#1 yes not ALL people in any given state share any given belief. i guess i thought that was obvious.

#2. the difference here seems to be that you are taking a normative approach to the issue while im taking a positive approach. im not particularly concerned with how things should be but rather how they are. a normative approach imo is largely an academic exercise that is not based in real world conditions.

#3 i already provided an answer but it looks like it was deleted along with alot of other posts. nevertheless, the short answer is that imo personal rights must be balanced safety. otherwise if you take it to an extreme you are left with anarchy. however its not a dichotomous choice. its a probability. how much "freedom" is one willing provide before my freedom to do what i want infringes upon yours. and the problem there is that different people view that threshold differently. waterfield can comment on this but i believe the standard is something like clear and imminent danger (ie yelling fire in a theatre). im not convince that permitting one to choose whether or not to get vaccinated presents a clear and imminent danger to the public. instead a lot needs to happen before such choice leads to dangerous behavior.

Quote
zn

Quote
PHDram
Some states like Texas for instance will likely view the issue as a personal decision.

Well the people who have the political power in those states will likely frame the issues in that particular way.

Doesn't mean the entire state sees it that way. And it does not mean that way of framing it is valid.

Meanwhile Waterfield's question is really this--how SHOULD the issue be framed? Is it really simply a matter of choice and if so why? And how does that argument stack up against the public health and safety argument?

Do people really have a right to risk infecting others? Why?

Those are just my "thinking aloud" thoughts.

If you would, answer Waterfield, not me. You 2 have better discussions.


....