Freedom includes Responsibility

[Mycroft]

And I expect the freedom of SELFISHNESS from you right wingers. Would you drive thought a red light in the name of “freedom”?

I suggest you try to pass a law forbidding self interest. Then you'll be able to forbid selfishness.

 

[Lisa]

The point is that certain people, such as the OP, have an unhealthy obsession with the decisions other people make about whether to get the vaccine or not. I suspect that such busybodies are often that way because of idleness, and their mental state could be greatly improved if they had something worthwhile to do with their lives.

Such as abortion, racial equality, atheists/ religious rights of other religions, or the equal rights of LGBT?

Perhaps if you were to take up a job or a hobby or some other useful activity, you would not be so concerned with the medical decisions of others?

It is a public policy when you are spreading a deadly disease to others because of your refusal to wear a mask, social distance, or get vaccinated? Your rights and freedoms come tethered to the same responsibilities to society and to others.

 

[ataraxia]

I choose not to live in fear of bad things that could hypothetically happen. I take the same reasonable precautions against disease transmission that most sane and normal people did prior to the hysteria of 2020.

Oh so you mean you want to act like a global pandemic doesn’t exist.

 

[ataraxia]

I suggest you try to pass a law forbidding self interest. Then you'll be able to forbid selfishness.

If your freedom and self interest are hurting others, then you betcha. You have no right to endanger, sicken, or kill others. Your mama shoulda taught you that. If she didn’t teach you, then the law will.

 

[Mycroft]

If your freedom and self interest are hurting others, then you betcha. You have no right to endanger, sicken, or kill others. Your mama shoulda taught you that. If she didn’t teach you, then the law will.

Again...pass a law.

 

[Lisa]

Again...pass a law.

They didn't have to because those legal statutes already exist from the past public health crisis.

 

[ataraxia]

Again...pass a law.

All the states already had mask mandate laws. Was that wrong?

 

[Outlook]

Below is my response to a person in another thread who was basically bragging that they were not going to get the COVID shot because they were "young and healthy".
And isn't it so true about the right-wingers who yell FREEDOM! these days that they forget the RESPONSIBILITY part of the equation. Hopefully, they would not drive through a red light in the name of "freedom" because of the possibility that they might kill someone in a car wreck. But isn't it the same with the COVID vaccination. If a person insists on NOT getting it, isn't there a very real possibility that they could then come down with COVID and spread it to someone who might then die, most likely some of their elderly relatives or friends or relatives with weakened immune systems? Where is the RESPONSIBILITY of getting a COVID shot involved?


From another thread: "What you and so many other “freedom” advocates do not seem to understand is that FREEDOM REQUIRES RESPONSIBILITY. “Freedom” without responsibility towards others in a society is called “anarchy” and is evidently what you see as “personal freedom”. Getting vaccinated is not all about “you”, but about herd immunity so that your elderly relatives and others that you might know who have weakened immune systems due to disease have less chance of getting COVID. The more people who get vaccinated, the better chance there is to lessen the possibility of COVID surviving for the long term. What you call “freedom” is actually the ultimate in societal irresponsibility and lack of care about your fellow citizens. It’s not “freedom”, it’s SELFISHNESS."

It's true, isn't it? When right-wingers speak of "freedom", they are actually talking about an anarchic-based "freedom" whereby they should be able to do what they want without responsibility to the citizenry of the nation at large: carry an assault-style into a Statehouse or disrupt the official proceedings of Congress as ordained by the Constitution. That's not freedom, that's children playing tin soldiers.
The true meaning of freedom in a democracy is one that include RESPONSIBILITY to others, not just selfishness to do whatever. We remain in trouble as a nation as long as the right-wingers are dedicated to a SELFISH "freedom".

Here is an excellent article that expands on the concept: https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/burdens-of-freedom

It's his decision. You know, his body, his decision.
Maybe the guy wants to know whether it will be safe. Remember Cuomo and Harris question the vaccine because Trump was in power.
Will you be critical of the pregnant mother who wants more information?
What about the people who already had the virus? Anyone in the press asking why they need to be vaccinated?
Don't you have any questions why people are getting blood clots with the J&J vaccine? Don't you want to know why people are getting sick after taking their second dose?

