[bnorth]

Originally Posted by G1911

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




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.




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!




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




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.




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.



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.

LOL, at least I admit many of my posts are trolling in this WAY beyond silly thread.