Comments

  • The Inflation Reduction Act
    $3.5 trillion is excessive. — jgill

    Actually it’s not nearly enough.

    Vote for Joe Manchin? Again— if this is an example of where studying philosophy leads us, then it’s completely useless.
  • The Inflation Reduction Act
    Thus not below or beneath the intellectual, but a test of his understanding of exactly what he's doing, what he wants to do, and how he wants to do it. Ivory-tower types sometimes not-so-good at that. — tim wood

    I agree -- in which case, everyone should be reading much more Aristotle, Nietzsche, and Marx; in other words, thinkers that (in my view) put some fire under your ass and get you to look at the real world around you and your effect on it.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    Until I see that someone is actually open to questioning their chosen experts, why waste time if I'm gonna be replied to with platitudes, comparison to flat earthers and climate change deniars etc — Yohan

    You were never serious about questioning the experts, nor are you an expert yourself. Any sophomoric question you have are out there for experts to answer, and they have -- and it's all over the internet. newspapers, the internet, and at your doctor's office.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    Regarding transmission, I think people can take care of themselves. — AJJ

    As hospitals are overrun in Idaho and Texas and ~3000 die every two days. Keep minimizing it -- you're doing great work.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    Making life essentially impossible without an internal vaccine passport, is a use force. — boethius

    And a legitimate one. But it by no means makes life "essentially impossible." Plenty of people have already quit their jobs because they're refusing to take a vaccine. Fine -- their choice.

    If something makes life virtually unlivable, then it must be pretty serious -- like other laws. Driving laws make driving without a license, or drunk driving, "essentially impossible" to do these days. But they're legitimate laws notwithstanding the few who "don't agree/refuse" to abide by them. They're free to disagree -- but pay the consequences for it. We're in a pandemic, and this is a public health issue -- everyone is on the line here, not just you.

    What happens if you don't have your papers? Fine or prison. What if you don't pay the fine? Prison. What if you don't voluntarily go to prison? Force. — boethius

    Trying to equate vaccine passports to Nazi Germany, as you've continually tried to do, gives away the silliness of your position. As does using "medical procedure" instead of "getting the vaccine," etc. All fairly revealing.

    For the record, no one is proposing fines or prison -- or "papers." You're deliberately misleading people, during a pandemic, by characterizing things this way.

    but common pro-vaccine-mandate sentiments on the internet are: denying care to the vaccinated and making life impossible without your "papers". — boethius

    I guess this is all that's left: straw men.

    What a sad hill to die on.

    my basic point in this threat is that vaccine issues are no where close to the shape or age of the earth — boethius

    And repeated long-refuted claims.

    You're quickly becoming a joke.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    Obviously it's not legitimate for a lot of people considering many government have made no coercive measures. — boethius

    I'll repeat yet again: I'm talking about the United States. Whatever country you're referring to -- as most have mask and vaccine requirements -- I'm not sure, but it's irrelevant. Why? Because different situations call for different solutions. If every citizen vaccinated voluntarily (or 80-90% do) then no mandates are really necessary to begin with. In countries without an abundance of vaccines, a vaccine mandate makes almost no sense.

    In the United States, this is clearly legitimate use of power. I wish it didn't have to come to this -- but I wish we didn't have to go so far as to create laws for other issues as well, like drunk driving. Responding with "some countries don't have drunk driving laws" is equally irrelevant.

    Again, clearly not on the same level as flat earth and 6000 year old earth, which this thread is supposed to be equally about according to your own OP. — boethius

    I'll repeat, yet again: No one, including me, is equating a discussion on vaccine mandates and state power to Creationism. If you want to keep repeating falsehoods even after being corrected, you'll be ignored.

    The issue of the vaccine passport is "how much". But again, zero vaccine passports and no serious talk of making any where I live. — boethius

    Maybe it's impossible for you to understand that different countries are in different situations.

    This is exactly what I mean by a waste of time.

    If people were smart and decent, these measures wouldn’t have to be taken. So these proposals are necessary because all other rational pleas have failed.
    — Xtrix

    What about the "rational plea" to governments to contain the virus when it first broke out?     — boethius

    What about them? I was on here arguing in favor of much stronger measures. Take it up with the Trump administration.

