I think the down-votes illustrates my point exactly.
I’m pro expression of freedom, full bodily automony (my body, my choice), anti censorship, reign in corporate power, higher top marginal tax, ending foreign wars (inc Ukraine), diplomacy with every government (inc the ones labeled terrorists. Remember; Nelson Mandela was also labeled a terrorist), tax included high education, tax included healthcare, more money to public transport.
Well thats some of it, and most of the first points are traditional left-wing issues, but in todays society, you get “right-wing” label immediately.
“My body, my choice” was not a right-wing stance. It was instead an anti-science movement. If you just listen to the words, its easy to think it might be leftist, but the intent behind it was absolutely far-right. A good comparison is “All Lives Matter” or even “White Lives Matter” as a response to “Black Lives Matter.”
Diplomacy with Putin to end the war can be right or left. Opposing Imperialism is left wing, what matters is the way you wish to conduct diplomacy, and to what outcome.
“Believe in science”, that’s anti-science. “My body, my choice” has always been in context of abortion, and viewed as left wing. Here it’s the exact same words, the exact same meaning in context of taking an experimental redefined definition of a vaccine. It’s in this setting that characters make or breaks. If you cannot uphold your values when they matter, you don’t have values, you have hobbies.
It sounds like you’re a moral absolutist, and that is absolutely right-wing. Context is key. You can say “It’s wrong to kill”, but what if the person you killed was trying to kill you, and you acted in self defense? What if killing them was the only choice you had to prevent them from killing you or somebody you love?
Similarly, you can say “My body, my choice”, but the situation is different when you’re talking about getting an abortion vs. getting a vaccine.
You can call me whatever you like. Here is a text about the differences between ethics and laws, taken from a dentist journal, but the same laws apply here.
In general, the courts have determined how ethical principles translate into the requirements for how healthcare providers obtain a patient’s consent for treatment. Consent from a legal perspective involves respecting the “bodily integrity of the individual.” This dimension emanates from the philosophy of personal autonomy, defined as “an individual’s capacity for self-determination or self-governance” or “the capacity to decide for oneself and pursue a course of action in one’s life.” The courts view the informed consent requirement for a healthcare provider as a requirement to disclose sufficient information for the patient to make a “controlled decision before undergoing irreversible treatment.”, A patient’s consent must be voluntary, meaning “no coercion or unfair persuasion and inducements” and can be withdrawn at any time.
There is no special cut-out for vaccination within the law. In this context a vaccine would be defined as “irreversible [medical] treatment”.
Getting a vaccine is a public health issue while getting an abortion is not. By choosing to not get vaccinated, you place other people at risk by increasing your chances of infecting others and by giving the virus more opportunities to mutate.
Vaksinasjon er frivillig
All vaksinasjon i Norge er frivillig. Personer som anbefales eller ber om vaksine må få tilstrekkelig informasjon om fordeler og ulemper ved vaksinering til å kunne ta et informert valg. Det skal også være åpenhet om usikkerhet og kunnskap som mangler.
Translate it and see for yourself.
If you are to the left of someone, and they are not informed, they will call you right-wing.
I thought I would be nicer to you than I was to the previous guy I answered. I wrote; “Translate it and weep”. Here is the translation;
Vaccination is voluntary. All vaccination in Norway is voluntary. People who are recommended or ask for a vaccine must be given sufficient information about the advantages and disadvantages of vaccination to be able to make an informed choice. There must also be openness about uncertainty and possible lack of knowledge.
I have never been called right wing, and I’m just about as far left as they come.
I think the down-votes illustrates my point exactly.
I’m pro expression of freedom, full bodily automony (my body, my choice), anti censorship, reign in corporate power, higher top marginal tax, ending foreign wars (inc Ukraine), diplomacy with every government (inc the ones labeled terrorists. Remember; Nelson Mandela was also labeled a terrorist), tax included high education, tax included healthcare, more money to public transport.
