We outnumber you so nah nah? Very nice.
It does not balance out. It is very unbalanced.
You are forcing someone to do something because they might harm you maybe. So we have to inject you.

You can drop the attacks. I could very well say the same thing about you.

That, right there, is the very heart of why I disagree so vehemently with libertarianism, and the worship of the individual.

I can't express how mind-bogglingly selfish that sentence sounds, xjoex.

Wow.

__________________
An employee gets trampled to death by a frenzied, greedy mob at a Walmart sale, and customers actually complained when the store closed. Yet, I'm the bad guy for suggesting policies that assume people act like retarded herd animals that need government nannying and control....

No, you can't say the same thing about me, because my argument's reasonable and saves lives. Your argument is irresponsible and myopic selfishness that puts the lives of others at risk of disease. Your argument's ethically indefensible, as you admit you don't care whom you kill. You value your right to buck the system over people's lives.

That's sociopathic.

__________________

I think he was old enough to know what happens when you get sick and never get the treatment needed to make you better...

__________________


"I find no black men appealing, they look like giant monkeys." -LilithIshtar (some member of another forum I used to be part of)

Selfish? I have my shots thank you, it would be the opposite of selfish. How in the world do you get standing up for the rights of the few, especially when that does not include me, to be selfish. I would consider the selfish side to be my opposition.

Yes I can. My argument is about letting people make their own choices and not making them do what I want. Again the selfish thing is complete BS is every sense. You realize that utilitarian ethics are not the only form of ethics. I see it to be completely unethical to force people to get injections of these substances. I admit care about the individual. Do not twist my words. Your argument is not reasonable. I do not see treating other individuals as part of a herd to be controls as moral.

Your moralist argument, as usual, is empty.

Glad you've gotten them. Means you're smart. I wanna ensure others are just as smart, and not be such contrarian twits.

How is "standing up" for the few (or the one), championing it over the collective rights of the society NOT the very definition of "selfish"?

You just said you didn't care about collective immunity. How am I not to interpret that as equivalent to "me me me me me!", which appears to be the governing mantra of a great many folks on here. What else am I supposed to think of this?

Really, help me understand this.

Even when something is rather obviously the rcorrect or reasonable thing to do, you (and others here) promote the "right" to not participate, or that you're being "forced" to obey X law. I'm really puzzled by this strong desire to never pitch in.

__________________
An employee gets trampled to death by a frenzied, greedy mob at a Walmart sale, and customers actually complained when the store closed. Yet, I'm the bad guy for suggesting policies that assume people act like retarded herd animals that need government nannying and control....

Actually means my parents are smart, but eh I would have gotten them.

Selfish would have to do with ME, would it not? It is not selfish because that is not what selfish is. When I am standing up for others that is the exact opposite of selfish. I have nothing to gain from standing up for the few, but I most certainly am.

I do not know of any collective rights, only individual rights.

The individual is not "me me me", far from it. It is each and every person, singly.

As I have explained before it is not about me being forced, it is about the few individuals in the minority.

This has nothing to do with me and thus it has nothing to so with me being selfish. What I am saying is the exact opposite of selfish. It is like a bunch of bullies are picking on a nerd and I stand up for the nerd and then get called selfish.

Most of the time it is not about me or us not wanting to help it is about to allow other individuals to choose for themselves.

It is fine if you call the people who make the choice to not be immunized greedy. Just as it is fine to call people who say the "N" word racist. But I am not selfish or racist for defending others rights to do or say them.

Indeed, Kudos to your parents for being responsible. I have no clue where these people that think vaccinations are some evil plot are coming from.

You lost me, here. The rights of a few, even, do not outweigh the rights of the many. There are simply certain things we just have to do, even if it is not for our own direct personal benefit.

I acknowledge very few of either, actually. Mainly, I don't view the world in terms of rights, anyway. But, perhaps as an example, one does not have the "right" to choose not to pay his taxes, or to drive on the left side of the Interstate, etc. Clearly, these are cases where the "rights" of the collective majority overrule.

Or, if you prefer, the individual does not have a "right" to bring measles or rubella into a classroom.

No man is an island. One's actions do affect others. Much of the arguments I hear, here, sound contrarian simply for the sake of being so. Or that something's evil, simply because it's from the government, or might impact one negatively, in the name of a common good.

And? Do think those minority individuals' "right" to choose not to be vaccinated should be honored, even if it's to the collective society's harm?

Bad analogy. It's not "picking" on someone if they refuse to do the right thing. You make them. Sometimes, you have to eat your veggies.

Most things, you certainly can choose. The vast, vast majority.

Some things, however, are more detrimental to allow maverick-ness. (That's not even a word, is it?) Too much costs upon others that outweigh the benefits of the individual, or few. In some cases, it's downright irresponsible to allow others to take on the costs of an individual's decision. This is what laws are for.

I think we've hit upon the crux of the difference, here. You're thinking primarily in terms of rights, whereas I am thinking primarily in terms of responsibilities.

But, it helps, xjoex, to understand better, and I think I do.

__________________
An employee gets trampled to death by a frenzied, greedy mob at a Walmart sale, and customers actually complained when the store closed. Yet, I'm the bad guy for suggesting policies that assume people act like retarded herd animals that need government nannying and control....

Yes, because bullies picking on nerds is so analogous to putting society at risk for a disease outbreak because you personally don't feel like getting vaccinated, thus turning your body into a potential vector for the outbreak.

Yea. Logic obviously wasn't a class you passed.

Libertarians defend the right of others to be selfish so they too one day can be selfish and justify it. ULtimately, it comes back to them. If he didn't want to get it, he wouldn't, and he would be fine with you all dying because of it. The fact that he believes the lives of others are worth less than the abstract right to be a fuktard and do whatever you want is morally reprehensible. It speaks of his poor moral character.

I don't really care anyway. Just force them to. If they don't like it, tough sht. I don't like dying either because you gave me a disease that negated my immunity because it used your body to mutate. Get over it.

__________________