Anonymous #1 1d

Withholding a cure to a deadly disease vs withholding a vaccine to a deadly disease Same shit different ass The trials work the same exact same way in both cases. Another unethical one is bound to happen in the future, and if you actually don’t see how the same can of worms still applies here, then I don’t believe that you don’t

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

What on earth are you talking about? Are you not taking your meds and that scared of going back on? You might want to get your vision checked too if that’s what you’re seeing

0

Anonymous #1 1d

Not re-typing this

5

Anonymous OP 1d

The Tuskegee experiment was literally about taking advantage of an impoverished and oppressed community for the purposes of medical testing. It is not a parallel to covid in any way shape or form. Second, anti vax rhetoric is extremely dangerous and kills innocents who have complete idiots like you for parents. If you can show me where the covid vaccine was unethical I’d love to see it.

0

Anonymous #1 1d

If you can show me where I mentioned Covid, I would love to see it. You won’t be able to, because I was talking about a broader topic. If the government is given the authority to decide what is and isn’t misinformation, they will abuse it the second they need to cover their asses. That alone was the basis of my post. Criminalizing antivax rhetoric would 100% open the door for this, & Tuskegee just shows that they’ve done sus shit already. (Plus, they aren’t exactly trustworthy today either)

5

Anonymous OP 1d

They as in the government as a whole, before what I said in parentheses gets twisted

4

Anonymous #1 1d

Ok but if the government had the power to determine what was allowed and what wasn’t, the consequences would be the same for both.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

If this if that, if isn’t what happened in the covid scenario. You just want to be different and edgy and you don’t seem to care about the lives that will be lost by pushing your narrative

0

Anonymous #1 1d

No, giving the government the power to arrest people who spread what they deem to be false information is incredibly dangerous. There are times when it would be beneficial, such as the Covid pandemic, but there are also so many examples where the government would have abused the power to cover things up, such as the Tuskegee experiment.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Nobody gives a shit about your hypothetical. We already have a clear legal definition of what can be restricted. Speech that endangers others. So womp womp. End of conversation.

0

Anonymous #1 1d

It’s not a hypothetical, I’m talking about actual historical events.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Also “endangers others” is incredibly subjective.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Yes which we have established is unrelated.

0

Anonymous #2 1d

No, we have a legal definition of it. Sorry. It’s not my fault you choose to be a complete idiot

0

Anonymous #2 1d

What exactly do you gain from spreading information that only gets people killed? And what makes you more qualified than people who have studied ACTUAL medicine and viruses their entire lives?

0

Anonymous #1 1d

It’s not unrelated, it’s literally an example of the impacts of a law that restricts free speech. And the legal definition sets bar for what constitutes illegal speech incredibly high, so that nothing gets banned for simply upsetting people or going against the government wants. As such, misinformation is not considered illegal.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

What exactly do you gain from giving the government to determine what counts as reality and ban any dissenting voices?

1

Anonymous #2 1d

How many times do I have to get this through your thick skull. There is a clear legal precedent already in place you fucking dumbass. I hope you don’t get your vaccines you pig

0

Anonymous #2 1d

No it’s not, nobody had their speech restricted for tuskegee you fucking ape. Seriously don’t reproduce. A pair of scissors and then cauterized. For all our sakes

0

Anonymous #1 1d

Yeah, nobody had their speech restricted because we have solid protections for free speech! You’re advocating for removing those protections. And no, there’s not a legal precedent for censorship of individuals who post or spread incorrect information.

1