Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Young Turk

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Young Turk

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

506 profile views
  1. Why should anyone try to explain anything? If you have good reasons for thinking something, explaining them clearly might persuade someone.
  2. I've never been married! Your projection is quite entertaining. But I'd still be interested to know your answer to my question.
  3. Yet you still appear not to understand it! Why don't you explain why you oppose some forms of coercion and not others?
  4. That's a shame! But you looked up coercion in the dictionary earlier, so maybe you learned something. I'm disappointed that despite the strong feeling on this issue, nobody is prepared to give any reason why they are generally supportive our authoritarian government, but are libertarian on the issue of vaccines.
  5. The vaccine is a mixture of benefit and harm to everyone. Nobody knows if they will be killed or harmed by the virus or the vaccine. People are being coerced to help themselves as much as others. Vaccination is likely to help in numerous other ways. It will allow things to open up quicker, making life better for almost everyone. Won't it also likely reduce the risk of mutations, which could pose a much greater risk to young people? Are you opposed to laws which are aimed to prevent people from harming themselves as well? Is it wrong to prevent children smoking and drinking? You have said it's irrelevant, but you haven't explained why you think this. Coercing people to get vaccinated is a subset of coercion generally. If you remain of the opinion that people should not be coerced or forced into medical procedures to benefit others, you should explain why you think coercion to benefit other people in other areas (e.g. war, economic policy) is different.
  6. I asked you a question first! Why is this form of coercion different to others? I am opposed to the use of force. I think it is unfortunate that government is powerful enough that it can force people to do such things. But this is an example where the outcome seems desirable.
  7. When is physical restraint and force acceptable in your opinion? Are you aware of any authorities in Britain using physical restraint or force that you consider to be unjustified? My position is not necessarily that it is justified. It is that opposition seems inconsistent with the acceptance of other coercive measures.
  8. One problem with this example is that the recipients of Anna's organs would be quite likely to die relatively soon after anyway, so her life might be shortened by more than their lives would be extended. So there is probably no risk of this sort of utilitarian nightmare scenario where one healthy person is sacrificed to safe several sick people. A realistic example might be seven people are trying to decide who can go in a lifeboat which accommodates six. If they had the choice between all dying or one of them dying (e.g. choosing one at random who wouldn't enter the lifeboat), would they all choose to die, or would they prefer one person chosen randomly died? I think if most people were given the options of certain death or a much reduced probability of death, they would choose the reduced probability of death. I also think this would constitute a more ethical approach than allowing everyone to die. If your teacher's example did turn out to be realistic, I think it could be objected that nobody should ever be knowingly sacrificed to save someone else. Similarly if it were impossible for 18 year olds to die from covid, but they could die from the vaccine, I think it could be argued it would be wrong for them to take it. But as this isn't the case, I don't think this argument applies. Everyone, of any age, is uncertain what they would experience from the virus or the vaccine. Someone who experiences a side effect from the vaccine doesn't know they wouldn't have experienced the same or worse from the virus. But does this apply to medicine only? Hundreds of millions of young people have been sacrificed in wars for the benefit of older people. Their sacrifices seem far worse (tens of millions dead, but all the rest suffered terribly) than the covid vaccine. Young people are currently required to pay taxes to fund policies designed to keep house prices high. That also seems to me to be far worse than being required to take a vaccine.
  9. Why do you think this? You and several others have strongly expressed your view that I am wrong, but I haven't yet seen an argument as to why. It seems obvious to me that the opposite is the case (government coercion in other areas is far worse than coercion people to get vaccinated). There is a small benefit to vaccinating 18 year olds, so it is at least arguably justified. I realise it could be considered harmful, but I can't see how it could be considered as harmful as the coercion required to wage war in the middle east or to price millions of people out of the housing market. Can you explain how it could be considered worse than that?
  10. I'm not looking at cultural attitudes regarding privacy etc. But I'm pointing out that the government can only control any aspects of our lives as a result of the move away from liberalism. CCTV is another one I don't understand. Most shops have CCTV, but only use it if there is a crime. What's the problem? Every country can reduce the probability of nuclear conflict by reducing the number of weapons. The most likely cause of a conflict is an accident (this has almost happened on several occasions). It's probably easier to do that than to resist medical interventions. Whenever a country reduces measures against the virus, other countries impose restrictions. If we don't coerce the youngsters to get vaccinated, maybe their holiday destinations will instead? If that is the case, does it matter? What do you think of other vaccines which are required in some places (e.g. malaria, yellow fever)? Are they coercive?
  11. Fascism crushed other left ideologies. Would you say that most supporters (it was popular with rich people and business owners) were duped into believing it was right-wing? I think it's more complicated than either of these positions. I think Frederic Bastiat sat on the left in the French national assembly (isn't that where the term left-wing came from?) and he was an advocate of the market economy. Should we consider him left-wing because he was opposed conservatism, or right-wing as an advocate of laissez-faire?
  12. When are you referring to? We have had nuclear weapons for decades. There is a small probability of a nuclear conflict. Why is that acceptable? I'm trying to explain to you that the shift from nineteenth century liberalism to 20th/21st century authoritarianism is a much bigger threat than specific concerns about coercion in medicine. We already experienced hundreds of millions of people dying and suffering as a result. It seems very unlikely that the slippery slope from coercing people to get vaccinated could lead to anything nearly as bad.
  13. How terrible is it, roughly? The most terrible thing in decades, the 10th worst, the 100th worst?
  14. Perhaps I expressed that badly! I meant if you weren't opposed to the vast increase in government coercion from the nineteenth century to the present, then why would you be opposed to this particular coercion? Millions have died in wars, state sponsored terrorism and the results of all sorts of terrible government policies. I just don't understand the fixation on the possible negative consequences of vaccinated people now considering all the terrible things done by government now. Why no opposition to them? This isn't trivial. You are making absurd comparisons. If it's trivially obvious, it should be easy for you to explain. Every individual is at risk from the virus, so every individual benefits from the vaccine (for some the benefits will be very small and possibly even outweighed by the side effects). Every individual also benefits from every other individual being vaccinated. Alan Turing wouldn't have benefitted if his homosexuality was "cured" and neither would anyone else. Do you have an argument about how coercing people to be vaccinated will lead to the re-adoption of these sorts of policies? Taxes - and the government powers they facilitate - enabled the treatment of Turing. But they also enabled far worse. Would you argue against compulsory schooling on the grounds that you opposed conscription?
  15. You know that playing devil's advocate gives you an opportunity to strengthen your position. Do you think coercing people to take the vaccine is in itself terrible? (i.e. if it didn't lead to another other medical interventions) Do you think the risks of vaccinations might have been greatly underestimated? Do you think it is likely to lead to other forms of coercion? Or do you think it isn't likely, but they would be so terrible that even a small increase in probability is unacceptable?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.