    To point out another obvious fact: The Trump administration is not the same as the Biden administration.

    Trust needs to be earned. Governments that have not earned any trust shouldn't be surprised when they start to lose the basic trust needed to govern in the first place. — boethius

    Yes, which is why the question is a simple one: given the state exerts power all the time, in manifold ways, is this particular act of power legitimate or illegitimate. You're arguing for the latter, and you're wrong. You're wrong for myriad reasons.

    These mandates are not only just, but overdue -- given the situation in the United States (which is not Nigeria, or Australia, or Bhutan). The medical community (and medical ethicists) have fielded many questions about all of this, which are all over the internet and media if one deigns to read and listen, and they have been ignored -- by you, and by everyone else fighting against mandates. So now you have become what you're criticizing the Trump administration of doing.

    It doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer, but it certainly gives cover to them and legitimizes their position, during a time when we need everyone on deck for the common good.

    I haven't heard of police dragging anti-vaxxers off to a facility and forcefully vaccinating them. Anyone? — jorndoe

    Medicine/science informs, ethics/morals decides, policies/politics implements. Presently, getting vaccinated comes out on top. While partaking in society do we not also have at least some social obligations? Seems responsible to take part in stomping the pandemic down. — jorndoe

    Well said. Now comes the sophistry, the linguistic and logical gymnastics, the red herrings and whack-a-hole style argumentation -- one question answered (and ignored), another pops up (which has also been answered, and which is now re-stated). All in the (otherwise reasonable) name of freedom, autonomy, questioning of authority, liberty, suspicion of the state, and other important values -- all leveraged so that one can feel good about denying taking a damn vaccine.

    And they wonder why "patience is wearing thin."
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    The important point is that you haven't offered an argument that doesn't assume your conclusion is right. — Yohan

    So you wouldn’t go with the 99 doctors. Got it.

    I think that’s demonstrably stupid. Same as going with Alex Jones over the IPCC. You can apply the rationale you’re employing to this as well.

    As laymen, it’s prudent to listen to the consensus of experts. This is so commonsensical it’s essentially a truism. If you want to have an abstract, academic conversation about it, I’m not interested.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    People (especially in the US) need to work to survive; obviously it's coercion if "enough" jobs require vaccine that you cannot practically find work at a "normal level" (making you a second class citizen); likewise, suddenly changing the policy for professions that previously had no such requirement is coercive to people who depend on that profession and did not provide "informed consent" when they started in that career. — boethius

    That coercion is legitimate, considering the stakes. This is a public health issue. Likewise, school and work vaccines that have existed for decades are also legitimate.

    And, if few governments, including the US, have even implemented any such policy, seems just to support my view it's not obviously ethical, settled medical ethics question, which was the statement of yours I was responding to. — boethius

    The vaccine passport idea is perfectly ethical in situations I’ve heard so far: travel, concerts, etc. how else will we know if those are vaccinated or not?

    If people were smart and decent, these measures wouldn’t have to be taken. So these proposals are necessary because all other rational pleas have failed.

    What’s the alternative? Let things go on like this? Check out what’s happening in Idaho— with hospitals so overflowing they’re moving them to neighboring Washington state, with much higher vaccination rates.

    Right now, those who are unvaccinated are dying at a much higher rate, and taking up hospital beds.

    What about coworkers who don’t want to have a higher likelihood of getting infected do? Quit their jobs? Isn’t that also coercive?
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    The force is the fines or prison (and prison if you don't pay the fines); clearly using force. — boethius

    That's not on the table in the US. No one will be sent to prison. You get vaccinated or you don't come to work/school -- simple. That's coercion? Fine -- then it's excited for decades. Have you been against this for decades -- the measles and smallpox vaccines, for example? Tuberculosis shots for healthcare jobs? Etc?

    Why wasn't "flat earth" an issue of any relevance before? Because it's not an issue of any relevance now; and I'm pretty sure 99% of "true believers" only found out about it because the media turned it into some sort of relevant public debate (which it's not), I'm nearly 100% confident the entire flat earth content was started as a joke (extremely typical engineery / physicicsy joke material). — boethius

    I think similar things are happening here with the covid vaccines. But not only that -- when anything big happens, people feel the need to settle on an "opinion" and some memorized lines to say to friends and family.