I guess you are the type of person that is a follower, what ever the government says even though they are full of morons. You simply want to be control. I understand.

It was my decision to get the shots due to my age.
I have never had a flu shot. Again, that was my decision.

I'm starting to question the purpose of the shot. Nothing has changed. CDC says I'm protected, but I still have restrictions.
Now I'm learning, I will need a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

At what point can we take off the masks and have a group hug?

You are right freedom requires responsibility.
It is selfish when protesting, as guaranteed by the constitution, turns into violence that injures others and destroys property. Isn't that a freedom that requires responsibility?
During the height of the pandemic, was it responsible for people to gather in large numbers to riot and loot. Freedom but no responsibility.

 

[watsup]

Again...pass a law.

The only way that you will show responsibility towards others is if a law requires you to? You're not able to make a decision on your own to do so, but someone must look over your shoulder for you to act responsibly?

 

[watsup]

It's his decision. You know, his body, his decision.
Maybe the guy wants to know whether it will be safe. Remember Cuomo and Harris question the vaccine because Trump was in power.
Will you be critical of the pregnant mother who wants more information?
What about the people who already had the virus? Anyone in the press asking why they need to be vaccinated?
Don't you have any questions why people are getting blood clots with the J&J vaccine? Don't you want to know why people are getting sick after taking their second dose?

I guess you are the type of person that is a follower, what ever the government says even though they are full of morons. You simply want to be control. I understand.

It was my decision to get the shots due to my age.
I have never had a flu shot. Again, that was my decision.

I'm starting to question the purpose of the shot. Nothing has changed. CDC says I'm protected, but I still have restrictions.
Now I'm learning, I will need a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

At what point can we take off the masks and have a group hug?

You are right freedom requires responsibility.
It is selfish when protesting, as guaranteed by the constitution, turns into violence that injures others and destroys property. Isn't that a freedom that requires responsibility?
During the height of the pandemic, was it responsible for people to gather in large numbers to riot and loot. Freedom but no responsibility.

False equivalence. No one thinks that rioting and looting is a proper form of "freedom". But neither can refusal to take the vaccine be seen as a proper form of freedom when refusing to do so can put others at risk of severe illness and even death.

 

[Outlook]

False equivalence. No one thinks that rioting and looting is a proper form of "freedom". But neither can refusal to take the vaccine be seen as a proper form of freedom when refusing to do so can put others at risk of severe illness and even death.

Everyone is different.
Maybe he does not want to take the vaccine for varies reasons. Maybe he doesn't leave the house and does not socialize.
Maybe he does not have enough information about the vaccine.
Maybe he is already immune.
How do you know that individual will put others at risk.
Can you use the same argument with the flu? Are you going to force people to get the flu shot because you place others at risk.

Great you got the shot. I got the shot. Our choice. He doesn't want to get the shot, his right. He is not breaking any laws, at least not yet.

 

[watsup]

Everyone is different.
Maybe he does not want to take the vaccine for varies reasons. Maybe he doesn't leave the house and does not socialize.
Maybe he does not have enough information about the vaccine.
Maybe he is already immune.
How do you know that individual will put others at risk.
Can you use the same argument with the flu? Are you going to force people to get the flu shot because you place others at risk.

Great you got the shot. I got the shot. Our choice. He doesn't want to get the shot, his right. He is not breaking any laws, at least not yet.

The thread is about responsibility to society associated with freedom, or lack thereof by the average right winger libertarian Republican who sees freedom as very personal and selfish, and the theme of the OP is being proven with each and every post of said right wingers.

 

[Mycroft]

The only way that you will show responsibility towards others is if a law requires you to? You're not able to make a decision on your own to do so, but someone must look over your shoulder for you to act responsibly?

A person has no obligation to give a rat's ass about anyone else unless the law tells them to.

And contrary to what you might think, YOUR idea of acting "responsibly" doesn't mean jack shit.

 

[watsup]

A person has no obligation to give a rat's ass about anyone else unless the law tells them to.

And contrary to what you might think, YOUR idea of acting "responsibly" doesn't mean jack shit.

Thank you yet again for proving my OP.

 

[grip]

Lots of people get an annual flu shot. No big deal. If people don't get it, then COVID will spread again and people will subsequently die.

