Anti-Vaxxers Take Online Harassments To Real World

[Samadhi]

Worse than a death toll in the hundreds of millions?

The best possible path is to burn government to the ground and help each other. The next best is to just burn government to the ground.

And in the absence of government expect pharmaceuticals to be generous with vaccines. Chess grandmaster move.

You've still got some straw in your hair there.

I've not said anywhere that I expect pharmaceuticals to be generous.

[Samadhi]

Worse than a death toll in the hundreds of millions?

The best possible path is to burn government to the ground and help each other. The next best is to just burn government to the ground.

This is not going to happen at any point in the near future. Speaking as an anarchist, myself, the state isn't going anywhere (I should also point out government =/= the state, they aren't the same thing though you're equivocating them).

Regardless, trying to claim that 'the government' (as if there's only one) is just totally evil and murderous is just as silly as trying to argue that it's all peaches and roses. Life is complicated like that. Realism and perspective are good qualities to have.

Except all government is evil. It's not a poor family stealing to survive, it doesn't get those sorts of considerations.

[Totenborg]

And in the absence of government expect pharmaceuticals to be generous with vaccines. Chess grandmaster move.

You've still got some straw in your hair there.

I've not said anywhere that I expect pharmaceuticals to be generous.

They're not doing a strawman. There's not too many options here.

[Gormwood]

And in the absence of government expect pharmaceuticals to be generous with vaccines. Chess grandmaster move.

You've still got some straw in your hair there.

I've not said anywhere that I expect pharmaceuticals to be generous.

Yet without a government you expect the pharmaceuticals to not gouge people for the vaccines? News flash: Real life is not Smurf Village.

[Totenborg]

This is not going to happen at any point in the near future. Speaking as an anarchist, myself, the state isn't going anywhere (I should also point out government =/= the state, they aren't the same thing though you're equivocating them).

Regardless, trying to claim that 'the government' (as if there's only one) is just totally evil and murderous is just as silly as trying to argue that it's all peaches and roses. Life is complicated like that. Realism and perspective are good qualities to have.

Except all government is evil. It's not a poor family stealing to survive, it doesn't get those sorts of considerations.

You seem to have adopted a monolithic perspective. That's probably not gonna serve you well. Sometimes government is neccessary when there is no viable alternative.

[Plzen]

For all the fantastical bloodlust that defined the 20th Century, smallpox still killed more people than governments in that era, even when including sketchy Chinese civil war era warlords, guerrilla insurgents and the like which are arguably more a result of insufficient government instead of too much government.

After a few hundred million deaths smallpox was eliminated in the late ‘70s through a determined international programme arranged by the WHO and funded primarily by... wait for it... governments. No charity has the scope and efficiency that taxation does.

Some bad things are more bad than others, and even if you make the frankly nonsensical argument that governments cannot provide vaccination without also committing ethnic cleansing, deliberate famines, or concentration camps, I’d still take public healthcare over anarchy.

[Samadhi]

You've still got some straw in your hair there.

I've not said anywhere that I expect pharmaceuticals to be generous.

Yet without a government you expect the pharmaceuticals to not gouge people for the vaccines? News flash: Real life is not Smurf Village.

How much are you spending on straw?

I expect nothing, nor have I said anything to that effect.

[Samadhi]

Except all government is evil. It's not a poor family stealing to survive, it doesn't get those sorts of considerations.

You seem to have adopted a monolithic perspective. That's probably not gonna serve you well. Sometimes government is neccessary when there is no viable alternative.

Maybe in an infinitesimal number of cases.
Maybe.

[Gormwood]

Yet without a government you expect the pharmaceuticals to not gouge people for the vaccines? News flash: Real life is not Smurf Village.

How much are you spending on straw?

I expect nothing, nor have I said anything to that effect.

Oh that's cute. You're complaining about strawmen to cover up the lack of forethought you put into your Gubmint BAD tirade in regards to vaccination and public health.

[Totenborg]

You seem to have adopted a monolithic perspective. That's probably not gonna serve you well. Sometimes government is neccessary when there is no viable alternative.

Maybe in an infinitesimal number of cases.
Maybe.

Perhaps vaccines are one of those cases, since there are no viable alternatives?

[Samadhi]

How much are you spending on straw?

I expect nothing, nor have I said anything to that effect.

Oh that's cute. You're complaining about strawmen to cover up the lack of forethought you put into your Gubmint BAD tirade in regards to vaccination and public health.

No I'm pointing out straw men when it's the only argument you have.

[Byzconia]

This is not going to happen at any point in the near future. Speaking as an anarchist, myself, the state isn't going anywhere (I should also point out government =/= the state, they aren't the same thing though you're equivocating them).