    As far as flat earth -- I think a lot of it was a "joke" tweet by the basketball player Kyrie Irving.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    The title of the OP obviously makes all these issues "the same" with respect to the question of "worth engaging with". That's the question. — boethius

    As I mentioned before, only in the sense of irrationality -- immunity to facts, being non-persuadable, etc. Otherwise they're very disparate topics indeed -- and there are plenty of others.

    Again, if whole countries don't have mandated vaccines, it's no where close to "settled science" and "settled ethics" like the earth is round like a ball. — boethius

    No one has once equated the two. You're welcome to quote me, but you won't find it.

    What countries are you referring to? And the science is indeed settled, however governments wish to carry on about it. The advice from ethicists vary, depending on the country and its unique set of issues. I've restricted my criticism mostly to the US. Not every country has an abundance of vaccines, which also changes the dynamic.

    The world is a complex place.

    Norway is particularly interesting (because, it's not "unconstitutional", but they haven't don it, because competence generally means they don't really need to consider it): — boethius

    Fine -- good for them. The US wouldn't have needed to mandate vaccines if much of the population weren't being completely irresponsible. Now they've been pushed into doing so -- despite an abundance of vaccines, free vaccinations, convenient sites, etc.

    Do I wish our population were more like Norways? Yes, I do.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    What I am arguing here, however, is simply that these questions have far more room for legitimate debate than "the earth is flat" or "the earth is 6000 years old".

    Which is the only thing being grossly conflated in this thread.     — boethius

    No, they haven't been -- by anyone except you. Totally different topics, as was made clear a while back.

    There's sensible debate to be had about the legitimacy of state power, and whether vaccine mandates are an example of such. I get the concern. I'm not equating this with anti-vaxxers, and especially not flat Earthers. But I do think the case is clear cut and that people are arguing for the sake of argument -- typical in philosophy forums, I suppose.

    I so far haven't heard one good argument against the legitimacy of vaccine mandates for schools and in business, especially given they've been around for decades. Why the sudden outrage? We know why: because it's a current hot topic and has become politicized. So everyone comes out of the woodwork with an "opinion."
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    It's not deliberately conflating ... if there are governments that exist which are have zero coercive measures, and their politicians even say they couldn't legally do so without changing laws, maybe that makes the point it's obviously not basically unanimous medical ethical position to mandate / coerce / force vaccination; which was your original point. — boethius

    That's a political and legal issue. The WHO has been pretty clear on their recommendations. No one is saying we want to physically force people into vaccinations -- that's a false characterization and a red herring.

    Also, I'm talking about the United States. I can't speak for other countries, even though many have issued mandates -- including France, which I believe was one of the earliest.

    In places where governments weren't competent ... maybe those governments aren't competent generally speaking and we can maybe see why people have low trust in their government. — boethius

    Yes, but the Trump administration, which completely botched this entire thing by ignoring it and claiming it will "go away by Easter" (April of 2020), is no longer in charge of government.

    Biden's mandates should have happened months ago. They're legitimate, legal, and follow the advice of the medical community.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    You beg the question that the majority of scientists are more likely to be right. If we don't know anything else except the amount of doctors that advocate for surgery vs the amount that don't , that doesn't tell us who is more likely to be right. — Yohan

    It does. That's not what "begging the question" means. I wonder if you and AJJ are the same person.

    Anyway, I'm giving you an option. What would you do? You want to avoid that question out of fear it makes your position look ridiculous. But that's not the case. It's a straightforward example. The answer is clear: we'd listen to the 99 doctors. More experts working on the same issue and coming to the same conclusion to this degree is rare, but it happens. Which is why the consensus on climate change is over 97%. Knowing nothing else, you can argue that "doesn't tell us who is more likely to be right," but at that point you're off in space.

    Could they all be wrong and the 1 doctor right? Sure. That's possible. Maybe flat earthers have it right, who knows? There's a chance, I guess. How big a chance, would you say? 1%? .001%?

    But knowing nothing else, any sane person would go with the 99. Why? Because the overwhelming consensus on an issue among experts tells you something about the issue.

    Yes, I do assume overwhelming consensus has a greater likelihood of being true than not. That has nothing to do with "question begging". I was seeing if you came to the same conclusion. Apparently you don't. So be it.

