|
QuarkJets posted:This is basically an argument for dismantling all forms of authority out of fear that authority can be used for less-than-good purposes. Is that the argument that you're trying to make? Do you really think this is the appropriate thread for that?
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 11:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
You want to ban child labor?? Whatever for?? If we let you do that then eventually you'll be banning any labor of any kind and then where will we be, hmm? Tut tut good sir your idea has been soundly defeated
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No it's not. It's an argument in favor of a government with limited, enumerated powers that operates based on rule of law. It's an argument that just government requires adhering to equality under the law, and respecting the rights of others, rather than trying to carve out exceptions based on our personal prejudices. And when will you begin building the race of robots that ensures no future iteration of the government accidentally exceeds these limited, enumerated powers? We'd better also come up with an AI to decide on what these powers are, what gives you or me or anyone the right to decide that, after all?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
These 'well who gets to decide' slippery slope arguments are so ridiculous. It's like saying that if you are against kidnapping people and holding them against their will, you must also be against all imprisonment of criminals. After all, the only difference there is that the criminals are subjectively guilty of what are subjectively considered crimes by society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
Hey guys I've decided that we actually need to give me all of the money. Why? Well, uh, if you don't give me your money now then you may as well never give any of your money to anyone, and if that happens then you'll surely starve. Is that what you want, to starve to death? I didn't think so. Please send all of your bitcoins to me, my bitcoin address is 1HitLerDidNothingWrongggggghJewfv
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:You want to ban child labor?? Whatever for?? If we let you do that then eventually you'll be banning any labor of any kind and then where will we be, hmm? Tut tut good sir your idea has been soundly defeated BreakAtmo posted:These 'well who gets to decide' slippery slope arguments are so ridiculous. It's like saying that if you are against kidnapping people and holding them against their will, you must also be against all imprisonment of criminals. After all, the only difference there is that the criminals are subjectively guilty of what are subjectively considered crimes by society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 11:28
|
|
|
Dead, I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions clearly and directly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Determining when someone is qualified to exercise various rights and privileges based on an objective measurement of their age is the exact opposite of legislating based on nebulous concepts like "a better quality of life."
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's not though. We don't imprison people for arbitrary reasons, or because they are bad. We imprison them for objectively breaking one or more predefined rules we've spelled out as a society. Which are arbitrary reasons. What's determined to be a crime is absolutely arbitrary, and often the result of political lobbies and propaganda more than people and society in general.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 11:48
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:Your example is extreme and has no bearing on this case. Not vaccinating a child is negligence. Ding ding ding. Dead Reckoning posted:No it's not. It's an argument in favor of a government with limited, enumerated powers that operates based on rule of law. It's an argument that just government requires adhering to equality under the law, and respecting the rights of others, rather than trying to carve out exceptions based on our personal prejudices. Children dying of an easily preventable infectious disease has nothing to do with 'personal prejudices'. Dead Reckoning posted:OK, so in what other circumstances can the state take children away from parents and inject them with foreign substances on the basis of the parents having beliefs you disagree with? "Beliefs you disagree with" really doesn't mean poo poo in the face of proven facts regarding vaccinations. If more people choose not to vaccinate their children then more children WILL die and those children before they are dead WILL put vaccinated children at greater risk due to the continued breakdown of herd immunity. This isn't up for debate. This is a proven fact. There is no 'middle ground' on this. The alternative if you wish to protect some rights for neglectful parents is to ostracize those parents and their children from the rest of society. If you are fine with that then special snowflake parents can probably get what they want in respect to vaccinations.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
Dead, what do you say to the young women with cervical cancer whose parents denied her a vaccination? Where is her bodily autonomy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 12:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Determining when someone is qualified to exercise various rights and privileges based on an objective measurement of their age is the exact opposite of legislating based on nebulous concepts like "a better quality of life." Who decides what age qualifies someone to exercise a right. There's certainly no objective justification that someone instantly becomes competent to do something on exactly their Xth birthday and not the day before or the day after. Dead Reckoning posted:It's not though. We don't imprison people for arbitrary reasons, or because they are bad. We imprison them for objectively breaking one or more predefined rules we've spelled out as a society. If someone hasn't broken the law, you can't put them in jail, no matter how much of an rear end in a top hat they are. Ok great so we can get together and write a predefined rule that children must have certain defined vaccines by a certain age and provide for a penalty for those who objectively break this rule. Oh hey that's how it's done in real life no "eh just let President Trump do whatever 'for the children'" strawman required.