An unvaccinated person is more likely to spread the disease than a vaccinated one. — Athena

Completely untrue, which is why this argument has long since been abandoned and replaced for the "unvaccinated put more pressure on health services"-argument, which seems to be just as baseless, since in my country about 80% of the people on the IC are vaccinated, in a country where about 80% of the people are vaccinated (Implying there is little to no correlation).

It is not a human right to spread disease. — Athena

An unvaccinated person isn't really more infectious than a vaccinated person. In fact, natural immunity is more effective and effective longer than a vaccine. — Tzeentch

... your principle is not based on right to bodily autonomy. — James Riley

It most certainly is.

There is little a government can take from me that I put any value in, but it can make life impossible to the degree where I have no choice. If you are against that, then we are, roughly speaking, on the same page.

You have not right to interfere with the bodily autonomy of others by injecting them with your virus. — James Riley

Take your virus home and play with it all you want. But don't come out and interfere with the bodily autonomy of everyone else. — James Riley

An unvaccinated person isn't really more infectious than a vaccinated person. In fact, natural immunity is more effective and effective longer than a vaccine. This is more "us versus them" narrative; baseless and inflammatory.

Serious question; how many shots will you take before you object? Five? Ten? At what point will you understand that people do draw a line and say "I will take no more"? Or will you follow authority without question, and expect everyone else to do the same?

That may be true when it comes to exercising rights. But rights must be distinguished from privilege. The courts long ago drew that distinction with driving. — James Riley

The right of autonomy over one's own body is not a priviledge, it is a human right.

Right to Integrity of the Person

From the United Nations website:

Not only is bodily autonomy a human right, it is the foundation upon which other human rights are built.

It is included, implicitly or explicitly, in many international rights agreements, such as the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Human rights are the bottomline to which we hold states, and indeed all that seperates us from chimpanzees - the sole achievement of mankind over its animal nature over the course of thousands of years.

The two cannot even remotely be compared. A bit stunning people need to be told the importance of human rights on a philosophy forum.

However, Covid only killed 700+k in the U.S. and some millions world wide; largely people that the anti-vaxxers don't care about. — James Riley

But you care, of course, for every single one of those people I'm sure. Because you tell yourself you're a 'good guy', and I'm a 'bad guy'. Quit the framing already, it's predictable and boring.

You are afraid of a vaccine. — James Riley

Not really. I refuse to take the vaccine out of principle.

(PS: I am not an "anti-vaxxer" - I respect people's right to make a decision as much as I expect them to respect mine)

Yep. That's right. When Covid is suffocating you to death and you're tearing at your throat with your fingernails because you cannot breathe, you can relax because it's really just about safety v. "freedom," free press, academic independence, and corporate power. — tim wood

You may choose to live in fear. I do not. That is why I am reasonable, and you are not.

"Unalienable right?" And what right would that be that you're referring to? — tim wood

Human Rights Principles :roll:


Not sure what your whole spiel is supposed to convey. :chin:

You think your tirades and personal attacks will convince me of anything other than your deplorable character?

And that is the problem, you a few million others do not think they are responsible. — Athena

And they aren't. If you believe the "unvaccinated" are responsible for the covid pandemic, you have simply fallen for the government's "us versus them" narrative hook, line and sinker.

Moreover, If people exercising an unalienable right is a problem to a society, then the society is the problem. Those rights were instated as the absolute lowest standard of what can be considered humane and legitimate statescraft.

I remember page after page of condemnation of Israeli actions towards Palestinians, and the double standard is remarkable. How did we enjoy Israeli framing of Palestinians as a threat to safety, potentially being infected with the virus (terrorism)? The indignation knew no end.

But sprinkle a little fear in people's minds, or tickle their desire for control over others and now we're here.

"Creating and Destroying a Civilization" — Athena

And what is this, if not an attempt at more framing of "the enemy"?

"The unvaccinated" are now a threat to civilization?

The types that use this sort of language either have their rational minds paralyzed with fear, or are drunk on power.

The dilemma is about safety versus liberty, the boundaries we put on those in power; it is about the free press, the independence of academia and the growing power of multinationals.

It hardly gets more political than this, and science provides no answers to any of these dilemmas.

