This makes no sense. It's like saying the Billy Bush tape shouldn't have been released because it gave the public more information "in a notably skewed fashion". It gave us information about Trump, but not Clinton. Skewed!
Perhaps it makes no sense when one ignores the rest of the picture, sure. That requires ignoring the rest of the picture, though.
There's nothing wrong with the information being out there. People dying from vaccine-related complications should not be hidden, if it's happening.
It certainly does happen and it certainly shouldn't be hidden (and isn't, at last check). Vaccines are not even remotely 100% safe, after all. What using them actually does, though, is dramatically decrease the odds of dying and various other potential horrors overall.
But it should be considered with the overall risks of vaccination versus the risks of not getting vaccinated in mind, in addition to the potential effects on others of not getting vaccinated. If the group is implying that it's better to not get vaccinated, then they are likely framing the information dishonestly and that is a bad thing. But the information being out there isn't bad.
And that rather gets to one of the cruxes of that particular issue. Few here have actually argued that the information being out there in the first place is actually a bad thing. I certainly didn't. When it's obtained using illegal means and is being used as a weapon to try to manipulate people to act in ways that have nothing to do with the people's benefit, though, it's entirely reasonable to be outraged at those parts of what's going on, for a number of reasons. Furthermore, it's entirely reasonable that people be more concerned about what others are trying to do to them than what others are trying to do to others who they aren't even likely to ever have contact with, which means that your claim which is directly contrary to that is rather unreasonable.
I'm not sure how saying it's natural adds anything to the conversation. It's natural for a lot of people to be outraged over something much of the media and Democratic Party keep saying is outrageous, sure.
That, unsurprisingly, has little to do with the actual reasons for outrage and so quite earns a
.
What...? CEOs are not elected by employees.
Nor is most of the federal government, yet you were pointedly saying that being part of the federal government, or even having any influence on it in any way, no matter how negligible, makes it a person's responsibility, in an attempted counter to me pointing out that those who actually make the decisions and carry them out are those who bear the responsibility.
We, as citizens, should be concerned with the actions of our government,
Yes, we certainly should.
because we are responsible for electing officials, and because we're capable of attempting to affect change through activism, pressuring our representatives and so on.
That's but one of many aspects of why. A minor one, really, given that the ability to have some tiny influence on who is going to be doing a particular job from a very, very limited selection of people who one doesn't know personally leaves plenty of leeway when it comes to invoking a sense of responsibility for the actions of the person elected. It's also one that's much, much better applied to whether we should be paying attention to what our elected officials are doing in the first place, contrary to how you've been trying to apply it. You've been trying to apply it to whether it's reasonable to be outraged at various things, though, while ignoring that outrage is inherently emotional and thus have been trying to argue that people should get *more* emotional about wrongs done to perfect strangers who they frequently would quite dislike anyways than they should get about wrongs done to their own selves and the people that they actually know and care about. It really doesn't take a genius to figure out why that argument's doomed from the start.
I never said anything about equal responsibility across the board.
When you chose to counter
If they were actually part of the decisions and implementation, perhaps. The vast majority of the federal government is not, though.
with
They are part of the institution that does it (as are we as voters, in a sense).
There's just not really any other way to reasonably take what you actually said. Even if we were generous and went with assuming that you actually meant a somewhat unequal responsibility, your argument still fails basic scrutiny for much the same reason. You're trying to spread responsibility around on the basis of working under the same very, very broad banner, not based on whether they even could have meaningfully affected anything about a decision in any way, let alone whether they even could have known about it to even try to take action regarding it. You are, of course, welcome to add to what you said to seek to clarify the intended meaning, should what you said not have accurately conveyed your meaning, but I have no intention of trying to make up positions for you that aren't directly a consequence of the words that you've chosen to try to convey such.
You tell me why we should care then.
There are many reasons, most of which boil down to the category of "because the decisions that they make affect us and those we care about."
That's a notably impressive rhetorical device you've got there.
Which I only used because it appeared to be completely accurate.
