Covid Passports

[tadmjones]

27 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Are you sure that this is what you meant to say?

The laws against drunk driving are aimed at the endangering, not the intoxication.  They do not apply to someone who gets drunk but doesn't drive.  If someone has liquor poured down their throat against their will, so that they have to swallow or drown, and they become intoxicated thereby, it should still be illegal for them to drive.  It is right to forbid someone to drive who has lost their ability to drive safely because of effects of old age, even though aging is not a volitional act.

Yeah , pretty sure. To the first question.

And I'm pretty sure dui/dwi laws are only applicable when intoxication is indicated. Reckless driving violations apply whether or not intoxication is a factor. So 'endangering' is like the genus with different species.

Instances of violating laws aren't immoral acts based on the existence of laws, though it'd be nice if they were.

 

[Easy Truth]

6 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Until your post, this thread had been about vaccination, not lockdowns.

Fair enough. I should have said forced behavior based on ANY possibility of harmfulness (conflation of imminent vs. not imminent).

Doug, your comments can upset me so much that I have a heart attack. Shouldn't we restrict you from posting? (in fact that goes for anyone including myself)

That is the absurdity that is not being addressed. There is this vapor of an idea that you are promoting that you are basing justification for loss of liberty.

The other issue is that every municipality can have it's own cutoff at which they consider something hazardous. At a minimum that ambiguity/non-objectiveness has to be acknowledged.

I will grant you that a certain probability of harmfulness can require some defensive measure, but I would argue that it is an "individual" matter. Meaning a person has a right to defend himself against what he things is imminent and pay compensation when wrong. But governmental action ... one size fits all preemptive restrictions should be based on unanimous consent.

[Doug Morris]

14 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

(conflation of imminent vs. not imminent).

 

If there is a possibility of germs being spread now, isn't that pretty imminent?  Maybe you should explain further how you are drawing and applying the distinction.

14 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The other issue is that every municipality can have it's own cutoff at which they consider something hazardous. At a minimum that ambiguity/non-objectiveness has to be acknowledged.

As long as we have the current situation in which most people don't understand the principles involved and there is a lot of pressure-group warfare, we will have this problem with all issues.  Better understanding of the fundamental principles allows for a better approach to the technicalities of applying them to any particular situation.  My primary concern in these discussions has been to try to clarify the fundamental principles.  But I have also responded to some comments about the technicalities.

[Easy Truth]

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

If there is a possibility of germs being spread now, isn't that pretty imminent? 

Wow. Maybe now I have a chance to convince you.

No, it's not imminent. It is in fact the norm. It is always possible to spread germs and it is always happening.

The other issue is the hazard is based on the recipient. Like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, similarly, danger is relative to the person being infected, as in young or old, weak or strong etc. So imminence also has to be define as imminent to whom?

In some ways, one could say that spreading germs is necessary, it is a necessary condition of survival. Without freedom to spread germs one cannot survive. Now if the germ has a high mortality rate, and high has to be declared in a non objective "voting" fashion, the policy will be determined by that. (unless someone can propose an objective measure) Right now a child or the young have a .03 percent chance of dying of it. If we voted on the danger, would this be dangerous?

And then the question arises of when this voting can and will be manipulated by crony system that exists all around the world. The answer is: it it inevitable. So there is that unnecessary damage that has to be considered to. In a sense I think you are looking at the germ risk in a vacuum without the other potential risks.

[Doug Morris]

From the web:

 

 

 

 

im·mi·nent

/ˈimənənt/

Learn to pronounce

 

adjective

adjective: imminent

1.

about to happen.

"they were in imminent danger of being swept away" 

 

2.

ARCHAIC

overhanging.

 

 

You don't seem to be using either of these definitions.  Please state your definition.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2022 by Doug Morris
format

[Easy Truth]

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

about to happen.

Germ spreading is pretty much ALWAYS "about to happen".

[Doug Morris]

21 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

(conflation of imminent vs. not imminent).