Maybe you believe the narrative that there is no moral dilemma, that safety provides a limitless mandate for the use of power and the breaching of human rights, and that the power of science in the hand of our omnibenevolent and incorruptable governments ran by philantropists will lead us to the promised land. A road to hell, to be sure.

People who refuse to get vaccinated are holding us all hostage. — Athena

No. Your government is keeping you hostage with the way it frames and deals with the issue. This line of argumentation is dependent on whether all the measures taken to combat the virus are effective, and there are plenty of indicators that they aren't. (A report made by the Dutch government itself estimated that the Covid measures taken had saved around 100,000 QALY's, and cost a whopping 620,000 QALYs for a net loss of 520,000 QALYs in the Netherlands alone. This report was, predictably, ignored.)

People who are vaccinated still contract and transmit the virus, and to think things would go back to normal if everyone were vaccinated is an illusion. This is all about control.

... people think their liberty comes first and all of us are paying a price for that. — Athena

Certain liberties, unalienable human rights of which the right to autonomy over one's own body is the most fundamental, are the only thing that seperates us from the era of Sun Kings and Mao Zedongs, and indeed all that stops human society from being a thinly veneered group of apes.

If history has taught us one thing, it is that humans are incapable of wielding certain types of power, and that those who tend to wield power are in fact least fit to wield it. That's why human rights exist, and this understanding should form the basis of any mandate given to states to wield power over individuals.

How do you take responsibility for the skyrocketing infection rate that has returned us to the worst of times? — Athena

I don't need to take responsibility, because I am not responsible.

If you got covid and had to be hospitalized... — Athena

But I do not.

Driving is a serious responsibility, especially when I have passengers. I make every effort to do so responsibly and that is equal to getting vaccinated. — Athena

Well, I don't think that is enough. I think you should drive a bike instead of being so reckless to drive a car and take a risk with other people's lives. Would be better for the environment too.

We took our democracy for granted and this was a mistake. — Athena

We took our military superiority for granted and this may have been a mistake? — Athena

And now you are taking your liberties and human rights for granted, and in fact squandering them for the promise of safety. That is most certainly a mistake; a Trojan horse.

But as our soldiers risk their lives for the rest of us, we must take that individual risk for the good of all. — Athena

That might be your view, but I disagree that one can simply decide for another what individual risks they should or shouldn't take, moreso because it concerns their most valuable human right: that of autonomy over their own body.

Our refusal to take the risk to protect others means we can be the carrier who infects others, leading to their suffering, their possible long-term poor health, and possibly their death. — Athena

The chance of me infecting someone and them undergoing serious health problems as a result of it is no bigger than the risk of stepping into a car and causing a collision: very, very small. I am healthy, and wise enough to take caution around vulnerable people.

You may say something like: but if everyone thinks that way, it will pose a risk to people, etc.
To that I say, I accept responsibility only for my voluntary actions, and no one else's.

Point me to the person I hurt by refusing this vaccine, and I will take responsibility. But you cannot, because likely there are none, and I won't accept your claim to my body on the basis of empty accusations.

Does a valuable member of society put everyone else at risk? — Athena

What I assume you consider valuable members of society put everyone else at risk every day. They step in cars, they don't get their flu shots, they procreate, they smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, etc.
To cherry pick one particular risk and assign it so much weight is completely inconsistent and unconvincing.

Besides, what "society" considers valuable is of no concern of mine. I think "society" in a general sense is terribly dysfunctional.

What is the honor of behaving as a soldier who flees to save his own life? — Athena

War is a pointless, tragic thing. Honor is the carrot "society" has used for centuries to lure its young men into an untimely death for the benefit of the few. The individual shouldn't accept to be sacrificed on the altar of the collective; not in war, not in a pandemic.

Seems like you're intent on spinning the "religion bad" yarn which I am not interested in and also isn't particularly relevant to the topic at hand.

If your point is that individuals have used religion as an excuse to do terrible things, I wouldn't disagree. However, I believe that says more about the nature of man than it does about the nature of religion.

