effectively to force people to get one.

I am not in the US, but as I understand it, that's exactly what's happening. And it is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that merely forcing companies with over 100 employees weekly to test all of those who haven't got one doesn't amount to such an act of forcing.

I am opposed - very opposed - to the government (any government) doing anything other than recommending getting one. Which is all I would do - I recommend people get one if they can. But it would be quite wrong for me forcibly to inject someone or to do things that amount to something similar, such as issuing threats to you until or unless you get one or mounting a campaign of harassment against you if you don't have one.

Now, given what I have just said, do I qualify as an anti-vaxxer? I am not opposed to the existence of vaccines, nor do I disbelieve in their effectiveness, nor do I think that it to mess with a divine plan to try and come up with them; nor am I opposed to others getting them; and I intend to get one myself. But given what I have just said - given my opposition to any government (or indeed, anyone) forcing or menacing anyone into getting one - am I an anti-vaxxer?

I want to loop back to the OP, because I still maintain it’s an important topic in today’s climate:

Is it even worth it to engage with these people?

They're immune to facts and they will not change their minds no matter what happens, which is interesting psychologically. But should we engage for the sake of others who are rational yet "on the fence"?

I struggle with this. — Xtrix

I think a handful of people have actually addressed the question.

The conclusion I’ve reached is that it is indeed worth it, provided there’s a neutral, persuadable, or otherwise reachable audience to witness the exchange — and that keeping ones temper, sticking to logic, facts and evidence, and maintaining a respectful tone is the best approach.

I’m reminded of the well-known destruction of William F. Buckley by Noam Chomsky on "Firing Line" in 1969, discussing the war in Vietnam. What could be more persuasive to those “on the fence” about the issue then witnessing something like this?

https://youtu.be/9DvmLMUfGss

The difference is that Buckley is not in the same league as those mentioned in the thread’s title, in my view.

So, I am opposed - very opposed - to anyone being made to get a vaccine. I think it is wise to get one. — Bartricks

I’m opposed to people being made to stop smoking, though I think it’s wise to stop. But this isn’t the question. Why? Because (1) we’re not talking about making this a law and (2) this is not simply an individual choice.

It’s (2) that continually gets ignored, and why patience is wearing thin. It’s ignored because science and medical expertise is ignored. It’s misunderstanding what’s being aimed for and misunderstanding what vaccines do, and also failing to take into consideration the factor of mutation. It’s not simply “well what do vaccinated people care? They’re protected!”

If people choose to smoke in public places, I’m no longer opposed to them being stopped. I think you understand why. The exact same thing applies to vaccines. But again, no one is proposing a law. So I would think you have a much stronger resistance to smoking laws?

But given what I have just said - given my opposition to any government (or indeed, anyone) forcing or menacing anyone into getting one - am I an anti-vaxxer? — Bartricks

Who cares?

My personal view: no, I wouldn’t categorize you this way. You don’t sound anti-vaxx, you’re just anti-mandate for in my view misguided reasons.

What objection do you have to what I said, then? I mean, I assume you think it is ok for the government to flex its muscles and bully people into getting the vaccine. Why? Because of the science? What does that even mean?

So, if the vaccine is effective - and I am going to assume that it is, and believe that it is - then those who freely decide not to take it are exposing themselves and others who have made the same choice to a risk.

What's wrong with that? Whose rights are they violating? It's imprudent - but lots of things are imprudent. Punching yourself in the face is imprudent. Not taking enough exercise is imprudent. My friend Sarah's dating decisions are imprudent. But in none of these cases are anyone's rights being violated. Am I entitled to stop Sarah dating Steve because Steve's a bloody gold-digging pillock and will take her for every penny she's got? No. At most I can advise against it, but not actively intervene.

Likewise, deciding not to get the vaccine is stupid, but people are entitled to do stupid things so long as doing them doesn't violate anyone else's rights. Right?

Incidentally, the relevant experts in this scenario are not the scientists, but ethicists. For this is a normative issue, not a scientific one. The science can and should inform the ethical judgement, but it can't be a substitute for it, for scientific claims are simply not normative claims.