Please explain what you're talking about.

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

No, it's not imminent. It is in fact the norm.

You seem to be saying that something has to be abnormal in order to be about to happen.  Please clarify.

 

Please state what definition of "imminent" you are using.

[Easy Truth]

8 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Please state what definition of "imminent" you are using.

Doug, I'm using your definition. "about to happen". Germs are always being spread. You are doing it right now, I am doing it too. It is not about to happen, it is happening. It is normal. It is expected. It's not about to happen but rather already happening.

We are not moving from a state of it's not happening to it's about to happen to it is happening. It's already happening. To claim that something that is already happening is imminent implies that it was not happening and it is about to happen.

[Doug Morris]

You introduced the word "imminent" into this thread.

On 1/12/2022 at 6:48 PM, Easy Truth said:

(conflation of imminent vs. not imminent).

Please explain what you were talking about when you said this.

[Easy Truth]

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

On 1/12/2022 at 4:48 PM, Easy Truth said:

(conflation of imminent vs. not imminent).

Please explain what you were talking about when you said this.

It's related to the idea of clear and present danger. The fundamental question of when is a threat actionable.

The final calculation takes into account the ROI. 

At what point is it cheapest to win the battle?

How much would it hurt if we defended ourselves and how?

Is there a better way?

etc.

I am arguing that just because I or you see a threat it does not make it actionable.

Passports means forced vaccination in addition to the issue of an attack on privacy.

A potential to spread germs cannot be construed as aggression. Otherwise you are guilty of it when you breathe.

Based on that, I would add that it is not justification for governmentally forced vaccination for many reasons. . The most important is the issue of liberty meaning the right to flourish. Implied in the right to flourish is your hopes and your choices, your autonomy and your freedom to act rationally. Without it, you, in a sense don't exist. You don't have a right to exist. Eventually you will have to shut up and do as you are told ... or else.

As I said, I am vaccinated. To reiterate, my fear is that with the idea of a person introducing "unnecessary risk" as aggression, liberty at it's core is under threat.

[Doug Morris]

13 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

A potential to spread germs cannot be construed as aggression. Otherwise you are guilty of it when you breathe.

You are blowing off the question of how dangerous the germs are.

13 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

To reiterate, my fear is that with the idea of a person introducing "unnecessary risk" as aggression, liberty at it's core is under threat.

Does this mean we should not have laws against drunk or reckless driving or reckless use of guns or explosives?

[Easy Truth]

12 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

12 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

A potential to spread germs cannot be construed as aggression. Otherwise you are guilty of it when you breathe.

You are blowing off the question of how dangerous the germs are.

No Doug, with your formulation, just spreading is increasing risk. There is no mention of spreading how much and to whom. That is what I am objecting to.

12 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

12 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

To reiterate, my fear is that with the idea of a person introducing "unnecessary risk" as aggression, liberty at it's core is under threat.

Does this mean we should not have laws against drunk or reckless driving or reckless use of guns or explosives?

If enforcement is based on an individual level, then it should be done. Keep in mind, I said enforcement not laws. The basic law is that you are not to infringe on another's rights. In most cases that does not require more laws.

If you see your neighbor has fifty riffles or is shooting up the neighborhood, you have a right to self defense which starts with investigative right to have the person interviewed and then escalate if something dangerous is determined. But we don't have a right to jail someone simply because they own a gun or even explosives. Their competence at handling it can and should be legitimately ascertained. In this case, the neighbor complains to the police to do it.

The issue you bring up is ultimately about "recklessness". Are you equating that with "not choosing to be vaccinated?"

If that is the case, then self determination, liberty, is by it's nature "reckless". Kind of like freedom of speech. Dissent can get people killed sometimes. I'm not talking about crying fire in a movie theatre. Legitimate free speech can get people killed. Should there be laws against legitimate freedom of speech (which is a nonsensical question).

