bookmark_border“How many of you commenting on this…”

“How many of you commenting on this have ever had: mumps, measles, rubella, chickenpox, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough? At age 6 to 7 I had the mumps, measles, chickenpox, rubella. My parents were concerned when I had the measles and the chickenpox at the same time because the doctor questioned if I might not survive. I never want any other child to go through that. Would that the vaccines had been available when I was young.”

This is a comment that I saw on a social media post about the state of Florida’s decision to abolish vaccine mandates. This comment just didn’t sit right with me. At first glance, it’s hard to argue against someone who themselves have had a disease that vaccines are designed to prevent, and who wants to spare others from the same suffering. But I see the issue of vaccines completely differently. And the person who made this comment doesn’t seem open to other perspectives at all. She seems to think that because she has actually experienced what it’s like to have the diseases that vaccines are designed to prevent, her perspective (as well as the perspectives of those who have had similar experiences to her) is the only one that matters on this issue. With this comment, she is subtly claiming the moral high ground for herself and dismissing the experiences and perspectives of other people.

Here is my perspective:

Personally, vaccines had a huge negative impact on my childhood. I remember, from the ages of roughly four to six, the sickening feeling of dread that I would experience each time that my mom told me that I had a doctor’s appointment coming up. At each appointment, I was subjected to painful, invasive, and gruesome shots. I didn’t have the power to say no; I didn’t have any say in what would happen with my body. The dread that I felt leading up to each appointment, the sick feeling in my stomach that I experienced when waiting for the doctor to inform me how many shots I was about to be subjected to, is one of the most vivid memories of my childhood. The routine practice of vaccination was by far the biggest negative aspect of my life during those years.

I don’t believe in mandatory vaccination, because I don’t want any other child to go through what I experienced.

I wish that vaccines hadn’t been available when I was young, because then I wouldn’t have had to get them. I wouldn’t have been subjected to the years of dread and pain that mandatory vaccines inflicted.

That’s my experience.

My experience matters, and my perspective matters, just as much as the experiences and perspectives of people who got sick and wish that they had been able to get a vaccine.

It’s hard to argue against someone who has gotten so sick that they nearly didn’t survive, and wants to spare others from having the same experience. But my perspective is just as valid as this person’s, my experiences just as important and deserving of empathy. I suffered as well, and also want to spare others from having the same experience that I did. I’m tired of being silenced, attacked, insulted, called an “anti-vaxxer” and “anti-science,” my perspective disregarded again and again in favor of pro-vaccine voices.

It’s hard not to have empathy for someone who nearly died from a contagious disease. But the little girl who was subjected to painful and unwanted medical procedures deserves empathy too. Having a needle injected into your arm is not nothing, particularly when it happens again and again, month after month, year after year. For young children, as well as some adults, getting a shot is experienced as painful and gruesome, and this is a completely valid experience. Living in constant dread for years is not nothing. Being denied any say in what happens to your body is not nothing. The suffering inflicted by vaccines is very real. Vaccination significantly reduces quality of life. And these harms need to be weighed against the benefits of vaccination in preventing diseases. Because the little girl who existed 30 years ago, and who wasn’t allowed to voice her perspective or stand up for herself, matters. The fact that one little girl had mumps, measles, chickenpox, and rubella, is no reason for another little girl to be punished by having her rights violated, her preferences disregarded, and her quality of life destroyed.

As sympathetic as this commenter seems, she, like so many pro-vaccine people, is denying the existence of any perspectives other than hers. She went through something bad, so all that matters is preventing other people from experiencing the same bad thing that she did. She wishes that she had gotten vaccines when she was a child, so all children must be forced to get them. She has a preference, and so her preference must be imposed on everyone. My experiences are different from hers, and so they don’t matter.

But in reality, her experiences do not negate mine. Her desire to prevent suffering does not negate my fundamental rights. Her preference to have gotten vaccines is not a license to impose this preference on other people. Her wish that vaccines had been available to her as a child, does not make it okay to force them on other children against their will.

Let’s circle back to the question, “How many of you commenting on this have ever had: mumps, measles, rubella, chickenpox, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough?” By asking this question, the commenter seems to be implying that if someone hasn’t had one of these diseases, then they’re in no position to give their opinion on the issue of vaccines. She is implying that having had some of these diseases gives her the moral high ground and makes her perspective more valid than others. But it’s just as important and relevant to ask: “How many of you commenting on this have ever been subjected to years of constant dread and pain due to being forced against your will to get vaccines?” I have. And that’s just as important, and just as relevant, as having had a vaccine-preventable disease. Contrary to what this commenter seems to be implying, my perspective is just as valid as hers, and just as valid as anyone else’s.

bookmark_borderEverytown’s logical fallacies on Stand Your Ground laws

In a recent social media post, the Firearms Policy Coalition called attention to anti-rights organization Everytown for Gun Safety’s “research” regarding Stand Your Ground laws.

(Everytown refers to these laws as “shoot first laws,” which many commenters on the post correctly point out is a manipulation of language designed to make said laws seem reckless and unreasonable, when in reality they are not.)

“Shoot first laws are unpopular,” Everytown proclaims in large font at the very top of their page, blatantly committing what is possibly the most basic logical fallacy, equating popularity with goodness. Contrary to what Everytown presumes, how popular or unpopular something is, has nothing to do with whether it is good or bad. Okay, Stand Your Ground laws are unpopular. So what? What does that have to do with whether they are good or bad? Nothing.

“Legal experts and advocates also oppose Shoot First laws,” Everytown continues. A similar point applies here: the fact that legal experts and advocates oppose these laws, has nothing to do with whether the laws are good or bad. There’s no rule stating that whatever experts and advocates think is automatically true. Experts and advocates are simply people, just like anyone else. They could be right in their beliefs, or they could be wrong. 

“In 2012, the NAACP called for a repeal of these laws due to their effects of increasing crime and promoting racist violence.” The same point applies here: the fact that an organization called for a repeal of these laws, has nothing to do with whether or not the laws should actually be repealed. There’s no rule stating that organizations’ policy positions are automatically correct. Organizations can be right in their policy positions, or they can be wrong. An additional point also applies here: just as the popularity of a law is irrelevant to its goodness or badness, the effects of a law are irrelevant as well. The fact that a law would increase crime and/or “racist violence” has nothing to do with whether the law is good or bad. Goodness and badness are determined by the intrinsic morality of a law or policy, not the effects. Additionally, I do not see how it would be possible for Stand Your Ground laws to promote “racist violence,” because Stand Your Grounds laws do not have anything to do with race.

And furthermore, there is a very important point to make about the NAACP itself. Over the past five years, through the positions that it has taken and statements that it has issued regarding the statue genocide, the NAACP has established itself as an organization dedicated to inflicting horrific, unbearable pain on innocent people, destroying everything that makes life worth living, and obliterating from the face of the earth every person who is different from the norm. Due to the bigotry, cruelty, aggressive intolerance, and complete moral bankruptcy demonstrated by the NAACP, I would argue that there is a very strong negative correlation between whether the NAACP has expressed support for a policy position, and that policy position’s likelihood of being right. In other words, the fact that the NAACP called for a repeal of Stand Your Ground laws is strong evidence that these are good laws that should not be repealed.

“And in 2015, the American Bar Association also released a report recommending the repeal of Shoot First laws.” A similar point to the ones that I’ve made above, applies here: the fact that the ABA recommends repealing Stand Your Ground laws, has nothing to do with whether they actually should be repealed. There’s no rule stating that the ABA’s position on an issue is automatically correct. The ABA might be right on an issue, and also it might be wrong.

“According to an expert quoted in the report, ‘If our aim is to increase criminal justice system costs, increase medical costs, increase racial tension, maintain our high adolescent death rate and put police officers at greater risk, then this is good legislation.'” I don’t see how a criminal justice system would cost money, and so I don’t see how Stand Your Ground laws could increase “criminal justice system costs,” whatever the heck that means. I also don’t see how increasing medical costs is a bad thing, because in every transaction, the buyer of a product or service pays money and the seller of the product or service receives the exact same amount of money, so every transaction is a net neutral. Furthermore, I don’t see how Stand Your Ground laws could increase racial tension, because they have nothing to do with race. Most importantly, as I’ve stated above, all of this is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Stand Your Ground laws are good or bad. The effects of a law have nothing to do with whether the law is good or bad, because goodness and badness are determined by the intrinsic morality of a law, not its effects. By listing all of these irrelevant factors as if they are somehow significant, the ABA and their alleged expert demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes good and bad legislation.

So, yeah. Stand Your Ground laws are correct, because people have the right to use deadly force against people who trespass on their property. Trespassing on other people’s property is wrong, and therefore people forfeit their rights if they do it. It’s morally abhorrent to focus one’s criticism on the victims of wrong actions – as Everytown, the NAACP, and the ABA do – rather than the perpetrators.

bookmark_border“Twenty-five million Americans…”

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy)

Um, yes. And that is bad, how?

If force or violence is justified to advance an important political objective, that means that killing a person is OK if doing so is necessary to advance the political objective. I don’t get why it’s considered bad or surprising that someone who believes that violence is necessary would actually be willing to use it. And as the Firearms Policy Coalition points out, there absolutely are situations in which violence is justified to advance political objectives, with the Revolutionary War being just one example.