    But again, my basic point is that this issue is obviously not on the same level as "the earth is flat" or "the universe is 6000 years old" which no one here is debating. — boethius

    No one said they were the "same."
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    No, it isn’t. You have no right to harm others.
    — Xtrix

    Well, that's the issue isn't it.

    A medical procedure is by definition harmful; so, what's your right to force / coerce people to have it?     — boethius

    "Medical procedure"? That's deliberately beefing up what amounts to a tiny prick of the arm. But so be it.

    I don't have a right to force people into doing the smart, relatively painless, socially responsible thing. I don't want the police going into people's homes and injecting them with a vaccine. I haven't seen anyone argue this. I've seen a lot of deliberate conflating, however.

    We do also have the right to life, health, and safety. This is where individual freedoms can be restricted, as the courts have ruled, if it has effects on other individuals. This is why we have smoking bans and hand washing laws. This is also why, more pertinent to this discussion, we have school and work mandates for vaccines, and have for years. We don't want smallpox and polio around -- we don't want COVID around.

    Plenty of schools and businesses have already mandated vaccines, before Biden's announcement the other day. Perfectly sensible. Is this "coercion"? Yes, but no different than "coercing" people into wearing clothes when they go into public places -- and, importantly, it has not been made "illegal" to refuse vaccines. Exceptions are always permissible, as well.

    https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/when-are-vaccine-mandates-appropriate/2020-01

    The entire question here, and has been from the beginning, is whether this (vaccine mandates) state / corporate power is legitimate or illegitimate, just or unjust. In this case, I think it's very clear that this is a legitimate use of power, and that those who disagree with this are simply overlooking what medical experts (and medical ethicists) have been saying, and misunderstand both basic functions of vaccines and the goals of herd immunity.

    Not forced any more than school and work vaccinations have been forced, for decades in fact.
    — Xtrix

    Not where I live: due to it being a forced medical procedure. Which you may disagree with, but the fact entire countries do actually implement a moratorium on forced / coerced medical procedures should be enough to support my claim there's legitimate debate on this issue ... whereas no country implements a "flat earth" based geologic and space institution.     — boethius

    Schools don't require vaccinations where you live? That's odd.

    But again, this isn't being "forced" in the sense you're meaning. You cannot be physically made to get the vaccine against your will. Likewise, you're not physically forced to wear clothes when going to school -- but you'll be asked to leave if you don't. That's a kind of "coercing" people to wear clothes, but it's not technically forcing anyone (flawed example, because we have laws on the books against public nudity).

    It's not even a medical procedure, so if that was their position on masks obviously forced / coerced vaccination is essentially no-doubt unconstitutional. — boethius

    The Supreme Court disagrees. I can't speak for other countries. Regarding mask mandates: most countries do, in fact, require masks -- unlike the US. They're even tougher than we have been.

    https://masks4all.co/what-countries-require-masks-in-public/

    There have been vaccine mandates for various professions and schools in the UK, Canada, Australia, Greece, France, etc.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    This seems an incredibly naive belief, and it is not a consensus in the medical ethics community. — boethius

    No, it isn’t. You have no right to harm others.

    Forcing everyone to undergo a medical procedure — boethius

    Not forced any more than school and work vaccinations have been forced, for decades in fact.

    And I am an ethicist and I think it is unethical. — Bartricks

    Because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Read more Caplan and learn something — that’s my advice.

    What's your view about unprotected sex? Should it be allowed? Spreads disease. Should we ban it? — Bartricks

    Imagine this is the level of thinking among “ethicists.” How sad.

    Protected sex should be encouraged, and has been for years.

    99 doctors to 1 doesn't translate to 99% odds, not if all we know is that they are doctors. — Yohan

    :roll:

    Yes, but that’s not the question.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    Correct. Thus there is no case for intervention. — Bartricks

    Wrong. The vaccine mandates are both ethical and effective — according to real medical ethicists.

    If people don’t want to vaccines, fine— then isolate yourself. You have no right to spread the virus to others — to the vaccinated or the unvaccinated.

    Bottom line.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    More non-defense of vaccine mandates from Caplan:

    “Liberty Inducers Are Effective and Ethical

    So, the political opponents are making a philosophical mistake about the kind of liberty at stake here. What about the pragmatic opponents who are concerned that more stringent tactics won't work?