The country is never going to force 300 million to get vaccinated every year. Now if the mortality rate reaches a couple of percent, then I'd say make the shots mandatory.

 

[watsup]

A person has no obligation to give a rat's ass about anyone else unless the law tells them to.

And contrary to what you might think, YOUR idea of acting "responsibly" doesn't mean jack shit.

Yes, I have previously acknowledged that right wingers live a very easy libertarian life in which they are only concerned about themselves. Liberals also have concern for others, and I am very proud of that. The COVID crisis is a perfect example. Liberals generally are going to get the shot not only for their own well-being, but also to help stem the pandemic for society in the long run, while right winger like yourself dwell in your normal irresponsibility.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Any decision anyone makes could theoretically effect others. It's generally not a sign of good mental health to go around imagining hypothetical scenarios where other people's private decisions could affect you. Try to focus more on your own actions.

You literally support the Myanmar military slaughtering its own citizens because it’s your idea of a people “reclaiming their country”

What possible insight to freedom and the rights of the individual could you possibly have?

 

[Mycroft]

Yes, I have previously acknowledged that right wingers live a very easy libertarian life in which they are only concerned about themselves. Liberals also have concern for others, and I am very proud of that. The COVID crisis is a perfect example. Liberals generally are going to get the shot not only for their own well-being, but also to help stem the pandemic for society in the long run, while right winger like yourself dwell in your normal irresponsibility.

You do know that I am fully vaccinated, right?

You should know by now not to stereotype. Why don't you?

 

[watsup]

You do know that I am fully vaccinated, right?

You should know by now not to stereotype. Why don't you?

It’s not “all about you”, as you have previously claimed. It’s also about the people in your life who may be vulnerable because of age or medical problems, and ultimately about the attempt to stem the long-term potential of the disease to maintain itself by infecting the populace. And yes, it is right wingers who are most resistant to doing so, and many of them say so quite loudly.

 

[Mycroft]

It’s not “all about you”, as you have previously claimed. It’s also about the people in your life who may be vulnerable because of age or medical problems, and ultimately about the attempt to stem the long-term potential of the disease to maintain itself by infecting the populace. And yes, it is right wingers who are most resistant to doing so, and many of them say so quite loudly.

Everyone in my life are also fully vaccinated.

But the fact is, YOU have made it "all about me" at the same time you stereotyped me.

I'm happy that you've walked back your stereotype, though.

 

[watsup]

Everyone in my life are also fully vaccinated.

But the fact is, YOU have made it "all about me" at the same time you stereotyped me.

I'm happy that you've walked back your stereotype, though.

How can I walk back my stereotype given the responses of yourself and your fellow right wingers in this thread which mostly reject the notion that freedom requires a responsibility to society. I find that reprehensible.

 

[AmNat]

You literally support the Myanmar military slaughtering its own citizens because it’s your idea of a people “reclaiming their country”

The Burmese government is right to protect their people from a small number of rioters who wish to help a foreign power subjugate their country. If they want to bring peace, they must make it clear to such people that their twisted vision will never become reality.

Not that that has anything to do with the thread topic.

What possible insight to freedom and the rights of the individual could you possibly have?

I support the right of ordinary people to live their lives in a natural and human way. Wielding power over one's fellow citizens is not a legitimate human right, nor is creating chaos and mayhem as a way of protesting one's lack of power.

 

[watsup]

The Burmese government is right to protect their people from a small number of rioters who wish to help a foreign power subjugate their country. If they want to bring peace, they must make it clear to such people that their twisted vision will never become reality.

Not that that has anything to do with the thread topic.

I support the right of ordinary people to live their lives in a natural and human way. Wielding power over one's fellow citizens is not a legitimate human right, nor is creating chaos and mayhem as a way of protesting one's lack of power.

Wielding power over one’s fellow citizens is called “government” and is the appropriate way to protect human rights if the government is a democracy. If it’s based in tyranny like in Burma or Russia, not so much.

 

[AmNat]

Wielding power over one’s fellow citizens is called “government” . . .

Indeed. The avoidance of tyranny requires that government not be entrusted to those who are unfit to exercise its power.

 

[watsup]

Indeed. The avoidance of tyranny requires that government not be entrusted to those who are unfit to exercise its power.

That’s what makes democracy the best of all types of governments at this point.