So, the experts we should be listening to here are professional ethicists, yes? Guess who's one of those?

And in this case, refusing to be vaccinated means one exposes oneself and others who have made the same free decision as oneself to greater risks, not innocent others. — Bartricks

Not true. Innocent people have died because they could not get a bed. (By bed, I mean all the staff and kit that goes with it). These people didn't have covid. They had accidents or other illnesses that hospitals usually have room for.

So, I am opposed - very opposed - to anyone being made to get a vaccine. — Bartricks

I'd give an option: Stay away from the public and stay out of public spaces. Problem solved.

And I am very much opposed to the state using the powers at its disposal effectively to force people to get one. — Bartricks

See above. And, if you do get sick, don't go taking up a bed. Stay at home and ride it out. Die? Tough shit.

Now, given what I have just said, do I qualify as an anti-vaxxer? — Bartricks

Yes.

I mean, I assume you think it is ok for the government to flex its muscles and bully people into getting the vaccine. — Bartricks

Yes. Or they can stay at home, away from the public and out of public spaces.

Is there any case where you would change your position?

For instance, I read some time ago that Covid is, quite literally, nothing compared to what could happen with other unrelated viruses should they: 1. make the leap from the animal to man; 2. be airborne; and 3. be easily transmissible. The worst case scenario being a pandemic that wipes out 70 or 80% of the world's human population in a matter of months.

If there was a biological agent, free and easily injectable into the human body that would stop this in it's tracks if everyone took it, thus preventing variants and pass-throughs, and if the physical down-sides were no worse than the Covid vaccine, would you stick to your guns?

(If I recall correctly, the hypothetical is actually probable if human population continues to increase and if there were no countervailing medical rescues. Apparently it happens in nature all the time when a species gets beyond carrying capacity.)

If you would stick to your guns, fine. But if not, can you articulate where and when the line should be drawn? Or are you just saying "This isn't it. We aren't there yet"?

Not true. Innocent people have died because they could not get a bed. (By bed, I mean all the staff and kit that goes with it). These people didn't have covid. They had accidents or other illnesses that hospitals usually have room for. — James Riley

They did not violate those people's rights. You're blaming the wrong people. It was those who determined who does or does not get a bed, if anyone, who violated those people's rights (not that anyone has a 'right' to a hospital bed).

I'd give an option: Stay away from the public and stay out of public spaces. Problem solved. — James Riley

Yes, that is what everyone can freely decide to do. So, those who - despite being vaccinated themselves - are paranoid about getting seriously ill from those who haven't been vaccinated (a concern that is silly if, that is, the vaccine is effective) - can stay at home if they so wish. Similarly, if they do not want to go to work anymore out of an irrational fear of those who have not taken the vaccine, then they can, once more, stay at home. They'll be sacked, of course. But that's their choice to make.

Is there any case where you would change your position? — James Riley

Not sure what you mean. But I'll say yes, as I am extremely reason-responsive. Give me a good argument and I'll change my position on anything - literally anything. I'll respond to the rest shorlty

They did not violate those people's rights. You're blaming the wrong people. It was those who determined who does or does not get a bed, if anyone, who violated those people's rights (not that anyone has a 'right' to a hospital bed). — Bartricks

If there is a right to health care (some think there is), then they forfeited their right and by doing so and then taking up a bed, they violated the rights of the innocent. They took their filthy disease to the hospital. They should have stayed at home. They had a chance to vax, did not, and went to the hospital. Should they have been turned away? Yes. But they should not have gone in the first place. They should not have put the Hippocratic Oath types in that position.

For instance, I read some time ago that Covid is, quite literally, nothing compared to what could happen with other unrelated viruses should they: 1. make the leap from the animal to man; 2. be airborne; and 3. be easily transmissible. The worst case scenario being a pandemic that wipes out 70 or 80% of the world's human population in a matter of months. — James Riley

You're confusing different issues. What I am talking about is making people take a vaccine.

So, there's a vaccine freely available. Those who want it can take it. And they will now be protected from the virus - or at least, from getting seriously ill from it.