    To them we say that liberty inducers 1) will work quickly enough, 2) will work broadly enough, and 3) will be ethically justified despite their having some negative consequences.

    First, liberty inducers will work quickly enough. There is a solid evidence base supporting mandates, passports, and the like. That support is found in data about laws and policies related to seat belts, smoking, and school-mandated childhood vaccinations, all of which achieved significant public health outcomes. These data cannot be dismissed by noting that the efforts took years while COVID-19 vaccine uptake is much more urgently needed. These past successes reveal that we have already laid the groundwork to support passports and mandates.

    Second, liberty inducers will work broadly enough. Polling shows that about 14% of Americans say they will "definitely not" get the vaccine and 3% will get it "only if required." These poll findings are misleading. The numbers would shift with different incentives and disincentives attached to vaccination status. Those stubbornly opposed to vaccination are viewing possibilities in the world as it is now. Liberty inducers alter that world. Intentions change with possibilities.

    Finally, liberty inducers are ethically justified. True, they will have some negative effects. They won't move everyone, and for those unmoved there will be consequences. But the unmoved will move on, and their private, temporary setbacks are justified by our liberation from COVID-19.“

    Yeah— he’s not “defending” anything. Nothing to see here.

    Imagine proudly describing yourself as an “ethicist,” inflating your importance and relevance while demoting doctors, and yet coming out against vaccine mandates because “if you’re vaccinated, what do you care?”

    Then deny that a much more respected (medical) ethicist isn’t really saying what he’s clearly saying because it undermines your uninformed, simplistic position.

    This, again, is why philosophy gets a terrible, terrible reputation and why science and medicine are far more respected. Philosophy students just spend way too much time in academic problems, not the real world.

    I don’t care what you label yourself, the answers here are clear (provided we know a little about vaccines). To get them exactly backwards isn’t surprising, actually.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    And what I want to know from you is whose rights those who freely decide not to take up a freely available vaccine are violating. — Bartricks

    No one’s. Same with the solitary drinker or drug user or smoker.

    But, once again, this isn’t close to the issue because no one, least of all me, have said this. So it’s a strawman or irrelevant.

    but he hasn't explicitly defended mandates in that article. — Bartricks

    :lol:

    “Rather than restricting liberty, these strategies are necessary to achieving it. COVID-19 vaccine passports and mandates are past due. They are not too coercive. They will produce quick results and save lives. Ethics falls on the side of creating liberty through freedom from plague. Dawdling around using failed strategies just means more misery and less freedom.” — Xtrix

    Whatever you say bud.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    But he doesn't explicitly defend them. — Bartricks

    He does, both here and in other things he’s written. Again, I’m sorry this runs counter to what you want to believe. I can’t help that.

    He says it’s what we ought to do, he calls it necessary, proper, necessary for achieving freedom, that they are not coercive, etc.

    Yet he’s not in favor of them or defending them?

    You’re just reducing yourself to a clown figure at this point.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    Description. Saying that X is necessary for Y is not the same as saying "we ought to do X". — Bartricks

    He’s in favor of vaccine mandates. Sorry you refuse to see this. He even gives you what you want: the “ought”.

    More:

    “Rather than restricting liberty, these strategies are necessary to achieving it. COVID-19 vaccine passports and mandates are past due. They are not too coercive. They will produce quick results and save lives. Ethics falls on the side of creating liberty through freedom from plague. Dawdling around using failed strategies just means more misery and less freedom.”

    Sounds like you? Don’t think so.

    I probably should have been a lawyer. — Bartricks

    Given your level of reading comprehension, your made the right move.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    So he was absolutely opposed to interfering with people's freedom of choice 'for their own good'. Which is what this is all about.

    If the vaccine works, then the unvaccinated pose no threat to the vaccinated.     — Bartricks

    This isn’t what it’s about. You continually get this exactly wrong.

    I’ll repeat it a thousand times: it’s not only a matter of “vaccines work, so why should we care what unvaccinated people do?” That’s just a mistake, and a common one. Considering you’ve tried setting yourself up as some kind of expert, this is striking. Why?