I have avoided the driving issue because it is muddied by the fact that we have public roads and governmental licenses. The issue of rules of the road has to be contractual and different roads as in different road in different countries have different rules. But yes, you can and should have rules to go by when driving.

Edited January 15, 2022 by Easy Truth
added driving issue

[Doug Morris]

7 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

No Doug, with your formulation, just spreading is increasing risk. There is no mention of spreading how much and to whom. That is what I am objecting to.

One distinction we need to draw is between risk that is within the norm and risk that goes beyond the norm.  COVID-19 is serious enough that the risk of it goes beyond the norm, at least to some extent.

7 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The issue you bring up is ultimately about "recklessness". Are you equating that with "not choosing to be vaccinated?"

To me, the key issue is creating unnecessary risk.

 

[Easy Truth]

On 1/15/2022 at 6:44 AM, Doug Morris said:

COVID-19 is serious enough that the risk of it goes beyond the norm, at least to some extent.

For the sake of argument, let's go with that.

Now, when does one have to consider other risks as in death caused by economic damage, loss of hospital capacity for other illnesses, etc.

In other words is that risk that is beyond the norm, the only risk to be considered without any ROI calculations?

On 1/15/2022 at 6:44 AM, Doug Morris said:

To me, the key issue is creating unnecessary risk.

The risk of dying from taking the vaccine is a high risk for some and not others. Should we consider it as an aggregate risk and apply it to all people?

Edited January 20, 2022 by Easy Truth
added roi

[Doug Morris]

7 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Now, when does one have to consider other risks as in death caused by economic damage, loss of hospital capacity for other illnesses, etc.

In other words is that risk that is beyond the norm, the only risk to be considered without any ROI calculations?

On 1/15/2022 at 8:44 AM, Doug Morris said:

All significant risks should be considered.

The risk of death caused by economic damage is much more relevant to lockdowns than to vaccine mandates or mask mandates.

8 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Should we consider it as an aggregate risk and apply it to all people?

We should not treat all people as being at risk because some are, and I have never advocated doing so.

Even if only one person is put at risk, that can still be an initiation of physical force against that person.

Any vaccine mandate should allow medical exceptions.

 

[Easy Truth]

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Even if only one person is put at risk, that can still be an initiation of physical force against that person.

Any vaccine mandate should allow medical exceptions.

I'll go as far as agreeing that if even one person is harmed, that's one too many in the context of governmental action. Any entity that harms should be held accountable. I have harped on this before ... there is no accountability when the government mandates. Far more than just one person is harmed in the case of COVID by a mandate to ingest something. A mandate is ultimately supported by the uses of physical force and the institution with the monopoly on force is being allowed to do so (especially when the risk to some is minimal).

You are not acknowledging that you are making a utilitarian argument, that most of us will benefit so the minority that suffers ... is okay to suffer. Isn't that at the heart of your argument? If so, why don't you expand on that?

I would argue that It is not the place of the government to force you to do life properly. It is you and me that have to do our lives properly. The idea of increasing risk being equated with a threat of physical force invites authoritarianism. It has to be far more specific. Currently you  have an implicit endorsement of mandates which is pushing the socialist narrative as far as I can see. This where I just don't get it. You're joining the dark side Doug.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Easy Truth
grammar

[Doug Morris]

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

you are making a utilitarian argument

No.

I am saying that infection is physical harm and that creating an unnecessary risk of physical harm can rise to the level of an initiation of physical force.

[tadmjones]

Without intent, how is it an initiation of force?

Mandatory vaccination as a risk reduction to others , isn't even in the same universe as deciding to not own firearms thereby eliminating the possibility of threat by mishandling, refraining from alcohol use or operating a motor vehicle. Those actions requiring a decision to refrain from using physical objects in the world. How is a mandated vaccine that irrevocably changes a person's person congruent or like action?

What are the limits of a personal effort to mitigate risk to others ? In regard to Covid specifically , we know enough now that almost no action currently available can/will stop the spread in public, therefore the risk should be born and mitigated by those who would be most affected.

