[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Where did I claim you called me a name? Hmm, where?

What I said was, "The ”troll” happens to be correct. Your name calling doesn’t change that fact." Here let me explain that to you. You called Ben a "troll." I said he was correct despite your need to call him a "troll." See. I never said you called me a name. I don't think even a third-grader would think I claimed you were calling me a name from that.

Ah. Yes I did. He posted several times that that's what he was doing. I stand by it.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

This really made me laugh. Really. Where did Ben very directly, right here, on this same page, in the transcript say the action is justified if there is a possible choice to break the law or accept the consequences of pressure.
Again, not even a third-grader would be naive enough to think that highlighting "In a sense every single action ever taken in the history of humanity is a choice" means every resulting action is justified. Learn to read, indeed.

I know you guys hate the basic rules of logic (which is not a thing I've just made up here, this is 2,500 years old), but 'X is justified because Y' requires consistency to be logical. If I say "Cutting off that driver is okay because he was speeding", for my statement to be logical it must be okay to do that when Y is true. When another driver is also speeding, cutting him off is justified because that's my rational basis I gave.

If it is acceptable to coerce people because they are left with a choice to suffer the consequences, then whenever the victim can choose to suffer the consequences the use of coercion is acceptable. I cannot think of a single acton this logic doesn't justify.

It's a terrible argument. I'm sure your side can do better, and has done better with basically every other justification used. A terrible argument doesn't make the root idea wrong; it means a better argument should be found.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

This is in response to this quote by me, "As pointed out by others, and as far as I’m aware, there is no federal or state requirement forcing people to get the covid vaccine. You’re arguing a politically motivated false construction." And your response, "Not a single person has written that a law was passed forcing the vaccine in the United States. You keep arguing against things you appear to have made up." What a total disconnect that would probably even amaze a third-grader.

I stand by the transcript. I have never said there was a state or federal law to take the shot. Where did I say this? False construction indeed!

Originally Posted by AustinMike

I even quoted you which you quoted in you response, "In a good society, the coercion is only used for the bare minimum necessary for a functioning and safe society.” If you want to argue that the vaccine offers only a "minisucle (sic) reduction in an absolute risk rate," and therefore the vaccine doesn't result in a safer society, that's your prerogative. If you want to say that all coercions that result in a safe society aren't justified, that's your prerogative also. I guess we can disagree on the vaccine.

There's nothing to add here on either side, this was already done above.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

You might make it clearer if you don't post things like above regarding the miniscule reduction in risk in regards to the vaccine or post 1598 where you say "The so-called vaccine does not, obviously, have much of any statistical value to most people."

I eagerly await the evidence that taking the vaccine provides a large or significant, rather than minuscule, absolute risk improvement for most people. Not even the state or the CDC argue are seriously arguing this. It seems to make a significant, though I wouldn't call it large, improvement in people of advanced age or with numerous commorbidities. Most people have such a tiny tiny risk of covid that the small difference creates a statistically minuscule gap. Healthy 30 year olds are not seeing marked improvement in survival rates after vaccination. Nobody is even arguing that they are, unless you would like to.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Again, where is Ben's postulation that every coercion is acceptable? He never said it. You did say in Post 1771, "If threats and punishment to dictate a choice is acceptable, because one can still respond with defiance and suffer the consequences, then there’s no boundary at all. A state run on a coercion is choice philosophy is totalitarian." I then listed several example where our government coerces certain action based on the threat of punishment. And there are many others examples I could have listed. Based on your flawed definition of a totalitarian state, one could imagine the U.S. as totalitarian. And by the way, a totalitarian state probably really doesn't care if its citizens think they have a choice or not which makes your definition meaningless. But, that doesn't surprise me. You make up your own definition of "choice" so why not make up a meaningless definition for "totalitarian."

See above. If Y (the ability to choose to just suffer the consequences) is the justification for X (coercion), it must consistently be the justification for X. Otherwise it's meaningless illogical babble.

Strong coercive measure is the trademark of totalitarianism. A world run by the logic presented, that authorities with power may coerce because the victim of the coercion may choose to suffer the consequences is very literally the most extreme example of totalitarianism. No such society, to this extent presented by the argument, has ever actually existed, or at least I cannot think of one. I have said this several times. I understand that what you want to argue against is that the US is not totalitarian, but nobody has said it is. In actual fact the exact opposite has been said, repeatedly, because you seem to struggle to get this.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

I only entered this fray to point out to Ben that his choice argument was correct and I get dragged in to this. So, if you'll excuse me, I'm thinking of watching a movie. It's about a woman in a concentration camp during WWII. She has two kids and is told that she has to pick which of her two kids will be gassed. If she doesn't, both will be gassed. Horrible options. It's called "Sophie's Choice." You might remember all the complaints about the title. Yeah, me neither.

And here we go with the Nazi's, like clockwork. Hopefully upon viewing you realize that such a choice is not really a free choice, and not how people who are not the ones whose 'side' is doing the coercion want to live.