    Because breakthrough cases happen, as we’ve know all along, because those out there who aren’t eligible or can’t get vaccinated for other reasons are also vulnerable, because it’s impossible to get to herd immunity if 40% of the population refuses, because this allows the virus to mutate into more deadly variants, and because hospitalizations are overwhelming hospitals, leaving staff having to make extremely hard decisions.

    Anyone who feels entitled to give lectures on “ethics” has the minimal responsibility to take these factors into account. Apparently you haven’t, and instead settled upon a simplistic version of things one might easily hear from the likes of your average rural Trump enthusiast.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    No he isn't. — Bartricks

    Yes, this is exactly what he’s doing. “In addition to mandates” makes that clear, along with prior things he’s written. You’ve simply misread it because you don’t want it to be the case, unfortunately.

    But in that quote you just gave, he also does not explicitly defend mandates. He asks, "how ought we to solve it?" and then simply describes something, which is not the same as defending it. — Bartricks

    No, you’re wrong:

    “These tactics are necessary for protecting our communities and restoring our ways of life.”

    If this isn’t defending these policies, including mandates, I don’t know what is. He goes on even more explicitly, which I can quote as well.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    Maybe you should read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty". — Bartricks

    So the plot thickens. As I suspected, this is really just libertarian “principles” once again coming to absurd conclusions.

    JS Mill was a fine thinker. He’d also be in favor of these mandates, because he wasn’t an idiot.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    Just don't go to restaurants that allow smoking. — Bartricks

    Good luck finding one.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    No, he doesn't say that. — Bartricks

    Yes, he does. Hence the “in addition…” He’s building off of the necessity of mandates— it’s right in the title, in fact.

    But apparently you’re not familiar with Caplan at all. Because it’s obvious from his past comments where he stands on mandates. Since you seem to be struggling with this, I’ll quote directly:

    “How ought we solve this problem? One approach is to get tough on the unvaccinated. Examples include: vaccine passports (i.e., authentication for entry to private establishments); banning unvaccinated students from attending colleges and universities; vaccine mandates for private- and public-sector employees; and perhaps even a federal mandate for vaccination.

    These tactics are necessary for protecting our communities and restoring our ways of life. This plague has gone on for more than 18 months and will continue without these steps.”

    So, you’re simply wrong.

    He even goes on to discuss the opposition—of which you’d be included. Another interesting read for you. Odd that I have to point you to relevant literature, given your claims to be an ethics expert. But I digress.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    It’s unjust to force people not to smoke — or even not to do drugs, in my view. It’s just to prevent them from smoking in restaurants.

    I won’t let you dodge this: Do you agree with school vaccine mandates or not? Smoking bans?     — Xtrix
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    ↪Bartricks


    He's in favor of mandates. What he’s proposing in this article is something IN ADDITION to mandates.

    You’re not a careful reader.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    Dr Caplan - for it seems to me to bear closer resemblance to mine that it does to yours. — Bartricks

    “In this situation, those who do not vaccinate are not just risking their health, but putting others at risk of a disease that can harm and kill them. The unvaccinated include children who cannot be vaccinated, those who have access barriers, and vaccine refusers. Further, in those with immune disorders—or people with, for example, cancer—vaccine effectiveness is lower. The intentionally unvaccinated are also delaying the point at which we can resume prepandemic life, by prolonging the pandemic and creating a real risk of more variants emerging, including variants for which current vaccines would perhaps be less effective.

    One solution that some cities and states are seizing upon are mandates that limit the ability of those who choose not to vaccinate to risk others, by requiring vaccines as a condition for certain jobs or to attend university. We have no great choice here: limit liberty, or lose lives and lose liberty in the long-term, as the disease rages.

    But there are other policy options to consider in addition to mandates…“

    This really doesn’t sound like you at all. It sounds like me. Seems you don’t even agree with the first paragraph and have been continually arguing against that.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    So you picked up that he wasn't arguing for making people vaccinate. — Bartricks

    No one is arguing for that, as I said at the beginning. These mandates are not legal. You still have a choice— even if you view it as unfair, it’s still a choice. Besides, we have school mandates already.

    It’s unjust to force people not to smoke — or even not to do drugs, in my view. It’s just to prevent them from smoking in restaurants.