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No it's not. It's an argument in favor of a government with limited, enumerated powers that operates based on rule of law. It's an argument that just government requires adhering to equality under the law, and respecting the rights of others, rather than trying to carve out exceptions based on our personal prejudices. edit: For that matter, you keep equivocating between theoretical ethical/moral framework arguments and then arguments about practicality. You claim CPS is a non-answer for "who gets to decide" but "CPS" is actually "an institution that we societally have decided is empowered to make that decision through a combination of legal cases decided by judges and laws written by legislators elected through various means". Its not a non-answer, its an answer fully in line with "limited, enumerated powers that operates based on rule of law." Its exactly what you're claiming you want, but because you keep changing whether you're talking about a "universal moral framework by which all decisions must be judged" or "limited, enumerated powers based on rule of law" nobody can hit the target you want. Are you trying to discuss hypothetical theoretical ethical situations or not, because "limited enumerated powers based on rule of law" is just as subject to your asinine "what if someone unethical gets control of the lawmaking process" bullshit handwringing shittery you were engaging in earlier. Stop loving around. This right here quote:It's not though. We don't imprison people for arbitrary reasons, or because they are bad. We imprison them for objectively breaking one or more predefined rules we've spelled out as a society. If someone hasn't broken the law, you can't put them in jail, no matter how much of an rear end in a top hat they are. Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No it's not. It's an argument in favor of a government with limited, enumerated powers that operates based on rule of law. It's an argument that just government requires adhering to equality under the law, and respecting the rights of others, rather than trying to carve out exceptions based on our personal prejudices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Are you in favor of making it illegal to buy your kid a skateboard, or allowing them to swim in the ocean, or walk home from school by themselves? I wouldn't let a 3 year old ride a skateboard, or go swim in the ocean or walk home from school by themselves yes. Isn't that weird how just because something might be acceptable for one age group, it isn't for others?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
I wrote a reply but then I found out that VitalSigns basically wrote the same thing, argh my inalienable rights have been violated I did not consent to this joinder 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
When I am faced with a tough moral question, I use the following thought experiment (I think this is from Rawles): Imagine that time stops, and everyone who has a moral stake in the issue is summoned to a meeting, where nobody knows who each other is, nor do they even know their own identities. From this perspective, it should be easier to find the right answer. For vaccines, nobody knows if they're the one that's an immunocompromised child that will be vulnerable. I think it's easy to conclude that it's okay to force some people to be vaccinated, because the downsides of forced vaccination are mild, and it protects innocent people. For skateboarding, it's harder to make that case. The impacted parties are really only people involved if there's an accident and the skater needs medical care. Is it really worth banning skateboards just to reduce some injuries to people who know that there doing something risky? It's not a perfect tool, but I think it helps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:When I am faced with a tough moral question, I use the following thought experiment (I think this is from Rawles):
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
The Veil's not great- it doesn't help much for reaching consensus. edit: sorry, that's not very clear. What I mean is that someone who applies the Veil is able to rationalize the same position they would have held before they'd applied it, because their intuitions or senses of moral rights are maintained. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The Veil's not great- it frequently serves as an undirected intuition pump, so it doesn't help much for reaching consensus. I kinda had an intuitive feeling that that was the case. At the very least, I would assume that the unusual framing of the scenario would make it harder for people to just regurgitate canned arguments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
I wasn't aware Dead was a Free Market Libertarian apologist. Oh, and bonus arguing for child labor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
We have plenty of factual information that vaccines are beneficial for just about everyone who isn't allergic to eggs. This has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread but there is no standard of proof or logical reasoning that can reach people who refuse to face those facts. You aren't going to convince people who believe vaccinations are harmful that the vaccines are not, in fact, harmful. They have latched onto false information and think they are doing what is best for their child when really its not good for anyone involved. I said it before but its a tyrannical control of a child's well being. Most people know and accept there are experts with a more complete view of particular topics. Pediatricians are some of these experts and people will defer to them for the health of their child. The law even recognizes experts have more knowledge of certain topics and going against their advice is often harmful. I don't like the idea of injecting someone with something against their will or stealing their blood under "special circumstances". But when it comes to children who don't have a voice and whose parents believe what they are doing is right but are passively and actively harming their child, the state should absolutely protect the well-being of the child. We have laws for this now. Hell, I'd even stipulate you shouldn't vaccinate adults against their will. Fine. Let the cowardly people ignore the best information and pay a fine or a tax that funds vaccine research or vaccinating children and people in poverty for free at their local pharmacy. If you decide to not vaccinate your child, they have to be registered, a local hospital gets to have the list of parents and children who aren't vaccinated to warn parents ahead of an outbreak. Either its negligence or you have to pay a large yearly fine. This probably belongs in the pseudoscience megathread but I've been hearing about Candida infection leading to mental illness and holy moly its crazy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