The long term risks of using the vaccine are unknown and their level of efficacy in stopping spread are demonstrated to be so low as to make the risk of use a criteria for 'normal public life' an unnecessary burden.

[Doug Morris]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

operating a motor vehicle

Operating a motor vehicle is not physical force.  Doing so recklessly is, even if the driver means no harm.

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

stop the spread

What about reducing the spread?

[tadmjones]

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Operating a motor vehicle is not physical force.  Doing so recklessly is, even if the driver means no harm.

What about reducing the spread?

I think a reasonable person , the normal legal standard, would understand “means no harm” in relation to reckless , in the legal standard , presupposes a level of conscious regard for a reasonable level of appropriate and responsible behavior, and  not necessarily as meaning no specific plan to cause harm.

 

What about reducing the spread ? What about reducing your exposure based on risk factors ?

[Easy Truth]

9 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

I am saying that infection is physical harm and that creating an unnecessary risk of physical harm can rise to the level of an initiation of physical force.

I can agree that infection is physical harm.

I am having trouble with determining what unnecessary risk is in this context. In the case of Covid, taking into consideration all other risks, not just lock downs, but risks of adverse effects of the vaccine, in particular the lack of testing in regards to reproduction, how does one determine what unnecessary risk means?

[Doug Morris]

12 hours ago, tadmjones said:

a level of conscious regard for a reasonable level of appropriate and responsible behavior

Why not apply this to COVID-19?

12 hours ago, tadmjones said:

What about reducing the spread ? What about reducing your exposure based on risk factors ?

There are multiple ways to reduce the spread.  They are not mutually exclusive.

[Doug Morris]

7 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

taking into consideration all other risks, not just lock downs, but risks of adverse effects of the vaccine, in particular the lack of testing in regards to reproduction, how does one determine what unnecessary risk means?

It is legitimate to dig into these questions.  It is not legitimate to blow them off.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

On 9/24/2021 at 12:56 AM, Amit said:

Hey guys,

I am trying to formulate a coherent opinion about the covid passports (that prevent unvaccinated people from entering public spaces).

In an argument with a friend, he said that those passports are like sanctions against drunk drivers:

Drunk drivers did not yet cause harm to anyone, and not all drunk drivers cause harm, but statistically speaking they can cause more damage therefore society should prevent them from being on the road.

In the same manner, unvaccinated people are statistically more infectious, therefore society should prevent them from going in crowds.

I am sure that this is not the first time you have heard this argument, but usually people just brush it off. What do you think about this argument?

The analogy treats everyone who isn't vaccinated as if they actually have COVID at all times.  The better analogy would be should we ban all driving because some people who drive might drive drunk, and some of those people who drive drunk might harm others (although for most people we're not talking about death and dismemberment but a pretty unpleasant cold).

[Harrison Danneskjold]

On 1/10/2022 at 2:59 PM, tadmjones said:

Even if the jabs were highly associated with transmission reduction, covid isn't a life threatening disease to the majority of society. It shouldn't be a question if people living their day to day lives unnecessarily endangers others, it should be what level of necessary risks are those most endangered by the disease willing to take.

Exactly.

 

I had COVID a couple of months ago.  I spent three days sick in bed (which definitely sucked) and then I was fine.  I was living with three guys in their 20's at the time, all of whom also caught COVID and not one of whom was bedridden for more than 24 hours.

 

On 1/12/2022 at 1:54 PM, Doug Morris said:

So you want a guarantee.  Might that be too stringent a requirement?

To force everyone to make it public knowledge what has or has not gone into their own private veins?  I mean, if we were talking about Ebola then I might agree, but we're not - we're talking about a particularly nasty strain of the common cold which every single person in the entire world is going to catch sooner or later.

 

You, yourself, just said that more people die in car accidents where no alcohol is involved than in ones involving drunk drivers.  If that's true, and if it's the safety concerns of drunk driving which make it legitimate to outlaw it, then why should sober driving be legal?