At the "heart" of religion (esoterica) is "the mystery"; the rest (exoterica) is public-facing, dumbed down, ritual reenactments via mneumonic narratives of aspects (metaphors?) of "the mystery". Philosophy is the rational exorcism of self-abegnating, stupifying, infantalizing, reality-denying/escapist "mysteries" of which religion (i.e. cultic (conspiratorial) thinking) consists. — 180 Proof

The same can be said for any human field of thought. At the heart of our reality lies a mystery, and philosophy is there to expose our ignorance first and foremost, and if we're lucky offer some wisdom and understanding along the way.

Both a theist and an atheist can philosophize about the existence of God til the cows come home and in the end, their positions are unlikely to change. One difference is that the theist relies on authority and has faith in that authority. Has any theist alive today come up with the idea of God, and a whole belief system that surrounds it, themselves? — praxis

No one alive today has created their concept of reality all by themselves.

I'm saying that religion requires hidden ultimate "truths" and it's that inaccessibility that gives the religious authority their power. — praxis

The philosophical and spiritual concepts underlying religions are well-documented and accessible to all who would put in the time and effort, so I don't see how this is true.

I'm also not sure how this relates to the topic at hand.

Theology seems to float somewhere in between religion and philosophy. In the end, it seems inquisitive minds are drawn towards the same questions (and answers?), whether their roots be religious or secular.

In the context of your original question, it might be worth making a distinction between religion and spiritual teachings or wisdom tradition.

Religion, I think, is essentially the practice of a certain spiritual teaching or wisdom tradition by a large group of individuals. By this distinction, if you were to ask me whether religion and philosophy are complementary, I am not so sure. However, if you were to ask me whether spiritual teachings or wisdom traditions are complementary with philosophy then there'd be no doubt in my mind that they are!

Sounds reasonable except for the fact that no one understands religious philosophy. — praxis

Countless books have been written on the subject. I don't know why you would say this.

No one can answer questions at the "heart" of any religion. — praxis

Perhaps not, but no one can answer the questions at the heart of philosophy either.

That is a necessary condition because religion requires faith, and ultimate authority to have faith in. You cannot have an exoteric religion because it would not require faith and religious authority. — praxis

It's the exoteric part that requires faith, however the esoteric part focuses, like any philosophy, on understanding.

Faith replaces understanding for the exoteric, because understanding simply isn't a reasonable goal for most people. Most people aren't philosophers, and most can't understand complicated philosphical concepts or simply lack the interest to put in the effort required to understand them.

So why is philosophy not vulnerable, or less vulnerable, to abuse and religion is vulnerable? — praxis

Philosophy and religion are very different in nature. A dependency on authority and faith applies in a general sense to religion. It does not apply to philosophy. Philosophy is about truth and understanding, and concepts like faith and authority should be dirty words in philosophical circles!

Esoteric knowledge requires faith in authority, and because they are final answers it requires ultimate authority. Ultimate authority = power. — praxis

This is not necessarily true. If the esoteric teachings are of a philosophical nature, as I said, authority and faith would not be a part of them. Esoteric means nothing other than "hidden" (from the common eye). There is no element of faith or authority, or even religion in there.

Go to the heart of any religion and you will find philosophy. What we have come to know as religion is simply an exoteric representation of a philosophy, because the nature of philosophy is such that it cannot necessarily understood by everyone. The issue is that religion is thereby also vulnerable to being tainted by the less luminous, being used as a tool of power, etc. Perhaps this is the reason that spiritual teachings have a tendency to split into an eso- and exoteric part.

Designer babies - perfect humans, even mentally and physically "enhanced" - become a possibility but what are costs? — TheMadFool

Projecting our (generally ignorant?) ideas of perfection onto individuals even before they are born, I fear it will be destructive beyond imagination.

Aside from potentially being able to avoid/cure genetic defects, I think this idea is very perverse.

Definition of "Unspeakable"

1. not able to be expressed in words.

"I felt an unspeakable tenderness towards her"

Similar: indescribable; beyond words; beyond description; inexpressible; unutterable; indefinable; beggaring description; ineffable; unimaginable; inconceivable; unthinkable; unheard of; marvellous; wonderful

2. too bad or horrific to express in words.

