Talk:Should the public be forced to take vaccines?

Categorizing

@Guy vandegrift: I think this would also fit the category of essays on socialism. If you think so too, I'll add it to that category. AP295 (discuss • contribs) AP295 (discuss • contribs) 02:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and add the category. Thanks. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Notes

The general idea is reasonably well expressed in the essay, but I'll summarize. The position of the media's archetypal "leftist" (as portrayed by the media) has nothing to do with objective principle, the public interest, or in general any pro-social ethic. Instead, it serves the interests of business and is only made halfway acceptable to the public by sheer cajolement, set vis-a-vis its "conservative" foil in a very selective media narrative. This is unfortunately what passes for "leftism" here in the USA. The media sometimes uses the label "neoliberal" to describe this apparent contradiction. This idiomatic term is entirely non-descriptive, it only serves to give it a name and associate the position with the archetypal "left". As though we're supposed to say "ah, neoliberal, that explains it" and be content that it has "liberal" in the name. Again I'm reminded of Orwell's essay. Terms like "liberal" and "left" tend to lose their meaning as a side effect. Or rather, their meaning would seem very vague if they weren't understood as being opposite to "conservative' or "right-wing". One begins to sense that these presupposed factions are in some way very remote from any consistent set of principles. Orwell's essay applies in terms of language, but additionally we have now this two-party diegesis to occupy the public consciousness. Political doublespeak no longer needs to float on vague and nebulous language alone since there's a relatively tangible (but entirely farcical) political dichotomy framing up discourse. AP295 (discuss • contribs)

Added a bit more. I estimate that it's pretty sharp now. About pamphlet-sized too, which is perfect. Some time ago I also changed the title so that it does not use the nominalized term "vaccination" and replaced the intro, which was starting to sicken me as it was far too apologetic and watsonian. It really takes a long time to eliminate the habit altogether, or at least it has for me. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 02:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This is essentially a moral argument, not a medical argument, and I believe it's the argument that should be made. Some time ago I watched an interview of cardiologist Peter A. McCollough. I do not have the expertise to interpret his argument with respect to medical science, but it seemed quite genuine. Since then he's been given a dressing down via his Wikipedia BLP, which I'm sure violates a whole host of Wikipedia policy e.g. WP:BLP, and which misrepresents his argument quite blatantly. (Hardly reassuring. If his argument was dishonest then why would it need to?) If I recall correctly he did not advocate hydroxychloroquine monotherapy, and specifically stated that monotherapy does not typically work well on viral infections, or something to that effect. At various points the BLP claims he was "spreading misinformation", which is a facile and dishonest way to characterize dissenting views. Apparently he was a fairly well-respected cardiologist. Yet this goes to show that perhaps it's sometimes better to make an argument directly based upon principle. The media's tacit presumption that if a vaccine is safe and effective it is okay to force it upon the public is what really needs to be challenged to make a proper argument. Such presumptions must first be identified and then dismissed on moral grounds, rather than letting them ride and trying to make evidence fit a morally-justified conclusion that would stand on its own. This isn't to say one shouldn't present evidence, nor that the evidence does not favor his standpoint (which does seem reasonable at face value) necessarily, but that evidence and expert opinion can so often be bought and/or distorted. An expert witness at a trial is probably going to speak in favor of whoever is paying them. The concentration of media ownership can impress the false perception of consensus, disseminate propaganda, spread FUD, and misrepresent dissent, yet it cannot refute a moral argument or tell people that they don't have the expertise to make a moral judgement, as that's one of the essential assumptions that law and the justice system are predicated upon and justified by. Incidentally, I have a copy of that interview, which was scrubbed from youtube shortly after it appeared, but I probably shouldn't upload it here. Maybe I can find it on archive.org or something. In any case, I hope he's still speaking honestly, assuming he was in the first place. I haven't looked at what he's done recently but it would be very disappointing to find that he's adopted some conspiracy persona. I may add this paragraph to the essay with some editing. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 05:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I made the argument about nationalizing a pharmaceutical company mostly to highlight that it's an instance of exploitation, profiteering and a conflict of interest that the public is forced to patronize big pharma. There's really no way to refute this when nationalization is seen as an acceptable alternative, which would defeat the profit motive. Yet it occurs to me that I really don't think there's any instance in which the public must be forced to accept injected drugs en masse. Everyone must have title over their own person. I'm not sure how I want to work this into the argument but I probably should sooner or later. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 10:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Why question in the title?

Article entitled "Should the public be forced to take vaccines?" would be better suited for the Wikidebate format. Since the present article, rather than examining arguments for both sides, seem to be for this in affirmative: "The public should not be forced to take vaccines", with no question mark. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

You want it for the title of a wikidebate, I take it then? This is why wikiversity ought to have a page in mainspace for each user to organize their own material under, and then perhaps a separate page for wikidebates and pages for other general content so everything doesn't end up in mainspace. Wikiversity is collaborative, but really each resource does have a primary author. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 00:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll move it if you like, but I'd like the title to stay the same. Perhaps we can have a page essays in mainspace, and then each user can have their own subpage so that this page appears as essays/AP295/Should the public be forced to take vaccines? Something must be done before mainspace ends up a rat nest with people contending over titles like people bid up catchy domain names. I'd first rather have some general consensus on what's to be done about the namespace problem though. It would be great if someone other than me would make a colloquium topic about it. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 00:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: Aside from renaming the essay, how else do you think this should be resolved? Really I'd just like to group my essays under a page AP295/ in mainspace but I'm not sure if this is allowed at present. I think it's a good title for a debate and I don't want to keep you from using it that way. Nonetheless I still think it's a fine title for my essay as well. I've mentioned similar the issue of namespaces several times but others seem disinclined to favor policy changes that I suggest so maybe someone else should be saying it too. Another option would be to have a page essays in mainspace, and then have my essays in essays/AP295/... but I don't want to be the only user who follows this convention. At some point I might organize my material into "courses" but at the moment it's not quite there yet. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 03:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@AP295: I do not currently press the issue. You have multiple options: 1) do nothing; 2) rename the page to Should the public be forced to take vaccines?/Essays/AP295, which would follow a proposal recently made by someone else (not me) in one of the discussion forums; 3) rename the page to Should the public be forced to take vaccines?/AP295, since this format was not objected to and sees some use; 4) turn the page into a debate, which also solves the problem. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I've thought about it and decided to keep the name. I will eventually take it out of mainspace though. I think inviting the reader to consider a question will probably tend not to put off viewers where a statement will. In other words, it's a rhetorical decision. I try to keep my essays firmly in the realm of dialectic, but as I explain in Socialism/Bipartisan fraud, people likely have very specific reactions to partisan statements. If I make the statement right off the bat, nobody will open the essay, because so many people already have firm beliefs. The media can impose their propaganda upon the public, but I must pique the reader's interest, and a bit of ambiguity in the title isn't going to hurt anything. Believe it or not, I do want people to think for themselves and believe that if they do, they'll arrive at similar conclusions. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 03:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)