I think we should mandate vaccinations and if it turns out skateboards so significantly dangerous that the enjoyment people get out of them is less than the grievous harm they cause let's ban those too. But I'm unconvinced that that is true!!!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
We should mandate vaccines just like we mandate seat belts, as a matter of public health.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Dead, I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions clearly and directly. Solkanar512 posted:Dead, what do you say to the young women with cervical cancer whose parents denied her a vaccination? Where is her bodily autonomy? Ravenfood posted:Where do you stand on being able to give blood to the kids of Jehovah's Witnesses against the parents' wishes? Ravenfood posted:For that matter, you keep equivocating between theoretical ethical/moral framework arguments and then arguments about practicality. You claim CPS is a non-answer for "who gets to decide" but "CPS" is actually "an institution that we societally have decided is empowered to make that decision through a combination of legal cases decided by judges and laws written by legislators elected through various means". Its not a non-answer, its an answer fully in line with "limited, enumerated powers that operates based on rule of law." Its exactly what you're claiming you want, but because you keep changing whether you're talking about a "universal moral framework by which all decisions must be judged" or "limited, enumerated powers based on rule of law" nobody can hit the target you want. Are you trying to discuss hypothetical theoretical ethical situations or not, because "limited enumerated powers based on rule of law" is just as subject to your asinine "what if someone unethical gets control of the lawmaking process" bullshit handwringing shittery you were engaging in earlier. There are two things at play here. I'm probably not phrasing this in the best way, but there is the question of what purpose the law should serve, what principles should guide it, which is inherently a subjective question, but needs to be internally consistent. You can't say that we should legislate the greatest good for the greatest number one minute, and then argue about the need to respect the rights of individuals the next (unless you're either willing to address how that balance should always be struck, or you're indulging in a hand-wavey definition of "good" where the individual rights you care about are "good" for people, but not the ones you disagree with.) Then there is the actual codification and implementation of the law itself, which needs to be internally consistent and based on objective criteria. For example, we generally agree on the principle that only people old enough to competently make decisions about governance should be able to vote. However, "competent enough to make decisions about government" isn't an objective standard. Now, we could set up some sort of bureau of experts to determine when someone had reached a significant level of competence, but then you have to decide who counts as an expert and therefore a gatekeeper of voting rights, and given our experiments with such things in the past, it would probably be used as a way to disenfranchise black people. So we instead say that citizens are granted the franchise when they turn 18, and objective standard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You can't say that we should legislate the greatest good for the greatest number one minute, and then argue about the need to respect the rights of individuals the next (unless you're either willing to address how that balance should always be struck, or you're indulging in a hand-wavey definition of "good" where the individual rights you care about are "good" for people, but not the ones you disagree with.) Why not. I don't think we're required to solve intractable 6,000-year-old problems of metaethics in order to save lives by passing seatbelt laws.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
I mean, I guess there's nothing stopping you from arguing on the basis that the proper purpose of law is to follow whatever justification you choose to gussy up your emotional reaction to the issue du jour, but most people who do that at least make the token effort of an appeal to divine will or something. It does explain a lot about your posting though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:For example, we generally agree on the principle that only people old enough to competently make decisions about governance should be able to vote. However, "competent enough to make decisions about government" isn't an objective standard. Now, we could set up some sort of bureau of experts to determine when someone had reached a significant level of competence, but then you have to decide who counts as an expert and therefore a gatekeeper of voting rights, and given our experiments with such things in the past, it would probably be used as a way to disenfranchise black people. So we instead say that citizens are granted the franchise when they turn 18, and objective standard. This is no different than writing a law stating "all people under the age of 18 must be vaccinated against measles unless they are allergic to the measles vaccine, as determined by an allergy test".
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I mean, I guess there's nothing stopping you from arguing on the basis that the proper purpose of law is to follow whatever justification you choose to gussy up your emotional reaction to the issue du jour, but most people who do that at least make the token effort of an appeal to divine will or something. It does explain a lot about your posting though. Unless you have managed to completely solve ethics, you're guilty of exactly the same thing you're complaining about : choosing ontological ethics when there's a right you feel is "important enough" and choosing to legislate for the greater good when it affects rights you don't care about. I could be wrong though, if I am please post your consistent, objective, externally verifiable solution to ethics in this thread so I can steal it and become the most famous moral philosopher ever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 08:33
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm OK with it because it's a response to exigent, immediate circumstances, e.g. the kid is going to bleed to death. I'm much less willing to endorse interventions in situations that are not immediately life-threatening. Dead Reckoning posted:That's the thing, though. You can't cut specific scenarios away from governing principles and decide them in isolation in order to avoid morally difficult questions. That's pretty much the definition of special pleading. 
