Pandemic Ethics - Injection mandates are immoral (Ben Shapiro edition)

Pandemic Ethics - Injection mandates are immoral (Ben Shapiro edition)
People have been trying to rationalize the suspension of human liberties in the name of “saving lives” or “doing it for others” or “for the greater good”, conveniently forgetting that all dictatorships in history had similar justifications for greater goods.
So Ben Shapiro, known fake libertarian, and masked authoritarian, once suggested that it was libertarian to coerce people to get injected...
Sorry fanboys, but that argument is false, and I will explain why. I am surprised that Ben is considered to be good at debating, because he wouldn’t stand a chance against me in a debate. Listen up and make up your own mind.
This example of "poisoning the river" is a false equivalence fallacy, a straw man fallacy, a non-sequitor fallacy, and a Humean blunder, since you cannot logically get an “ought” from an “is”.
Overly educated and demonstrably low IQ people may say that even in libertarianism, you could force people to get injected with an arbitrarily chosen experimental unproven injection because if you don't get said big-corpo product, it's the equivalent of you poisoning a river, and poisoning everyone else downstream.
This is false on many levels:
1. This poisoning the river comparison is not the same thing. To poison a river, you need to take action which is outside of your default inert state. Your default is not poisoning a river. In the case of the "deadly pathogen", your default is NOT being injected. You cannot harm anyone by not taking action outside of your default state. Oh, but you might say but this time, this novel paradigm-shifting viral pathogen is more dangerous and therefore, we need to arbitrarily change accepted human behavior, but this is also false. We always carry pathogens and transmit them to others with a potential to kill them. This is life. It’s been like this for billions of years. I don’t see any one of you feeling particularly guilty about being part of the annual flu chain of transmission that ends up killing thousands and thousands every year.
2. You cannot arbitrarily accuse someone of poisoning your river, and then think you have the right to impose stuff on them. Where is the hard evidence? Where is the data? Do you know for a fact, enough to bet your life on it, that the uninjected are somehow more of a threat to you than your own reckless behavior? Is it proven or is it just your paranoia? This is not how civilized society works. If anyone could accuse anyone of anything, and then think they have a right to impose mandates on whatever, then we’d be living in chaos, because this is what chaos is: people feeling aggrieved and entitled enough to exert violence on others. In civilized societies, unlike the one Ben is living, you have to prove your case in a fair trial where you give your opponent the benefit of making their case too. This one-sided fact checking and single-narrative bullshit is the definition of superstitious witch-doctor Spanish inquisition theocracies, and anyone who likes it is welcome to leave civilized society and go live in a cave somewhere.
3. Ben assumes that this injected product works to stop transmission, which is false. He has no possible depth or breadth of data to prove this, and neither did the manufacturers when they tried to impose this onto everyone. They even admitted this recently. <video of dutch parliamentary questioning Pfizer rep>
4. Ben’s simplistic example assumes that taking the injection has no consequence to the user’s health or the user’s liberties and rights to bodily integrity. When you tell someone to stop poisoning a river, he cannot possibly damage his health by not taking action. But how certain is Ben that this injection has no health impact? Is he willing to bet his life on it that it is not at all risky to health? Who is he to decide who lives or dies with all these excess deaths that only now are being half-assedly admitted, as well as all the people who died from delayed treatments from the lockdowns? And I don’t care about the unsubstantiated claim “the benefits outweigh the costs”, and even if that were true, nobody had data to make such a claim. If you are the one to be damaged for the sake of others, I don’t think you’d be holding the same principle. People pretend to be moral when they think others are sacrificed to protect them. But when they are on the front line, and they are the ones to be sacrificed, they sing a different tune. And by now we know that these injections have negative health impacts. What we don’t know is how much, because we baptize every excess death by medical negligence or heart attack or “died suddenly” as anything we want, since diagnostic criteria are by now ridiculously arbitrary. No Ben, you cannot enforce something that has ANY health impact on people. Where there’s a risk there is a choice. Fuck your fascistic “greater good” principle. Freedom is the greater good.
5. Ben also assumes that if you don't take this injected product, you are somehow transmitting. Why? If you don't take this product, you are either uninfected, or you have natural immunity after getting infected, or you are dead after getting infected. In either of these 3 cases, you are of no danger to anyone. Oh, you might say that you might be infecting others during the 7 days that your body needs to build natural immunity? Well, the same goes for the injected after getting the injection: they feel horrible for weeks and weeks, and nobody's questioning whether they are infecting anyone during that time.
