I have not hidden the fact that I do not intend to get the vaccine. I am not a scientist, academic or intellectual, just a small businessman in OKC trying to scratch out a comfortable middle class existence. Even though I know next to nothing about the "science" involved in the disease or the vaccine I have tried to educate myself as best as possible, which I admit is pretty shallow.
As best as I can gather there are scientists who balleyhoo the vaccine, insist it is perfectly safe and strongly recommend as many people as possible get the shot. On the other hand there are scientists with equally valid credentials saying exactly the opposite, that it is experimental, no one knows the long term consequences, and therefore we should be very hesitant to get the shot.
I have been persuaded by the side arguing for hesitance. But that is my personal decision, and I am happy there is a vaccine for those that embrace the technology.
I can't help but notice, however, that many of the "pro-vaxers" have adopted the same tactic as the climate change advocates and besmirch the scientists that argue for caution, essentially calling them out as deniers. That says to me they are not serious about following the science, because science is supposed to be an honest back and forth between opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately politics has invaded the hallowed forms of scientific endeavor.
Please understand my observations are not aimed at any particular poster on this board, but are based on an accumulation of pro-vaccine opinions that have formed an aggregate of many voices both on and off this board. So I plead with you not to take anything I say as a personal affront.
My major concern with some on the pro-vaccine side of the debate is the seeming willingness to involve the police power of the state to enforce their opinion. I find it offensive to hear I should be forced to get the vaccine. I am especially insulted by the notion the I may have to get some kind of "passport" proving I have been vaccinated before I will be allowed by state enforcers to travel or go to a public event, or in some cases whether I will even be allowed to leave my house. As a hardcore libertarian I find such ideas to be far more dangerous than any disease.
I don't know of anyone on this board that advocates such tactics, maybe extreme statists like Syskatine of Pilt, but I don't recall hearing them make any comments in that regard. But here's something that popped in my head this morning - and I admit right up front this will be very controversial - but what the hell controversy is what drives this board, so here goes.
For anyone who advocates the state be granted the authority to monitor and authorize movements by citizens based on proof that there has been vaccination, that the state and science have teamed up to enforce what they believe is in the public's best interest, I ask you to explain the moral difference between what you advocate and the practice of the Auschwitz "Angel of Death," Josef Mengela, who practiced "scientific experiments" on his citizens. Mengela, I am sure, was fascinated to know the results of his experiments, the long term consequences of which he had no idea. I think we can all admit the Covid vaccines are experimental and no one has any idea what will be the long term consequences. I gues we know the short term is it eradicates the disease. But no one knows what to expect five, ten, twenty years from now. But the vaccine is the result of scientific experiments made under the guidance of the state apparatus, and the people being experimented on are not volunteers (provided we would have to show proof of vaccination before being allowed to participate in activities.) Exactly the same thing applies to Mengela and his state sponsored experiments.
So I'm having a little difficulty reconciling the two. I am hoping if there is anyone on this board that agrees we should be required to have "vaccine passports" threy can point me to the moral reasoning behind it, and how it differs from Mengela's experiments. Please understand in advance I am NOT comparing the degree of evil involved, so don't waste our time by saying vaccine tyranny is okay because it is not as bad as Auschwitz tyranny. I know that already. I'm looking for the moral principle that shows the difference between the two. Damned if I can find one.
I have a very busy day at work today, so I will not be able to revisit this thread until this evening. I am looking forward to some polite and objective responses.
As best as I can gather there are scientists who balleyhoo the vaccine, insist it is perfectly safe and strongly recommend as many people as possible get the shot. On the other hand there are scientists with equally valid credentials saying exactly the opposite, that it is experimental, no one knows the long term consequences, and therefore we should be very hesitant to get the shot.
I have been persuaded by the side arguing for hesitance. But that is my personal decision, and I am happy there is a vaccine for those that embrace the technology.
I can't help but notice, however, that many of the "pro-vaxers" have adopted the same tactic as the climate change advocates and besmirch the scientists that argue for caution, essentially calling them out as deniers. That says to me they are not serious about following the science, because science is supposed to be an honest back and forth between opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately politics has invaded the hallowed forms of scientific endeavor.
Please understand my observations are not aimed at any particular poster on this board, but are based on an accumulation of pro-vaccine opinions that have formed an aggregate of many voices both on and off this board. So I plead with you not to take anything I say as a personal affront.
My major concern with some on the pro-vaccine side of the debate is the seeming willingness to involve the police power of the state to enforce their opinion. I find it offensive to hear I should be forced to get the vaccine. I am especially insulted by the notion the I may have to get some kind of "passport" proving I have been vaccinated before I will be allowed by state enforcers to travel or go to a public event, or in some cases whether I will even be allowed to leave my house. As a hardcore libertarian I find such ideas to be far more dangerous than any disease.
I don't know of anyone on this board that advocates such tactics, maybe extreme statists like Syskatine of Pilt, but I don't recall hearing them make any comments in that regard. But here's something that popped in my head this morning - and I admit right up front this will be very controversial - but what the hell controversy is what drives this board, so here goes.
For anyone who advocates the state be granted the authority to monitor and authorize movements by citizens based on proof that there has been vaccination, that the state and science have teamed up to enforce what they believe is in the public's best interest, I ask you to explain the moral difference between what you advocate and the practice of the Auschwitz "Angel of Death," Josef Mengela, who practiced "scientific experiments" on his citizens. Mengela, I am sure, was fascinated to know the results of his experiments, the long term consequences of which he had no idea. I think we can all admit the Covid vaccines are experimental and no one has any idea what will be the long term consequences. I gues we know the short term is it eradicates the disease. But no one knows what to expect five, ten, twenty years from now. But the vaccine is the result of scientific experiments made under the guidance of the state apparatus, and the people being experimented on are not volunteers (provided we would have to show proof of vaccination before being allowed to participate in activities.) Exactly the same thing applies to Mengela and his state sponsored experiments.
So I'm having a little difficulty reconciling the two. I am hoping if there is anyone on this board that agrees we should be required to have "vaccine passports" threy can point me to the moral reasoning behind it, and how it differs from Mengela's experiments. Please understand in advance I am NOT comparing the degree of evil involved, so don't waste our time by saying vaccine tyranny is okay because it is not as bad as Auschwitz tyranny. I know that already. I'm looking for the moral principle that shows the difference between the two. Damned if I can find one.
I have a very busy day at work today, so I will not be able to revisit this thread until this evening. I am looking forward to some polite and objective responses.