    I won’t let you dodge this: Do you agree with school vaccine mandates or not? Smoking bans?
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    But not their expertise in ethics? — Bartricks

    Whatever that may be, I’m in favor of it.

    I’m not in favor of demonstrably wrong suggestions based on misunderstanding science.

    You haven't said anything - anything - to challenge anything I've argued. — Bartricks

    I have— several times. I can’t help it if you can’t see that. I’ll gladly repeat myself if you’d like.

    Now, as for that article you linked to: did you read it yourself? — Bartricks

    I have. I also quoted from it a little.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    And what argument do you have? This is a philosophy forum - I've argued, you haven't. What's your argument? — Bartricks

    I’ve argued as well. Claiming I haven’t doesn’t change it. The responses are there, on record.

    I argue in favor of mandates. I argue why I’m in favor of mandates.

    I use the example of smoking, and asked several questions related to this example, which you’ve repeatedly ignored— I assume now on purpose. But it’s a relevant one, as are the facts of the case at hand.

    Lastly, and also ignored: we have had school and workplace vaccines requirements for DECADES. What do you make on those? Ethical— not ethical?
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    So, do you respect the views of ethicists or not? Or is it only when they say something you already agree with that you respect them? I am unclear what your position is. — Bartricks

    I respect them if they deserve it, for example by demonstrating a basic understanding of medicine and vaccines.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    ↪Bartricks


    Vaccine Mandates Aren’t Enough. Make Unvaccinated People Pay if They Harm Others.

    https://www.barrons.com/articles/coronavirus-vaccine-mask-mandate-unvaccinated-51627939803

    “Choices have consequences. Personal responsibility matters. Want to reject expert opinion and the established facts about Covid and put yourself and others at risk? Then you should pay, if your choice harms others.”


    If you’re interested.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    Oh, okay then. Good point. On an ethical issue - so an issue to do with what it is right or wrong to do - we should not listen to ethicists, but those with no expertise in ethics. — Bartricks

    We should — provided they understand the medical facts. Medical ethicists usually do. You — whatever you are — clearly do not. So your advice about what to do is, thus, misguided — as I’ve stated before.

    Should we ban smoking on airplanes and restaurants? If we think smoking is harmless for everyone besides the smoker, the ethicist will say “No, we shouldn’t ban smoking.”

    That ethicist would be wrong. Why? Because second hand smoke is indeed harmful to others.

    Also, there are medical ethics committees and those have ethicists on them. — Bartricks

    Sure. I have nothing against ethicists.

    Incidentally, medical ethicists I’ve read are in agreement about vaccinations.
    — Xtrix

    Really. Who?     — Bartricks

    I mentioned one already, who I’m sure you’re familiar with: Art Caplan. A medical ethicist. He’s strongly in favor of mandates. But that’s because he understands vaccines and the goals of vaccinations.

    But they'll have arguments for their view.....which is something you don't seem to have provided me with. — Bartricks

    I have, but you seem to be ignoring a great deal if them.

    Your statements about how people taking the vaccine shouldn’t be effected by what unvaccinated people do leads me to believe you really haven’t researched this deeply enough. I think reading Caplan is as good a place as any to start.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    ↪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?     — Xtrix
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    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.     — Bartricks

    This is really your reasoning?

    Did you say you were an “ethicist”?

    And they're not ethicists, so perhaps they don't understand the ethical significance of this issue. — Bartricks

    Or perhaps you don’t understand medicine or virology— which is in fact the case, given what you’ve said so far.

    There’s a reason doctors get more respect and prestige than philosophers. I sense you’re a little perturbed but this.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    No, Riled-up, it is 'ethicists' we should be listening to. — Bartricks

    No, it’s doctors we should be listening to. Mostly virologists, epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, etc.

    What’s “riled-up” mean here?

    Ethicists are experts on what it is right or wrong to do. Doctors are not. — Bartricks

    Doctors don’t consult “ethicists” in the ER. Medical ethicists — like Art Kaplan — are useful for tricky issues, but it’s usually very clear what is to be done. If someone is rushed in and needs surgery to live, you give them surgery. You don’t consult an ethicist about whether it’s right or wrong.

    Incidentally, medical ethicists I’ve read are in agreement about vaccinations.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    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.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    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.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    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.
Home » Mikie