This question gets a lot of activity that is not philosophic in nature: Is it ethical to convince someone to get vaccinated?

I believe it has seen multiple rounds of deletions, but people still join in to share medical opinions and give advice on COVID vaccines that is off topic and unchecked.

The obvious risk is that fake news are being spread. Better subsites are:

I think at least the question should include a warning that all COVID related comments are subject to deletion, with a link to the other preferred stackexchange sites for that topic.

  • 2
    No wonder people respond with opinions, you do to. Times are uncertain these days. But doesn't uncertainty make good questions to think about? The best answer will still get top-voted. Getting some different perspectives about a subject is what philosophers do right? I belive its better to make people think than to let them all belive 1 story. I do think there should be a note/warning on questions COVID related that reminds people to not posts off-topic content. Since I agree it can go there quickly. But just don't delete someone's perspective when it doesn't follow the mainstream perspective.
    – Allart
    Commented Dec 2, 2021 at 14:32
  • 4
    @Allart The very use of the term "mainstream perspective" is telling. And comments will be deleted if they do not fulfil the purpose of comments on StackExchange, which is improvements of the post. StackExchange is not for discussions, it is for exchanging expert knowledge on a given subject.
    – Philip Klöcking Mod
    Commented Dec 2, 2021 at 15:00
  • 1
    @PhilipKlöcking If "expert knowledge" is the only thing an answer may contain, I agree the covid question I wrote should be removed (I tried already actually). But I do hope questions should not be just from experts right? Otherwise new people would never be welcome unless there an expert. And don't take too much attention to my "mainstream" word. I just want to say that perspectives that do not follow most of the people there opinions should also be welcome. They get downvoted anyway if it's not "reliable information". I agree with what you say though.
    – Allart
    Commented Dec 2, 2021 at 17:32
  • 2
    This subsite is well prepared to handle non-mainstream opinions on Philosophy, such as that J.P. Sartre was actually an essentialist. Such non-mainstream philosophical opinions are fine here, they can be upvoted and downvoted based on merit. But this subsite community cannot handle other topics well. medicalsciences.stackexchange.com can handle non-mainstream opinions on health topics well, the community there is experienced to deal with health advice and false/biased information about health topics.
    – tkruse
    Commented Dec 3, 2021 at 2:18

1 Answer 1


I flagged one of the "answers" on this question as it did not answer the question and contained vaccine-related health misinformation. The moderators marked my flag as "helpful," yet their only action was to remove the comments someone else had posted raising concerns about misinformation.

I'm not sure the question belongs here at all, but there are certainly some ethical principles related to vaccination and different levels of pressure/encouragement/coercion that are valuable to discuss. But what the question has turned into is speculative talk about vaccine efficacy, not backed by information from any medical experts, along the lines of "what if the vaccines actually cause 'infinite harm?'" Perhaps questions about this would be on topic for Medical Sciences or Biology, with reference to medical experts and reliable sources, but this kind of discussion about how vaccines work and the evolution of the virus is fundamentally about medicine and biology and not philosophy.

A philosophy Q&A site should not be the place to discuss the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines.

  • I did handle the flag that way even though I wholeheartedly agree with you on all points made here. There is always a small path between moderation and censorship and especially in sensitive (read: emotionalised) matters, I prefer purging comments and raising post notices over deletion as long as it isn't flat out off-topic. No need to further stir up emotions imho.
    – Philip Klöcking Mod
    Commented Dec 3, 2021 at 9:21
  • @PhilipKlöcking To me it feels like you support censorship because you only remove the comments and not the answers. For example: you deleted one of my comments where I was questioning and trying to prove a statement of one's answer wrong. If you then delete it because questioning comments are not allowed it would mean only 1 side of the answer is visible. Only by downvoting someone can know an answer is possibly wrong/questionable. Without a reason (comment) people then have to make up one themself. Possibly beliving things that are wrong or not beliving things that are true.
    – Allart
    Commented Dec 3, 2021 at 14:00
  • @PhilipKlöcking What you in the end did was good I think. Closing the question and not allowing answers/comments. But then either leave the comments AND answers as they are or delete the whole question/answer/comments. EDIT: I see you can actually still comment.
    – Allart
    Commented Dec 3, 2021 at 14:04
  • @allart Thing is: In StackExchange, comments are not even meant to be lasting. They should be used to improve the content of questions and answers only. As soon as they do not fulfil this purpose, they should be deleted anyways. Answers, on the other hand, as bad as they may be, are proper licenced content of the site. They can also be downvoted. And yes, you can comment. But I'll continue to delete rigorously.
    – Philip Klöcking Mod
    Commented Dec 3, 2021 at 17:21
  • @PhilipKlöcking But do you agree with me? I now think the rules are broken :P. Or atleast not working out correctly.
    – Allart
    Commented Dec 3, 2021 at 18:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .