>>941479771
>If administering a vaccine causes the death of the vaccinated, then the vaccine is flawed and should be banned
not necessarily. it may be the case that the vaccine is flawed in some way, but the resultant death may have happened for a variety of reasons outside of the vaccine's efficacy. maybe it was malpractice, maybe it was an allergic reaction, maybe it was taken with another substance that triggered an unprecedented reaction, etc. banning the vaccine should only be advocated for when we know for certain that it has no value and only causes harm (like street available heroin for example).
>if a bad actor forces a patient to overdose on a vaccine, killing them, then the vaccine isn't the problem
this would be an example of malpractice.
>The second example is more like the gun situation
yes, negligence is a factor in gun deaths, but that only bolsters the argument that the average person is unfit for gun ownership. basically, the idea would be:
1. gun related death as a result of negligence is unacceptable.
2. most people are incapable of safely owning, operating, and maintaining firearms, and restricting the access of unauthorized persons thereof.
3. therefore, it may be prudent to deny firearm access to the general population, save for but a few who can demonstrate such fitness for gun ownership.
>>941480327
>Why is it ok to ban substances that temporarily alter your consciousness
the general idea is that these substances are unsafe because they make due bodily harm, or inadvertently influence an otherwise reasonable person into enacting violence upon themselves or others. I don't subscribe to this notion.
>not ok to ban substances that permanently alter your immune system and dna?
the point of the vaccine is to render a targeted immunity to specific ailments, so such alteration would be justified in meeting that objective.