And there are those who - for whatever reason - do not wish to undergo this medical procedure. That's their right. I personally think it is unwise. We - most of us - have instrumental reason to take the vaccine, for whatever risks it may carry are less than the risks posed by the virus it protects against. And so given that it seems inevitable that we'll all be exposed to the virus at some point, it is wise to get the vaccine. But that's a prudential obligation, not a moral one.

Those who decide not to take the vaccine are not violating the rights of others. Far from it - it is those who want to make them take it for their own good who are violating their rights. It is a constant danger - the danger of imposing your own conception of the good life on other people.

So that's this issue: this issue is about whether you can make adult free agents do things for their own good, or whether you have to let them decide for themselves.

Yes, that is what everyone can freely decide to do. So, those who - despite being vaccinated themselves - are paranoid about getting seriously ill from those who haven't been vaccinated (a concern that is silly if, that is, the vaccine is effective) - can stay at home if they so wish. — Bartricks

Wrong. The burden is upon those who don't vax to not have covid or stay home. Those who vax can go back to the public. It's not a matter of paranoia. It's a proven fact. Have you counted the dead? The burden has shifted to those who don't vax to stay away from the public and out of public spaces. I sincerely hope the government uses all that power you are afraid of to make it so.

Give me a good argument and I'll change my position on anything — Bartricks

I just did. And not a Chicken Little hypothetical, but a scenario that the Obama Administration started to spin up some plans for before Trump trashed them.

What objection do you have to what I said, then? I mean, I assume you think it is ok for the government to flex its muscles and bully people into getting the vaccine. Why? Because of the science? What does that even mean? — Bartricks

I don’t see how you could read my response and not see exactly where I object.

Nevertheless, you ask why. Why do you agree with government “flexing its muscle” about smoking in restaurants? Because we agree with what science and medicine has discovered about second hand smoke — since this has effects on others, it’s a legitimate use of power.

Likewise, if we accept the science about vaccines, and listen to the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus, we would quickly conclude that this “mandate” is legitimate as well—just as it is in schools and many workplaces over the last several decades.

So, if the vaccine is effective - and I am going to assume that it is, and believe that it is - then those who freely decide not to take it are exposing themselves and others who have made the same choice to a risk. — Bartricks

I addressed this:

It’s misunderstanding what’s being aimed for and misunderstanding what vaccines do, and also failing to take into consideration the factor of mutation. It’s not simply “well what do vaccinated people care? They’re protected!” — Xtrix

You’re just misunderstanding what experts are telling us and what the goals are.

Likewise, deciding not to get the vaccine is stupid, but people are entitled to do stupid things so long as doing them doesn't violate anyone else's rights. Right? — Bartricks

Yes. My smoking example is a good one.

What happens when someone smokes in a restaurant, however? Why is that against the law? Why do restaurants have bans on them? Are they unjust?

You have a right not to take a vaccine. But you do not have a right to come to the workplace, the school, the concert, the sporting event, or the airplane and infect others — whether others are vaccinated or not.

You’re also contributing to allowing the spread, which encourages variants — variations which may become more deadly and perhaps resistant to vaccines altogether.

Incidentally, the relevant experts in this scenario are not the scientists, but ethicists. For this is a normative issue, not a scientific one. The science can and should inform the ethical judgement, but it can't be a substitute for it, for scientific claims are simply not normative claims. — Bartricks

The scientific and medical experts are what’s relevant here. If we understand how vaccines work, about viruses, about pandemics, etc., then we can decide what to do — in this case it’s a trivial and obvious decision. Just as it is if we understand the science of secondhand smoke— and just as it is in school vaccinations for the last half century.

So, the experts we should be listening to here are professional ethicists, yes? Guess who's one of those? — Bartricks

The experts we should be listening to are doctors.

You're confusing different issues. — Bartricks

No, I am not. I'm giving you a scenario that is identical to the current situation, only with a worse bug.

That's their right. — Bartricks

So 70 to 80% dead because they chose to exercise their right. Got it.

So that's this issue: this issue is about whether you can make adult free agents do things for their own good, or whether you have to let them decide for themselves. — Bartricks

No, that is not the issue. No one (except the Hippocratic types) cares about their own good. They can die as far anyone is concerned. It is the rest of civilization, including those who can't vax or who are immunocompromised that matter. Remember, you have three to four months and no variants or pass throughs allowed or everyone is dead.

If there is a right to health care (some think there is), then they forfeited their right and by doing so and then taking up a bed, they violated the rights of the innocent. — James Riley

Well I don't think there is a right to health care.

If I go to a bookstore and buy the last copy of a book you want such that you can't now buy it, I have not violated your rights. Your issue is with the bookstore owner, not me.

If I get sick and go into a hospital and am given a bed such that you now can't get one, I have not violated your rights. Your issue is with the hospital's practices, not me.

Now, you have asked if I will ever change my position - I assume you have asked that becasue you now think I'm a dogmatist. Why do you think taht given that I am arguing every step of the way? That's the mark of a non-dogmatist.

Locke argued - and I think he's broadly correct (it is a bloody good guiding principle anyway) - that the state is not entitled to do to us what we would not be entitled to do to each other in the state's absence. That, like I say, seems broadly correct, and seems correct for good reason: we do not get our rights from the state, rather the state's justification rests on its ability to protect our rights. And thus the rights the state is justified in protecting are not ones that it - the state - creates, but ones we had anyway. And thus, the state is not entitled to do to us what we would not be entitled to do to each other in its absence.

That's not a dogmatic view, but a highly rational one. And there will be grey areas - grey areas precisely becuase it is sometimes not clear what we would be entitled to do to each other in the state's absence.

But if you want to take risks with your life - if you want to engage in dangerous sports and so on - then that's not something I'm entitled to stop you doing. Not until or unless it violates my rights.

And if someone sets up a hospital and undertakes to treat you if you injure yourself, that too is something they're entitled to do. I mean, that's nice and doesn't violate your rights.

But that person - the person who sets up the hospital - is not then entitled to stop you engaging in dangerous sports because they don't want to treat you, or want to free up bed space to treat others. Yes?

So the state is not allowed to do those things either.

Wrong. The burden is upon those who don't vax to not have covid or stay home. Those who vax can go back to the public. It's not a matter of paranoia. It's a proven fact. Have you counted the dead? The burden has shifted to those who don't vax to stay away from the public and out of public spaces. I sincerely hope the government uses all that power you are afraid of to make it so. — James Riley

Where's your argument? You're just stating things.

The unvaccinated are not posing a risk to anyone other than the unvaccinated. So, if vaccines are freely available, then they are not violating anyone's rights and there's no justification for restricting their movement. That's as stupid as insisting that skateboarders at a skateboarding park are violating 'my' rights because they might injure each other. It's just silly. They're posing a risk to each other. Which they're entitled to do.

The unvaccinated are not posing a risk to anyone other than the unvaccinated. — Bartricks

This is simply incorrect. You’re not listening to what doctors are saying. They’re not encouraging everyone get vaccinated simply because they’re nice.

The experts we should be listening to are doctors. — Xtrix

No, Riled-up, it is 'ethicists' we should be listening to. Ethicists are experts on what it is right or wrong to do. Doctors are not. And this is an ethical issue, not a medical issue. It 'concerns' a medical issue, but what we're talking about are the rights and wrongs of it......which is not a medical issue, but a normative issue.

So, once more, the experts here are the ethicists. Where do you get your car fixed? The dentist?

This is simply incorrect. — Xtrix

Explain. Is the vaccine effective? If it is, then they're not posing a risk to the vaccinated. If it is not effective, then yes - I agree, they're posing a risk to everyone. But then there's no point in forcing people to take an ineffective vaccine.

I have, incidentally, been listening to the doctors, and they're not pressed on this. And they're not ethicists, so perhaps they don't understand the ethical significance of this issue. Or perhaps they rely on the fact that most people don't know which are the relevant experts to be listening to and consulting. He/she's a doctor......so their judgement about what I ought to do must be correct! It's an expert judgement. Only it isn't.

Medical doctors aren't experts in ethics.

Do you agree, in principle, that if your choices are posing no risk to anyone save yourself and others who have made the same choice, then no rights are violated and no-one has the right to stop you doing what you're doing?