FPC’s caption in the post is so important that I am reproducing it below:

“We believe that natural rights are not granted by governments, a byproduct of majority consensus or majoritarian process, or mere privileges conferred by any government, group, or creation of man.”

(emphasis added)

bookmark_borderRespecting people’s fundamental rights is not “weak”

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy)

“A gunman from a state with weak gun laws”

As a commenter on the post wrote, “‘Weak gun laws’ you mean states that don’t infringe on the 2nd amendment.”

Yup. States that actually – gasp! – respect people’s fundamental rights. Can’t have that, apparently.

News flash, Governor Hochul: Respecting people’s fundamental rights is not “weak.”

It’s a basic moral obligation.

It’s basic human decency.

There’s nothing “strong” about punishing innocent people for the actions of others.

There’s nothing “strong” about violating people’s fundamental rights.

How about, when a person does something bad, we actually blame the person, rather than blaming the government for not violating the rights of all people in an attempt to prevent a person from doing something bad?

Just a thought.

bookmark_borderRespecting people’s fundamental rights is not a “race to the bottom”

A recent op-ed in Teen Vogue by professor of “women, gender, and sexuality studies” Caroline Light purported to “explain the dangers of so-called Constitutional carry laws.” The op-ed claims that “national reciprocity is a race to the bottom, forcing all of us into a deadly ‘guns everywhere’ dystopia.” (source here)

There are a few things that need to be pointed out:

First, it is irrelevant that there (allegedly) are “dangers” of Constitutional carry laws. Constitutional carry laws are necessary, because anything else violates people’s rights. And people’s rights must be respected, regardless of how much danger is involved in doing so. 

Second, Constitutional carry laws are, well, Constitutional carry laws. There is no need to use the term “so-called” to describe them.

Third, national reciprocity is by no means a race to the bottom. National reciprocity means that states would be required to actually respect people’s fundamental rights. To characterize this as a “race to the bottom” implies that respecting people’s fundamental rights is somehow bad. And this, of course, is the opposite of the truth. It shouldn’t even need to be stated, but respecting people’s fundamental rights is not a race to the bottom, but rather the exact opposite.

And fourth, yes, national reciprocity does “force” all states to actually respect people’s fundamental rights. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Respecting people’s fundamental rights is a basic moral obligation, so all states should be forced to do this. What exactly is the problem here?

Fifth, it is irrelevant that national reciprocity would (allegedly) create a “deadly” situation. As I stated above, rights must be respected, regardless of how safe or dangerous it is to do so.

Sixth and finally, a nation in which people’s fundamental rights are respected is not a “dystopia.” To characterize it as such implies that respecting people’s fundamental rights is somehow bad. And as I stated above, that is the exact opposite of the truth. A nation in which people’s rights are respected would be the antithesis of a dystopia. A nation in which people’s rights are respected is exactly the type of nation that everyone should be working towards.

bookmark_borderThe percentage of people who favor assault weapons bans… is irrelevant

A recent article in The Hill, about the reintroduction of an assault weapons ban in the Senate, states that:

“A November Gallup poll showed that 52 percent of Americans said they favor a ban on assault weapons, although higher percentages of Americans supported the idea in the past. Overall, 56 percent of Americans think gun control laws should be more strict.” (source here)

Just a reminder that the percentage of people who favor assault weapons bans is irrelevant. How popular or unpopular something is, has nothing to do with whether it is good or bad. Assault weapons bans violate people’s rights; therefore they are bad and should not be enacted, regardless of what percentage of the population supports them.

bookmark_border“A concealed carry mandate would overturn the will of voters…”

“In addition to being a major threat to public safety, a concealed carry mandate would overturn the will of voters everywhere and force states to allow people to ignore safety standards,” the Giffords anti-rights organization wrote in a recent social media post.

Wow. To force states to actually… respect people’s fundamental rights. How terrible. Contrary to what the people at Giffords seem to think, forcing states to respect people’s rights is a good thing. Respecting people’s rights is a basic moral obligation.

Additionally, it’s irrelevant that a concealed carry mandate would overturn the will of voters. Concealed carry is a fundamental right. If the will of voters is for people’s rights to be violated, then the voters are wrong, and they deserve to have their will overturned.

Finally, the claim that a concealed carry mandate would be a major threat to public safety is irrelevant as well. Concealed carry is a fundamental right, and respecting people’s rights is a basic moral obligation, regardless of the consequences for public health.

Individual rights must come first. Always. No matter what. That’s why they’re called rights.