I like the way you put your thoughts together man, and even though we disagree about some points, it's nice to discuss this with you in a reasonable and calm way that doesn't involve me branding you as X or you branding me as Y for our beliefs.
I'd also back your right to say that you think that I should have to take vaccines against my free will if it came down to it - even potentially at my detriment, because being able to freely express opinions is critically important. This even goes for the extreme end of the spectrum where I think those opinions might be harmful, disgusting or evil.
I hate pedophiles for example with a passion, but I wouldn't want them not to be able to voice their reasoning for why they do what they do. I don't need to be protected from bad ideas, and more importantly, how can I know if an idea is truly bad if I never hear it, or if when I hear it I listen in bad faith.
Many people think anti-vaxxers should go to jail, be punished for their opinions, shit all over them in huge groups on social, try to get their social channels shut down, try to get them prevented from voicing their opinions, don't listen to what they're saying to try to understand their reasoning fairly.
While I disagree with ideas like nanotechnology being implanted in vaccines to control us etc, those ideas should be just as free to be said as Fauci or the head of the WHO making a public statement about vaccines. It doesn't mean both opinions are equally backed by science or equally right, but it means that the people expressing them have equal rights to do so.
It's not a good way to form a point by selecting fringe ideas and roping them in with others as if they're the same. Flat earth and the question of vaccines are not even in the same ball park.
As well as that though, something like climate change is a very complicated question to be answered, and the stance taken on it could take in things like economic factors, social factors, and alternative scientific factors.
I get what you're saying here though.
Yeah that's good, it's important.
So the core of the questions are:
a) do people have the right to make decisions for others against their wishes in general?
b) what about if it's for the greater good of other people?
Either a belief has to be held that people have an inalienable right over their own body, in all situations, or the rule has to be that an authority has the ultimate right over peoples' bodies.
I'll ask you a question in good faith, and give me an honest answer on this one: If your mother was 100% against getting the covid vaccine, would you support her being physically forced to take it?
Btw I'm not trying to trap you to win an argument, the discussion itself is what's interesting - if you would support that then I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.