Regardless, trying to claim that 'the government' (as if there's only one) is just totally evil and murderous is just as silly as trying to argue that it's all peaches and roses. Life is complicated like that. Realism and perspective are good qualities to have.

Except all government is evil. It's not a poor family stealing to survive, it doesn't get those sorts of considerations.

What exactly are you defining as "evil," though? You're using the actions of history most awful regimes to try and claim that every government is bad when many have been led by people who legitimately wanted to improve peoples' quality of life. Many of the government services you say "shouldn't exist" are a direct result of progressive and social-democratic movements either pressuring the government to implement them or gaining power and directly implementing them themselves. All of that can't just be wiped away by the actions of people they had nothing to do with.

[Samadhi]

Maybe in an infinitesimal number of cases.
Maybe.

Perhaps vaccines are one of those cases, since there are no viable alternatives?

Except not having vaccines is still better than having vaccines and need to include the crimes of government.

[Gormwood]

Maybe in an infinitesimal number of cases.
Maybe.

Perhaps vaccines are one of those cases, since there are no viable alternatives?

According to her Gubmint BAD and people can somehow get vaccinated when pharmaceuticals are now free to Shkreli the public with the price of vaccines without a government to distribute them or crack down on price fixing. I try to be optimistic about humanity when possible but I don't delude myself into thinking it's Smurf Village.

[Samadhi]

Except all government is evil. It's not a poor family stealing to survive, it doesn't get those sorts of considerations.

What exactly are you defining as "evil," though? You're using the actions of history most awful regimes to try and claim that every government is bad when many have been led by people who legitimately wanted to improve peoples' quality of life. Many of the government services you say "shouldn't exist" are a direct result of progressive and social-democratic movements either pressuring the government to implement them or gaining power and directly implementing them themselves. All of that can't just be wiped away by the actions of people they had nothing to do with.

I'm using all government regimes. Or do you think the war in Iraq was a wonderful time for the millions killed?

[Plzen]

Except not having vaccines is still better than having vaccines and need to include the crimes of government.

Except that 2 million deaths a year is actually and statistically less than 3 million deaths a year.

And this is even if we accept your ridiculous argument that a government cannot do good without also committing atrocities, which is not something we accept. At all.

[Gormwood]

Oh that's cute. You're complaining about strawmen to cover up the lack of forethought you put into your Gubmint BAD tirade in regards to vaccination and public health.

No I'm pointing out straw men when it's the only argument you have.

Capn' tha' deflector shields're holdin' steady.

[Samadhi]

Except not having vaccines is still better than having vaccines and need to include the crimes of government.

Except that 2 million deaths a year is actually and statistically less than 3 million deaths a year.

And this is even if we accept your ridiculous argument that a government cannot do good without also committing atrocities, which is not something we accept. At all.

Are incidental deaths better or worse than deliberate deaths?

[Byzconia]

What exactly are you defining as "evil," though? You're using the actions of history most awful regimes to try and claim that every government is bad when many have been led by people who legitimately wanted to improve peoples' quality of life. Many of the government services you say "shouldn't exist" are a direct result of progressive and social-democratic movements either pressuring the government to implement them or gaining power and directly implementing them themselves. All of that can't just be wiped away by the actions of people they had nothing to do with.

I'm using all government regimes. Or do you think the war in Iraq was a wonderful time for the millions killed?

What did Clement Attlee's government have to do with the Iraq War?

[Plzen]

Are incidental deaths better or worse than deliberate deaths?

If you’re dying, are you really all that inclined to care? Death is death.

[Samadhi]

I'm using all government regimes. Or do you think the war in Iraq was a wonderful time for the millions killed?

What did Clement Attlee's government have to do with the Iraq War?

Well it's permanent disbanding would have left the British unable to participate.

[Samadhi]

Are incidental deaths better or worse than deliberate deaths?

If you’re dying, are you really all that inclined to care? Death is death.

Because death has no effects on anyone else?

[Byzconia]

Perhaps vaccines are one of those cases, since there are no viable alternatives?

Except not having vaccines is still better than having vaccines and need to include the crimes of government.

Spoken like someone's who never had to deal with: polio, smallpox, rubella, tuberculosis, or yellow fever--just to name a few.

[Costa Fierro]

Perhaps vaccines are one of those cases, since there are no viable alternatives?

Except not having vaccines is still better than having vaccines and need to include the crimes of government.

OK anti-vaxxer.

[Plzen]

Because death has no effects on anyone else?

Alright. Assume for the sake of argument that I accept that death by action might in certain circumstances be worse than death by inaction. Now demonstrate to me why 3 million disease deaths a year is preferable to 2 million violence deaths a year.

And I’m only including diseases that were eliminated by vaccination in that toll... include diseases that were merely made less common and the count of lives saved by vaccination is probably a lot higher than that.