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Don't say I never did nothin' for ya. Someone who is old enough to consent to sexual activity is also old enough to make certain decisions about their health care. That's why all 50 states and the District of Columbia allow minors to consent to STI treatment without parental consent. Which is the correct decision, IMO. The key distinction here is that adolescents are, in certain cases, considered competent to make decisions about their healthcare, beliefs, and other matters in a way that children at the age when the typical vaccine schedule is administered are not. The question of parental consent is much different in a situation where the patient in question is capable of making their wishes known and understanding consequences, rather than an infant or toddler. If a 14 year old wants to get vaccinated against their parents' wishes, I'd be OK with that too. The vaccination is best applied at age 11-12. I don't know any states where that is a legal age of consent. Also, without parental consent I don't see how children can access their parents insurance to pay for such treatments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I mean, I guess there's nothing stopping you from arguing on the basis that the proper purpose of law is to follow whatever justification you choose to gussy up your emotional reaction to the issue du jour, but most people who do that at least make the token effort of an appeal to divine will or something. It does explain a lot about your posting though. This is some serious first year philosophy student poo poo. Not everything has to be justified by first principles, and this is not how laws are written. Mandatory vaccinations are good because they have very little real downsides but potentially huge upsides. This is a fact of biology that is not in need of derivation from moral axioms. The question of how we would treat tangentially related but different ethical questions does not need to be answered before we can legislate on vaccines.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:For example, we generally agree on the principle that only people old enough to competently make decisions about governance should be able to vote. However, "competent enough to make decisions about government" isn't an objective standard. Now, we could set up some sort of bureau of experts to determine when someone had reached a significant level of competence, but then you have to decide who counts as an expert and therefore a gatekeeper of voting rights, and given our experiments with such things in the past, it would probably be used as a way to disenfranchise black people. So we instead say that citizens are granted the franchise when they turn 18, and objective standard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
This is some poo poo I'd of expected out of Sovereign Citizens. Ryan Bundy, is that you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I mean, I guess there's nothing stopping you from arguing on the basis that the proper purpose of law is to follow whatever justification you choose to gussy up your emotional reaction to the issue du jour, but most people who do that at least make the token effort of an appeal to divine will or something. Please do list a few more motivations you find appropriate for supporting a law, since you've ruled out "I believe its passage would have consequences which I would consider a net positive," and I'm too unimaginative to think of others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
My mam just started up about vaccines and I really wanted to rip the cigarette out of her hand and say "there's your loving poison". I didn't of course. Sorry, rant over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
I missed one religious angle to this before. The faithful say that to god nothing is impossible, which means that if he didn't cure the Black Plague or smallpox it's because he didn't want to. It stands to reason that every true believer should oppose vaccination on the grounds that it prevents god from sending plagues to punish us when we deserve.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:I missed one religious angle to this before. The faithful say that to god nothing is impossible, which means that if he didn't cure the Black Plague or smallpox it's because he didn't want to. It stands to reason that every true believer should oppose vaccination on the grounds that it prevents god from sending plagues to punish us when we deserve. Which is dumb as poo poo because (if you believe that kind of thing) he sent us the scientists who cured the loving plagues for a reason. It's like that old joke about the dude stuck in a life raft who is approached by a nearby boat, then a rescue boat, then a rescue helicopter, then a submarine and refuses them all because 'god will save me', then ends up in heaven and asks god why god didn't save him and god just replies 'I sent a boat, a rescue boat, a helicopter and a loving submarine, what more did you want?' People using religion to justify science-less bullshit is just dumb on so many levels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:I missed one religious angle to this before. The faithful say that to god nothing is impossible, which means that if he didn't cure the Black Plague or smallpox it's because he didn't want to. It stands to reason that every true believer should oppose vaccination on the grounds that it prevents god from sending plagues to punish us when we deserve. The problem of evil
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
Another thing (sorry if I'm going over old ground), I'm about as anti-capitalist as you can get but if you make me choose between which is more evil, Monstato or the anti-vaccination movement I'd be hard pressed to give an answer. This isn't like attacking big pharma whilst being in favour of homeopathy it's much more malignant. Honestly, I'm really starting to see anti-science sentiments as something utterly foul and not just an annoyance. edit: Another problem with the "anti-capitalist" argument is that usually the most scummy tabloid press are often the big promoters of anti-vaccine scares. So basically big business is good when it's anti-science and bad when it's pro-science? Prurient Squid fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 17:04
|
|