"a piece of unspeakable abuse"

Similar: dreadful; awful; appalling; horrific; horrifying; horrible; terrible; horrendous; atrocious; insufferable; abominable; abhorrent; repellent; repulsive; repugnant; revolting; sickening; frightful; fearful; shocking; hideous; ghastly; grim; dire; hateful; odious; loathsome; gruesome; monstrous; outrageous; heinous; deplorable; despicable; contemptible


Gnosticism is heresy! — TheMadFool

A more fitting word would perhaps be unintelligible.

Ergo, cannot be understood through the intellect.

Plato and the (Neo)Platonics said things very similar. Lao-Tze wrote: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."

The vaccines are safe and effective, as has been demonstrated over and over again. That’s science. That’s mathematics. — Xtrix

The science is pretty unanimous about the fact that for healthy, young people below 35, the chance of getting seriously ill from a covid infection is much smaller than the chance of experiencing serious adverse effects from a vaccination. This is why countries still governed with a shred of sense, like Denmark and Norway, have stopped advertising vaccination for these demographics.

So why do you so readily wish to expose others to these risks? Is it a blind trust in authority? A subconscious urge to power perhaps?

Can't help but see parallels between the arguments put forward by you and those of anti-abortionists.

For a certain type of ideas (usually socio-political ones), it could be said that they become a substitute for an individual's identity. Therefore, when these ideas are challenged, the individual treats it like an attack on their very being.

"Identification with the cause becomes so central and primary [in profilicity] that, strangely enough, one prefers news that the problem is really as bad as one fears it is - since this affirms the value of the cause, and thereby of one's identification with it. If climate change or civil rights should turn out no longer to be an issue, the identity of those identifying with these with these causes would be undermined and deflated. One's profile - built and maintained with sometimes a lifetime of effort, and in which one is thus deeply invested - would lose its social validity and become obsolete. The stronger the identification with a cause, the more the care for the cause also becomes the care for oneself." - Hans-Georg Moeller and Paul D'Ambrosio, You and Your Profile.

I have all the facts and therefore your rights now belong to me!

Evil could be understood as belief in that which isn't. Lies, (self-)deceit, illusions, ignorance, etc.

There's only two flavors of politics. The path of force (authoritarianism) and the path of freedom (libertarianism). Everything in between is opinion, and more often than not, hypocrisy.

So you're a protector of the people!

How noble.

Mankind can rest easy, knowing that stalwart proponents of their well-being such as yourself decided that the forced parting with perhaps the most fundamental of human rights, from which many other human rights flow forth, was deemed "in their best interest".

Glad we have folks like that around to tell us when it is time to rewind centuries of enlightened thought to keep us safe from what sensible countries are now treating as a severe flu.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that those who would argue in favor of using government coercion to force people into getting vaccinated, simply do so out of a sense that authority should always be followed.

If governments are acting contrary to human rights, willfully misinforming their populations about the health risks, instating medical apartheid etc. the only people who are not on their hind legs drawing a line are the ones that love authority. If one doesn't draw the line here, I doubt one has a line at all, and will simply "follow orders" (aka the Nuremberg Defense) wherever they may lead.

Historically speaking, the authoritarians are almost always the majority. Why? Perhaps because being under authority provides a sense of safety and stability, and a sense one cannot be held accountable as long as the authorities are responsible. Perhaps it is a natural tendency of the powerless to want to follow authority - If they cannot be powerful themselves, at least they can comfort themselves they're rooting for the winning team, in an attempt to satiate their will to power through a surrogate.

If you willfully participate in the ostracization of people for exercising their inalienable right to bodily autonomy, you were never a gentleman to begin with.

Coupled with the threatening language - sheer frustration because one's will isn't being carried out: you are a powerless dictator, an inept tyrant, and you hardly find yourself out of company on this forum.

The seeds of tyranny live in all of us, but nowhere does it flourish quite like in the minds of arrogant intellectuals.

I would invite you to turn those attempts at psycho-analysis on yourself first.

Plenty. Human degeneracy is a favorite topic of mankind's past and present intellectuals.

It is authoritarianism pur sang. The lofty ideals that are being preached are little more than a pretense to soothe the conscience while the fundaments of what made human society progress from apes are being ripped out from under it.

We've seen this before. History is full of it, sadly. It always starts with good intentions (or at least, allusions to such) and the idea that human rights are just a set of rules, and rules are there to be broken.

Though I think seldom humanity was betrayed for such a small sum.

