Figurative, it's easy to ignore when those power plants get started in third world countries, when it's NY it's suddenly much harder to ignore the reality.
"One can either be part of society or not. Society has minimum requirements if one wants to participate"
You make it sound as if there is a fixed, god given set of rules for society. That's not the case. Societies rules are constantly being negotiated by society.
So your argument is not an argument at all. It boils down to "you have to follow the rules because you have to follow the rules".
Hobbes lays out a mixture of natural/God aspects and society negotiated aspects. But I think they all boil down to an ongoing slow shift of what society accepts as a whole.
I think society has opinions and ideas that evolve into ethics and morals that are represented in laws.
It’s not a secret. In this case, rights are curtailed to require vaccines. This is deemed acceptable. If you don’t like it, convince your country mates to change their mind. Or move to a country that feels differently. Or move to the wilderness.
Yes, certainly. The ongoing discussion is going on right now, we’re part of it as a very small amount of two strangers talking. I think it’s usually informal, but sometimes through debates, books, essays, etc. A good example are the Federalist Papers in the 18th century with back and forth on topics that ended up being articulated in the constitution, bill of rights, etc.
I think it also varies from country to country as it varies quite a bit.
But negotiation often isn't occurring in good faith. There's way too much flat-earth- holocaust-denial- style arguments from those who "just don't want to be told what to do". Getting vaccinated doesn't take away someone's liberties; "I don't want to be told what to do" is not an argument against vaccination. Many of these people are just making noise, and it's getting old.
I'm not saying there aren't good arguments for not getting vaccinated, but it falls flat when those same people got vaccinated in order to attend public school or have state issued IDs or use passports or will bitch about a loved one dying because they failed to get vaccinated.
Tone and discourse. We're not debating the merits of vaccinations here. We're talking about how this way of making conversation is ultimately toxic.
> There's way too much flat-earth- holocaust-denial- style arguments from those who "just don't want to be told what to do".
This is how you want the discourse to look like? Somebody puts an argument, and gets labeled flat earther.
Do you know Gell Mann amnesia? I shared an article the other day on facebook and got it flagged as "out of context". As it happens, it was something not out of context, just slightly against the mainstream. What do you think this did to my confidence in the mainstream?
And before you say that my article must have been wrong, let me remind you that the mainstream was against wearing masks 12 months ago. Hell, CDC was against wearing ffp2 masks... I don't know, 3 months ago?
Civil discourse and tone are much more important long term than just winning conversation points. Sure, go for points if you want. But every time you say things like "flat earth", you take a small chip out of the boat we're all in.
Mandating medical interventions is pretty much taking away someone's liberties. And your opinions about other people's opinions are also irrelevant as an argument.
Are you daft? I'm not offering what I think of other people's opinions as an argument about vaccination. I'm responding to your assertion that there is actually valuable debate to be had with rubes whose only argument is "I don't like being told what to do".
Except that the people who are worried can simply get vaccinated themselves.
There may be a few people who can not be vaccinated (old and very sick), but it hardly seems appropriate to restrict billions of people just to protect those few. It would be more efficient to isolate them, which most of them probably already are (in care homes or hospitals).
Seems incredibly selfish to force vulnerable people into isolation because some people allow themselves to get absorbed into conspiracy theories about a harmless vaccine.
Requiring certain vaccines for travel has been something that has existed for decades and was never controversial.
It's not a harmless vaccine. You want to mandate vaccinating people who are at no risk from the disease, and expose them to unnecessary risks. And that means children - all to protect sick people who for the most part are already isolated. They are in hospitals or sick people homes, where you can protect them in other ways.
Also the comparison with other vaccines does not automatically make sense. All vaccines are not the same. At least in my country, so far recommendations for vaccinations had been "conservative" to only vaccinate against things that seem especially risky. There is a reason why people are not simply being vaccinated against all possible diseases.
First of all it’s entirely false that it’s just “sick and old” people affected; there are also children and young adults with immune disorders who can live somewhat normal lives today because of minor sacrifices from others such as vaccinations. Secondly, sick and old people are also human beings who deserve consideration.
We mandate that people take all kinds of minor risks in life; that’s always been part of being in a society.
The reason vaccine advice is conservative is because anti-intellectualism and belief in conspiracy theories has gone off the charts and politicians now have to coddle these people. It’s a collective mental illness.
There is a nonzero risk to the vaccination. I really don't understand why you consider the plight of the people who can't get vaccinated, and dismiss the plight of the people who die or come down with severe disabilities from the vaccination.
The mental disease of many anti-intellectuals and conspiracy theorists is the inability or refusal to understand scale and proportion; it's the single source of an enormous amount of flawed logic.
Scale and proportion is the reason. 7 per 1,000,000 risk of blood clotting if you are a woman between 18-49 (and basically no risk if you're a man or outside that range, or use one of the vaccines that have not shown this risk). This is on the level of shark attacks and getting hit by lightning. Actually getting COVID has more serious risks and a much higher rate of being affected by them.
We regularly ask of citizens to do things that have a 7 per 1,000,000 risk of injury; it's a reasonable ask.
Your comparison does not make sense, though. The question is, how many people who are not at risk from the disease do you have to vaccinate, and how many people are there who can not be vaccinated and would contract Covid-19. Let's say with your numbers there are thousands of (young) people who die from the vaccination. How many people who can't be vaccinated would die if those young people would not get the vaccination?
What other risky things to we ask citizens to do, exactly? People certainly choose to do other risky things. But how many are mandated?
Even if we're only talking about 18-29, there have been 2,100 deaths from COVID in that age group in the US already. Even in the most generous interpretation, that means that it would be at least 10 times as dangerous for someone in that age group not to get vaccinated than it would to be vaccinated. The numbers are so blatantly obviously in favor of having everyone vaccinated.
Anyway, I'm done feeding a troll account created today.
I should have added - risky for the person who might contract the disease.
In any case, yes, both disease and vaccination have risks, that should be weighed against each other. Matters are complicated because risks differ among different age groups.
Vaccines aren't 100% bullet proof. The few people effected are still people. If you were one of them, wouldn't you be fairly distraught by your point of view?
> So she was popular and so - that probably was true for many, many people throughout history.
The weird thing is that she seems to have been popular, yet she isn't mentioned (so far as I can tell) in the main sources of pre-20th c. biography (e.g. the DNB). Uncovering such minor but influential figures that hadn't yet been comprehensively described has always been a main interest of historians and antiquarians, so I think this author's work can be described as a very real accomplishment.
Even describing the lives of normal people would be interesting. The problem is that "feminist scholarship" carries a very real risk of history revisionism.
