this post was submitted on 13 May 2026
9 points (100.0% liked)

AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

3076 readers
1 users here now

This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

♦ ♦ ♦

RULES

❶ Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.

❷ Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

❸ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.

❹ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.

❺ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.

❻ Don't be a dick.

Please also abide by the instance rules.

♦ ♦ ♦

Can't get enough? Visit my blog.

♦ ♦ ♦

Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.

$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.

 

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
DougHolland@lemmy.world
9
Governor of West Virginia thinks freedom to be stupid should override public safety (www.wvnstv.com)
submitted 1 month ago by DougHolland@lemmy.world to c/aiop@lemmy.world
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I actually don't have a problem with parents being seen to have the right to deny their children vaccines.

With a couple of provisos:

  1. They should be required to sign a waiver clearly stating their intent to deny their children vaccines.
  2. That waiver should be deemed to be sufficient, all by itself, to convict them on criminal charges should their child suffer or die from a disease against which they could have been but were not vaccinated.
  3. The children (or their survivors on their behalf) should always reserve the right to sue them for their negligence, and similarly, the waiver should be deemed to be sufficient all by itself to prove intentional negligence.

Freedom and responsibility must go hand-in-hand. If you insist on exercising a freedom (a thing I do not oppose), then it can only be the case that you and you alone bear the responsibility for the consequences of its exercise.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 weeks ago

Wait, are you talking about consequences? No no no, you can't have consequences for conservatives! Those only apply to others.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

So you’re ok with children suffering the consequences of parent stupidity, because they’d be able to sue if they survived?

What about the consequences to others if they are part of losing herd immunity or otherwise transmitted a contagious disease? Not everyone can be successfully vaccinated and their lives are contingent on the rest of us having enough immunity to block epidemics. You’re ok with them suffering …. And they don’t even have ability to establish consequences?

Personally I don’t see a better compromise than what we have right now, where a kid must be immunized to go to school. Exile is the only way to protect the indirect victims of that stupidity. It also protects the direct victim somewhat, since they are less exposed to other people. Lastly, let the kid sue their parents for lack of education when they grow up, because at least they will grow up