Yes, a constitution is undemocratic. It is not written "by the people".

It is necessary, because as history has proven, it is entirely possible for majorities to democratically come to actions which are contrary to what we have come to see as unalienable human rights.

The minority must have some protection from "the tyranny of the majority", especially when that majority behaves in malevolent ways. Never forget that the national-socialist party in 1930's Germany was democratically elected.

Anyone who thinks risk is the main reason people resist is missing the point.

Governments are invading the lives of citizens, censoring information, constantly in contradiction and spreading information that is factually false, acting in contempt of human rights and their own constitutions.

Anyone who isn't on their hind legs yet, is an ignorant. Sorry, there is no other way around it.

I suspect that this statement is just the superficial rationalization of something deeper and darker: a fundamentally individualistic view point, in which the individual and his choices are mythologized and glorified, while anything collective (e.g. a nation, a policy or a private firm) is vilified or mistrusted, as standing in the way of personal realization... Atlas Shrugged and all that neoliberal BS. — Olivier5

However interesting your psycho-analysis may be, have you ever considered that there are people who genuinely believe that goverments (and now large industries too) are increasingly invading the private lives of people, and that this is a problem?

I advise you to read a few documents on human rights, rights to bodily autonomy, or what countries' constitutions have to say about privacy, and the relation between the state and citizens' private lives. Maybe you'll start to realize that we are taking a step back in time, forgetting the lessons of the Enlightenment where humanity (almost) collectively realized that individuals are not owned, and should never be owned by states.

Maybe apply some of that psycho-analysis to those who follow authority unquestioningly, and get so angry when they see individuals who refuse to do the same.

Which would lead to my personal take on what 'power' is. Intended action resulting in intended outcomes. I think power in this sense is both rare and almost impossible to recognise given that we have very little in the way of measuring such things. — I like sushi

Intentionally doing harm is much easier than intentionally doing good. So it seems the power to harm is much less rare than the power to do good.

I think that is a great argument for why even genuinely well-intentioned people should be cautious when offering their help to someone.

People who like to control others will seek out the means to control others. People who care for others will seek out the means to control others too. — I like sushi

Individuals who truly care for others will not seek to control them, will not pressure or persuade. To help someone is to bring someone to insight voluntarily, and allow them to subject your advice to all scrutiny and critical thought, and not to be satisfied with anything less.

"The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it gives the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." - Albert Camus

Read this thread and tell me he wasn't right.

... except prophylactic medicine, apparently, where the left are not only happy to hand over control to a private corporation, but then spend the majority of their time doing their fucking advertising for them. — Isaac

Best to call it out for what it is: authoritarianism. The left's version has always been will to power masquerading as philanthropy. Offer a moral pretense to soothe the conscience and these people will happily forfeit all your rights for the thinnest of perceived benefits, but mostly to pat their own back.

A non-rational argument is a contradiction in terms so I have no clue whatsoever what your point is. — Benkei

You've accused me of not being able to read in the past. :chin:

Obviously decisions about your body need to be weighed against the interest of others if those decisions have consequences for others and once you reached a conclusion you'll have to argue for it. — Benkei

My decision to get vaccinated or not, does not hold any direct consequences for anyone but myself.

A start to at least get a meaningful conversation going is that both sides realise they've not rationally arrived at their position, unless they're expert epidemiologists or virologists and some doctors, and stop assuming only the other is irrational. — Benkei

When making decisions about one's own body, there isn't a need for one's arguments to be understood as rational anyway.

That changes when one starts projecting one's emotions on the outside world and expect others to live by the same chains as oneself.

Covid-19 in Norway can now be compared to the flu, says health chief

Put down your pitchforks and clean your breeches folks.

There isn't such a thing as "climate denial". No one denies the climate exists, and most people do not deny that it changes either.

It's also a bit naive to believe that only one side of the debate is susceptible to charlatanry or fallacy.

I wish we could just let the terminal cretins live or die on their own term, triage them out of healthcare somehow. Save resources for the rest of us. But no can't do of course, our compassionate societies make sure that even the most antisocial distrustful lying cretins are cared for... — Olivier5

Those people were forced to pay for other people's poor decisions their entire lives, and when they need the help you wish to deny them?

What a simple view.