181–190 of 234 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Why in 2023 people still believe that C19 mRNA prevents infecting others? This myth has long been classified as wrong (unlike advertised in the beginning of its rollout)
Because it does. Your chances of getting and spreading COVID for the 3 months after you get a vaccine drop dramatically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> very specific kind of mindset about who should be the ultimate authority on their child What are you referring to here?
They believe as a parents, they have all of the specific knowledge required to give their child the best possible life. While ignoring pediatricians and teachers. I wasn't referring to myself in any way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>gov has the responsibility to take care of all people. This is where the fundamental disagreement lies. Many people including myself do not agree with this statement and view that statement itself as totalitarian It IS NOT the government role to take care of me. I do NOT need or want the government to provide that service In a free society the government is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It…
It's not about you. It's about the society. And I'm fine if people don't like this but I already said what this is: antisocial.
There is nothing social about government, government is force, government is coercion
You can not claim to replace personal responsibility, community, family, etc with a system of governance that by its very nature achieves is objective exclusively by the threat of violence on a population as being the more "social" way to have a society
Social societies are bound by a sense of community and voluntary action, not by government mandates and regulations enforced by police and regulators.
Government is Anti-Social.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You are saying a lot for just being very anti social, anti human etc. No a public health system is not totaliarism. A gov has the responsibility to take care of all people. This also means that the individual might need to play a game they don't always like. That's how a good stable society works. And just because you are (I guess) in the position to pay for medical, your neighbor might not. What society would that b…
There is nothing more anti-social or anti-human than public health. Look at what they did to us. They stopped people visiting their dying parents in hospitals in a failed attempt to stop the spread of an airborne virus. They told people not to get close to each other, they shut down as much of the economy as they could. They forced us all behind screens, to rely for everything on enormous tech firms that automate every interaction. Absolutely every single action they took was calculated to maximally destroy the humanity of society because they believed, wrongly, that each naturally human act they destroyed was increasing transmission by some trivial percent. And then when Sweden ended up with some of the best results in Europe they ignored it and pretended it didn't exist.
"The only reason you can use the internet is a stable functioning society."
The internet was created by the least totalitarian society on Earth due to fear of attack by the USSR, a maximally totalitarian society that never developed an equivalent to TCP/IP, never even successfully developed a software industry. And today one of the countries that restricts the internet the most, is the country that was welding people into their apartments long after the rest of the world got over COVID and moved on. We can use the internet today because luckily, some people recognized the dangers of totalitarian collectivism and resisted it. Now we must do the same for public health, otherwise next time it's gonna be us behind the welded doors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a strawman. If the state disallows you from murdering your child, they have authority over you. There are court cases every year where parents who kill their kids get convicted and sent to jail. Who had authority? The people who went to jail, or the people who sent them there? > I'd rather have a distributed system of parents putting a majority of their time and attention into figuring out what's best for th…
> I would rather have the state disallow murdering children rather than each parent deciding for themselves if they should be able to murder their kid. You're the only one here who has said anything about parental authority overriding the murdering-is-bad laws that most countries seem to have. The state disallows murdering children in the same way it disallows murdering anyone else - via general laws that are nonspec…
If you want to replace "murder" with "beat" or "starve" or "sexually molest" or whatever else, feel free. Murder is not a special case. Parents do not have ultimate authority over their children. It can be easily seen through example in the real world.
> Except that what you're advocating for isn't intervention in just those cases. You're also advocating that the state intervene in cases where: the treatment is harmful to the child, and the well-educated parent knows it, but the state thinks it's for the best, and causes harm to the child. And you're justifying it by saying the parents shouldn't be allowed to murder their kid. Which is really weird logic.
I am not trying to advocate for, nor justify anything. I'm simply saying that the state does not allow parents free reign to do whatever they want to their children, simply because they're parents. Murder is an obvious example, but the state also disallows lots of other things. If parents had ultimate authority over their children, the state could not allow or disallow anything, because they would have no say in the matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You can't delete public health and expect unchanged levels of care individually. Health at the individual level very much depends on public health policies. Don't believe me? Have fun watching your newborn die from whooping cough!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Either parents should be allowed to kill their children on a whim without consequence, or parents are not the ultimate authority over their children. They are mutually exclusive beliefs. Children aren't property. They're human beings that deserve the protection of the state. Sometimes that means protection FROM their parents.
> Either parents should be allowed to kill their children on a whim without consequence, or parents are not the ultimate authority over their children. They are mutually exclusive beliefs. That's either a weird strawman, or you missed the point of what "ultimate authority" means here. The question is who gets the final say in how the child is cared for - if the parent thinks that something is harmful to the child, an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, you can't back up the converse with long terms studies either. Just infer the very reasonable "based on the information available". And it's not like the vaccines are a complete unknown. Making them work at all takes a huge level of understanding.
I know, that is my point. Parenting is a juggling of risks. "based on the information available" And the information avaiable is confusing and partly contradictory. I know that many researchers advised against child vaccination, because of the unknowns and the low risk for the children from the disease in the first place. "Making them work at all takes a huge level of understanding." It does, but it would be news to…
Also we who were called "anti-vax", were not actually anti vaccine. We were just skeptical that these vaccines were all they were cracked up to be, and wanted choice an freedom to make our own decisions without coercion.
To call us anti-vax was a deliberate smear and a straw-man, of our (now vindicated) concerns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know, that is my point. Parenting is a juggling of risks. "based on the information available" And the information avaiable is confusing and partly contradictory. I know that many researchers advised against child vaccination, because of the unknowns and the low risk for the children from the disease in the first place. "Making them work at all takes a huge level of understanding." It does, but it would be news to…
Completely agree. Also we who were called "anti-vax", were not actually anti vaccine. We were just skeptical that these vaccines were all they were cracked up to be, and wanted choice an freedom to make our own decisions without coercion. To call us anti-vax was a deliberate smear and a straw-man, of our (now vindicated) concerns.
edit: I was vaccinated, but I can understand people who refused the new vaccines