Comment by virgilp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by virgilp | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> If those 100 people are still worried about that, they can choose to keep themselves locked away forever.

You must be trolling, no way you're so self-centered.

"I like to drive with 200km/h through cities, those who don't like it or are scared of my driving can stay home"

"I like to take my aggressive pitbull for a walk without a leash, if you don't like it you can stay home"

"I like to play with guns, if you don't like me handling guns in public you can stay home"

It's all recklessness, and of course not acceptable. You know what's the better solution for those 100 vaccinated people? To force you to stay at home. Because they're 100, and you're 1. It's not the whole world that needs to adapt to you, it's the other way around.

Nice army of straw men. You're trying to redefine literally existing in public as recklessness.

Self-centered? The people demanding the nonvaccinated cease existing in society because of their fears are the selfish ones. I'm saying nothing about anyone else's choices or activities whatsoever. Restricting someone else's behavior and bodily autonomy is the selfish act.

100 people forcibly removing 1 person from society who has done nothing wrong? That's a concentration camp. This is mob rule, you're just okay with it because you're part of the mob.

You can't walk naked on the street, despite it "doing no harm", because of other people's sensitivities. You need to adapt to the society, it's not the society's duty to adapt to you.

If it bothers enough people, you can't do it. Call it law, call it mob rule, call it whatever you wish - it's just how the world works.

Exactly, it's not societies duty to adapt to you, and some societies are more beholden to principles surrounding liberty; there are plenty of other more authoritarian societies available for those who want more restrictions.

And the 100 vs 1 argument is very poorly thought out; we have just had a year of people shut in their homes for the sake of the few who were at risk. For the argument to suddenly swing on its axis, it would strongly suggest an authoritarian thrilled at the opportunity to exercise their will on others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com