this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2025
239 points (98.8% liked)

Canada

10724 readers
930 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Canada just lost its measles-free status. So here’s the question..

If an unvaccinated child spreads measles to someone else’s kid, why shouldn’t the parents be liable in small-claims court?

I’m not talking about criminal charges, just basic responsibility. If your choice creates the risk you should have to prove you weren’t the reason someone else’s child got sick.

Is that unreasonable?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

prepare for what situations you run into where you know it's possible to be stabbed

And what might those preparations look like? How does one prepare for that, as well as for the possibility of getting shot, or being run over by a car while on the sidewalk, or getting mugged/pickpocketted, or getting your credit card information stolen, or having your home being broken into and ransacked, or someone picking up your infant and running away with them, or having your drink/food spiked, etc.

Get a vaccine.  Nobody should every be able to take that right from you.

A vaccine is never 100% effective. If it were, then we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. 3% of people receiving the measles vaccine don't get immunity, and there's those who can't get the vaccine because they're too young, or are immunocompromised in some way. What option would they have for dealing with their own lives without controlling others?

[–] bastion@feddit.nl 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

And what might those preparations look like?

All preparations for disaster look like a cost-benefit analysis and reasonable actions taken to mitigate those disasters. Sometimes, that means relying on collective tools - laws, incentives, etc., which can be easier sometimes, if it works. Other times, it's internal planning, or physical training, or avoidance of problematic situations.

Another big aspect of preparation that people can do is genuinely coming to terms with the existence of whatever particular problem they're facing. "Radical acceptance", so to speak, though one needs to know the difference between accepting and submitting. When you can't accept something, you end up blindsided by it, shocked and appalled that it can happen to you, or that humans can't just talk it through, or whatever. When you can, you generally see it coming a ways away, and can address it before it becomes an issue for you, instead of thinking "I shouldn't have to deal with this," or "but humanity is better than that, and we can just talk it through."

But, that kind of preparation takes a lot of world-view shifting, and skill-building in processing fears, and for people who don't really have evidence of the benefit, it's hard to pay the cost in time and effort on personal growth in that area. C'est la vie.

A vaccine is never 100% effective. [...]

Indeed. However, there must be a line for what a collective can or cannot reasonably impose on an individual. And, whether you like it or not, the physical body is a real boundary, and granting a collective governing body power over what you put into or take out of your own body is a larger issue than vaccination, and people will utilize that power against you, not just for you.

This is true enough that as soon as the Democrats started pushing for mandatory vaccinations during covid, I knew and stated that the cost would be abortion. ..and that's exactly what was lost, in many states.

Any power you give the government, will be used all of the ways it can be used, depending on the party in power and the moral fads that the culture goes through - and as you can see with trump and the underlying expressions going on there, these fads aren't always going to be in your favor.

Although there are some areas that are morally more stable, any area that doesn't have fairly universal support will go through this dynamic of flipping what side gets to utilize that power, and in what way it is used.

Case in point:

The Republicans centralized power in the presidency with the USA Patriot act. The Democrats, in power when it expired, renewed it, rather than letting it drop, or (even better) making an act to prevent that centralization of power. Obama utilized that power to great effect, including to fulfill the reason for it's temporary existence. ..and then he renewed it, when it was no longer needed, and after it had expired, because of lack of ability to consider that maybe power isn't always a good thing, and sometimes you need to let go for things to work right.

..and the dems can't keep hold of that power. ..and now that power is Trump's and the reps in general, until their fire burns out.

As a side note: The irony is that maybe Trump, if he thinks the dems will win, might nerf presidential powers out of spite - which would be great, if it sticks.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 points 14 hours ago

Sometimes, that means relying on [...] laws

We're you not just arguing against having laws to disallow stabbing? If not, then I'm not clear on what you mean by "controlling others".

"Radical acceptance"

Couldn't this also apply to abuse of power? Accepting that there's the possibility of bad outcomes, and that's the cost of certain benefits, like protecting everyone from some easily preventable causes of death. It sounds like maybe what you're arguing for isn't that exerting control over others in and way is universally bad, but rather that bodily autonomy needs to be protected above all. But if that's the case, I don't understand why you think it's only acceptable to protect it by not actively doing something that violates bodily autonomy, and why it's not okay to actively protect bodily autonomy (e.g. preventing others from inserting undesirable sharp objects into your body, whether that be a knife or an injection or anything else).

The Republicans centralized power in the presidency with the USA Patriot act [...]

I agree that centralization is power is problematic, but this is a whole other problem independent of bodily autonomy. Unless you're saying that controlling others is only bad when it's done by a central power? But you're also making arguments against mandatory vaccination in general, so I'm still unclear on what your stance is.