On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 12:59:20 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> There's nothing philosophical about it, Warp.  If you're forcing people
>> to take an injection, you're in the wrong, just as much as someone
>> who's forcefully injecting people for experimental purposes.
> 
> Saving millions of people's lives is the same as "forcefully injecting
> people for experimental purposes"? I think you are deliberately twisting
> the issue.

Look at it from the standpoint of the people you're trying to force to 
take the injection.  They don't know that it's not an experiment, or that 
you know what you're talking about.

> It's not an experiment. We know that we can eradicate polio. We know
> that we would be saving people's lives. There's no question about it.

So you claim.  Again, from the perspective of the people you'd forcefully 
inject, how do they know you're telling them the truth?  History is 
littered with examples of people who did things to other people "for 
their own good", except it wasn't actually for an altruistic reason.

You're saying "trust me", but not providing a basis for that trust.

> Let me put it this way: If there were a country out there that regularly
> engages in ritual sacrifice of humans, would you want to intervene?

Yes.  That is different than telling someone "I know what's good for you 
and you will submit to it because I say so".  To pretend that those are 
even remotely similar situations is patently ridiculous.

> If your answer is yes, then what exactly is the practical difference to
> the polio vaccine situation? In both cases we would be saving the lives
> of innocent people. Would it happen by force? Yes. Would it matter? No.

Again, look at it from the perspective of being the one being forced to 
take the injection.  If you'd take that, then what else would you submit 
to because your government says it's good for you?  Or someone else's 
government?

> No, I just cannot agree with the bullshit sentiment that we should just
> obey their wish to commit suicide and take tons of people with them,
> many of them who would not want to die or get crippled for life. If they
> don't agree, then it's too bad for them. They don't have a say when we
> are talking about human life. Life takes priority over cultural
> bullshit.

And I cannot agree with the bullshit idea that because you say something 
is good for someone who doesn't know better, they should just submit and 
take it because you know better than they do.  Whether you /do/ actually 
know better than they do or not is irrelevant.

I also reject the bullshit analogy you use to justify this - equating 
something that is clearly immoral and just plain wrong (human sacrifice) 
with imposing a totalitarian regime on someone because you know better 
than they do is not the same thing.

Since we're going for bullshit analogies, how about I just godwin the 
thread right now and say "I'm sure Hitler would agree with you.  After 
all, what he did to the Jews was for their own good."

Jim

Post a reply to this message