Quote (Bazi @ Feb 10 2015 04:11pm)
It's not mandatory because the opposition of person A regarding broccoli consumption will not cause injury to person B who is unable to consume broccoli for xyz reason.
Unlike the opposition of person A regarding vaccines which can result in injury to person B.
Person A is not causing harm to person B in a completely overwhelming majority of cases.
I can come up with a very very long list of activities and actions that
can possibly result in injury to someone else. Surely you wouldn't also ban those.
I can also come up with a long list of potential cautionary measures that could be taken to prevent possible harm to others. Surely not all of them should be mandated.
That alternate criteria will not suffice either.
Actually not eating healthy can lead to compromised immune systems and sickness which is far more likely to negatively effect others than a rare vaccine opt out.
Quote
tbh i don't think anyone in this sf would wish physical harm upon you, lets not take things personal shall we?
He already did.