Well thats some of it, and most of the first points are traditional left-wing issues, but in todays society, you get “right-wing” label immediately.
Right vs left is about Capitalism vs Socialism, and generally upholding hierarchy vs abolishing it.
You would not get labeled right wing based on those views unless you had other nonsense going on in tandem.
I would absolutely agree with you on your first paragraph.
But please answer this honestly, “my body, my choice” during covid was labeled “right-wing”, you agree?
Doing diplomacy with Putin to end Ukraine war was also labeled “right-wing” putin puppet talking points, no?
Both these are traditional left-wing values.
“My body, my choice” was not a right-wing stance. It was instead an anti-science movement. If you just listen to the words, its easy to think it might be leftist, but the intent behind it was absolutely far-right. A good comparison is “All Lives Matter” or even “White Lives Matter” as a response to “Black Lives Matter.”
Diplomacy with Putin to end the war can be right or left. Opposing Imperialism is left wing, what matters is the way you wish to conduct diplomacy, and to what outcome.
So yea, good chance you could be right wing.
“Believe in science”, that’s anti-science. “My body, my choice” has always been in context of abortion, and viewed as left wing. Here it’s the exact same words, the exact same meaning in context of taking an experimental redefined definition of a vaccine. It’s in this setting that characters make or breaks. If you cannot uphold your values when they matter, you don’t have values, you have hobbies.
It sounds like you’re a moral absolutist, and that is absolutely right-wing. Context is key. You can say “It’s wrong to kill”, but what if the person you killed was trying to kill you, and you acted in self defense? What if killing them was the only choice you had to prevent them from killing you or somebody you love?
Similarly, you can say “My body, my choice”, but the situation is different when you’re talking about getting an abortion vs. getting a vaccine.
You can call me whatever you like. Here is a text about the differences between ethics and laws, taken from a dentist journal, but the same laws apply here.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jopr.13493
In general, the courts have determined how ethical principles translate into the requirements for how healthcare providers obtain a patient’s consent for treatment. Consent from a legal perspective involves respecting the “bodily integrity of the individual.” This dimension emanates from the philosophy of personal autonomy, defined as “an individual’s capacity for self-determination or self-governance” or “the capacity to decide for oneself and pursue a course of action in one’s life.” The courts view the informed consent requirement for a healthcare provider as a requirement to disclose sufficient information for the patient to make a “controlled decision before undergoing irreversible treatment.”, A patient’s consent must be voluntary, meaning “no coercion or unfair persuasion and inducements” and can be withdrawn at any time.
There is no special cut-out for vaccination within the law. In this context a vaccine would be defined as “irreversible [medical] treatment”.
Getting a vaccine is a public health issue while getting an abortion is not. By choosing to not get vaccinated, you place other people at risk by increasing your chances of infecting others and by giving the virus more opportunities to mutate.
Here are the rules in Norway from our FHI.
https://www.fhi.no/va/vaksinasjonsveilederen-for-helsepersonell/vaksinasjon/lover-og-regler-ved-vaksinasjon/?term=#vaksinasjon-er-frivillig
Vaksinasjon er frivillig All vaksinasjon i Norge er frivillig. Personer som anbefales eller ber om vaksine må få tilstrekkelig informasjon om fordeler og ulemper ved vaksinering til å kunne ta et informert valg. Det skal også være åpenhet om usikkerhet og kunnskap som mangler.
Translate it and see for yourself.
If you are to the left of someone, and they are not informed, they will call you right-wing.
Nah, not bothering to do your legwork for you.
I thought I would be nicer to you than I was to the previous guy I answered. I wrote; “Translate it and weep”. Here is the translation;
Vaccination is voluntary. All vaccination in Norway is voluntary. People who are recommended or ask for a vaccine must be given sufficient information about the advantages and disadvantages of vaccination to be able to make an informed choice. There must also be openness about uncertainty and possible lack of knowledge.
Cool, why exactly do I care about this?