6. You cannot force people to do anything for your safety. No one treads on your rights by NOT doing anything. You forcing them though, IS treading on their liberties and rights. If you feel unsafe about something, then nobody is stopping you from taking action for yourself. In Ben's ridiculous river example, imagine paranoid people imagining that their neighbor upstream was unclean for some kind of demented superstition, and demanded their neighbor submit to arbitrary measures. This means that anyone can then demand anything from anyone by using any arbitrary justification. Are you sure you want to live in a world like that? If you are scared, then YOU should take steps to protect yourself first BEFORE you demand that others protect you. How can you demand that others protect you when you don't protect yourself? People wearing silly cloths masks had the nerve to demand that I take an experimental injection to protect them, when they couldn't even wear an N99 or a military grade gas mask that guarantees 100% protection from all respiratory pathogens. First take all available safety precautions, before you even think about forcing others to protect you. And no, inconvenience is not an excuse, because forcing others is inconvenient to them, and if you value convenience more than your health, then don’t expect others to value your health either. If you are afraid, YOU lock yourself at home, YOU keep your distance, YOU wear a mask, YOU marginalize yourself from society, YOU wash your hands 10 times a minute, YOU lose your job. Nobody is forcing you to do or not do these things. Only your TV-induced paranoid fear is forcing you to do these things. If you do these things, then those NOT doing these things cannot affect you, because they “infect” each other, but not you. You have no right to demand they do anything for you, because they owe you nothing just like you think you don’t owe them anything. And they ask nothing of you other than to leave them alone, because they are not doing anything to affect you.
7. Even if the uninjected were a great threat to society, and the injected had no way to protect themselves, you still cannot get an “ought” from an “is”. Even if the bad data and bad science about this pathogen that were given to us were true, and they were immensely manipulated, nobody gets to be the moral arbiter of enforcing measures. Where were the data about lockdown effectiveness, or about mask efficacy, or if lockdown health benefits would outweigh the health costs? Ben Shapiro could not possible have the data about the injection benefits outweighing the costs because he’s not a prophet nor does he have a time machine. You might claim your injection mandate is good, but at what cost? Did you consider the costs? Can you know? If you can't, shut the fuck up. And even if you do, even if you know that the injection will kill fewer people than it saves, you still cannot morally make this decision for those who will die. No, the ends DO NOT justify the means. Those who say they do should voluntarily sacrifice themselves to donate all of their organs. They can die now and save at least 6 people (one heart, one liver, two lungs, two kidneys). Why aren't they making this sacrifice, if the ends justify the means? So shut up.
8. If the fearmongering campaign by scared little bitches like Ben was correct, then all the uninjected should be dead by now. Assuming their fear mongering was valid, then all those "science-deniers" transmitting and infecting each other should have been dead by now. But instead we get the admission by the "scientists" that even their experimental useless and dangerous product does not stop infection either. And I'm making the claim that it doesn't even limit transmission. No, I don't have any data to support this, but I don't need to because Hitchen's razor and burden of proof. Anything that can be asserted without evidences can be dismissed without evidence. And their assertions were made without evidence, only bad science and bad data, inferring bad policies from nonsensical illogical mental processes. The default null hypothesis is true until the alternative hypothesis is proven sufficiently.
To end this video:
The entire fear mongering divisive narrative of an epidemic wildly exaggerated using bad science, manipulated data, corporate interests and blatant scientific corruption, was a test in which humanity failed. We were so concerned with our own supposed wellbeing that we naively swallowed every lie about what they told us was good for us and what they told us was threatening to us, and then we mindlessly adopted moral standards by unaccountable technocrats with everything to win and nothing to lose from their appeal-to-authority-fallacy high horse. We believed and sided with disgusting TV anchors, pathetic celebrities, condescending late night comedians and scumbag politicians, and we made our own friends and family our enemy for being skeptical where there was a lot to be skeptical about.
We will not forgive people like Ben Shapiro, not because of spite, but because if we forgive them, we enable them to abuse us, and others, again.
Forgive for yourself, but don’t forgive for them, unless they truly want to make amends and promise to change their moral compass. Until then, fuck Ben Shapiro.
If you agree or disagree with my argumentation, leave a comment below, but at least respect yourself enough to explain why, and make a case for your argument. If not, makes no difference to me.

Music credit: Vibe Tracks – Dana
Intro video from Five Finger Death Punch -Living the Dream