Mr.GuessWork said: This is one of those times when you have to act and think at almost the same time, as opposed to stopping and thinking, which is more in line with deep philosophical thought. The need to act promptly limits some options in the decision making process, and that introduces some necessary risk taking that may seem strange and uncomfortable, but it makes sense to people who were familiar with it, and have had the time to properly think about it in deep ways. Those are the guys in charge behind the scenes on vaccination stuff. Any type of developed thought requires trust in other peoples ideas and study, and right now, the people who are developing vaccines and studying public health are the ones who have the right background to do the type of thinking we need. Deep philosophy for the rest of us is a luxury if we take the advice, and it's a liability if we don't.
A good start for the basis of what makes the decision good or bad, at least in my reasoning, is an evaluation of the costs, benefits, and outcomes of that decision. Good decisions ideally have low costs with high benefits and/or good outcomes, and bad decisions have high costs and low benefits and/or bad outcomes. What's making me judge your decision as bad is that you aren't addressing it's costs, benefits, and outcomes in any reasonable way, particularly when those costs/benefits/outcomes are clear and well explained (that's not a judgement on you per se, but on your choice and the circumstances surrounding it, since I know you can appreciate the difference). Your assessment of the quality of your decision seems detached from it's impact on reality. I'm not sure about your work scenario. You may work entirely from home, and then I can understand why they broke rules for you since it's a low risk decision for them, but if you're stuck in an office with other people, then your decision has a large potential to harm you and other people, and the evidence clearly demonstrates that. If you're being reasonable, then you have to accept that as a fact, and if you're being respectful of other people, then you have to address the harm you're causing, because you have an easy and low-cost/high-benefit way to prevent the harm and you're choosing not to do it, and as far as I can tell, you have offered no good reasoning for your refusal. That's what is not worthy of respect, and it's not worthy of respect because it's a disrespectful and harmful thing to do. If you're going to put other people in harms way, then you at least owe them a decent explanation.
I must say, to start, that I do appreciate the effort in your well thought and written out posts. I've always enjoyed your input and I'm glad that you've been more active in the community since all this kicked off.
Regarding the work situation; yes, I do work primarily from home. I will need to attend an office a few days a week starting around spring, at which point I will surely have to succumb to additional testing/mask wearing as compared to the vaxxed people. No problem by me at all, happy to oblige.
I must say though, that surely - to all the vaxxed people I shall encounter there, surely I don't pose any great risk, being unvaxxed, and surely any unvaxxed people there will be - like myself - willing to take the risk that comes with attending a public place. Or am I missing something?
I hear all this rhetoric about how, by being unvaxxed, one is a 'menace to society' (or words to that effect), but personally, I just can't see it. To me it just sounds like the usual shit one gets for not doing what everyone else does:
'Why aren't you married? You should get a girlfriend and settle down.'
'Why don't you have kids? What, you want a vasectomy? You really shouldn't do that, think about it, you're gonna want kids one day.'
'Why wouldn't you get a mortgage? It's the only sensible thing to do.'
'Why do you still dress like you're in the nineties, current fashion is so much better.'
'What? You don't watch television? You really should, there's some great shows out there.'
Etc. Etc. Etc.
It's a sociological phenomenon I have observed over and over and over again in my life. If everyone else is doing it, then the vast majority of the crowd will A) Try and convince you to do what they're doing or B) Try and shame you for not doing what everyone else is doing.
When it comes to all the arguments I've seen about causing harm to others, I really, really, really just don't buy it. I don't see it, I don't feel it. It was never like this about the flu, so why all the hysteria all of a sudden? The only reason I can see is humans being humans; most follow the crowd, and the few outliers that choose not to are shunned and insulted for not doing so.
Where did personal/bodily autonomy go? For all those that have argued for years to have free choice of what they put into their bodies, why would they not argue still for free choice as to what they do NOT put into their bodies?
I've been treated like a criminal for so many years for the former, and now I'm practically a criminal - in the eyes of many, it seems - for the latter.
I just don't accept it. I don't accept that those that choose not to vax, as much as koods type would have it, are scum.
We should all have freedom, and for those that live in fear, I say: 'don't go outside then'.
Yet TPTB seem to be enforcing it the other way, and I do not agree.
I stand by my words on this, and cannot see good reason from the opposing side not to.
-------------------- Let it be seen that you are nothing. And in knowing that you are nothing... there is nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain. What can happen to you? Something can happen to the body, but it will either heal or it won't. What's the big deal? Let life knock you to bits. Let life take you apart. Let life destroy you. It will only destroy what you are not.
--Jac O'keeffe
|