I mean, it’s quite a departure for a party that whinges about the First Amendment to straight up move to the government controlling what can be published, i.e. actual literal censorship. But hey, conservatives aren’t very logical.
I mean…if the loyalist redcoats had won, you’d have health care, gun control and there wouldn’t have been a civil war, slavery would just have ended like it did in the rest of the empire.
Big jump in logic here. The decay of the British empire wouldn’t even be a thing if the crown held the states. As long as we’re playing pretend I’d say it would have ended up worse for everyone.
Lol. Why not pretend the Byzantine Empire would still exist if they had North America? I was talking about a much tighter period of time, roughly 50 years. Canada was essentially self governing by the late 1800s.
It is right up there with the same people arguing for abortion because one should be able to decide what medical procedures (including drugs) should be done to them also arguing for COVID vaccine mandates, i.e. arguing that people should be forced to take a drug.
But then that’s one of my biggest grumps about pro-choice arguments (and I am pro-choice) - there’s a tendency to argue that supporting abortion is just an application of some broader principle but also to have abortion be the only controversial case where that principle actually applies.
Except nobody was physically forced down and vaccinated against their will. You can still choose not to be vaccinated, but choices have consequences. I’m not saying the government should arrest people for not being vaccinated, but people, institutions, companies and hospitals should definitely have the choice to not want to let those people inside.
I think he was saying not that it happened, but that people wanted it to happen really really bad, and that many of those same people who wanted it (or supported it, not achieved it), also support pro choice when it comes to what amounts to an ideologically similar issue (my body my choice, bodily autonomy.)
Tbf, if he is indeed saying that, he’s right, pro-choice people did want forced vaccinations by law, though you’re also right that they did not get forced vaccinations by law.
Before any reactionaries jump down my throat, I’m pro-choice myself and am simply trying to clarify what looks to be a misunderstanding in these couple comments here.
I’ve never known anyone who wanted to physically force people to get vaccinated. I did know many people, myself included, who absolutely wanted mandates. Don’t want to get vaccinated? Sure, that’s your choice. But other people get to choose not to be around you, and this includes your employer or any store owner or transport company, etc.
Idk whether the misunderstanding comes from not knowing what a mandate is, but above you say:
I did know many people, myself included, who absolutely wanted mandates (an authoritative command especially a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one)
But then go on to say that you didn’t mean “the definition of mandate” by your use of the word “mandate,” instead you meant a new definition created by you that boils down to voluntary association, not “mandates.”
So, which is it? Do/did you support the government forcing people by law to get vaccinated (mandates), or do you simply support people’s right not to employ or hang with people on the other side of their vaccination opinions (voluntary association)?
Please stop, you’re so transparent. Vaccine mandates already existed in places, which has never meant that people are physically forced to get vaccinated. Like in schools, or when you want to work in a hospital. There are mandates. Don’t want to get vaccinated? Then you don’t get to work there. You’ll never be physically forced to vaccinate.
When my employer wanted everyone to get vaccinated, that was also called a mandate. People could still not get vaccinated, it’s their choice, but then they weren’t allowed in the building. No government violence required.
There, plenty of mandates that have nothing whatsoever to do with physically being forced to get vaccinated. Just that when you choose not to, there are consequences. Actions have consequences, who knew?
If you still insist on pretending not to understand this, think of it this way: If you choose to not shower and never wear clean clothes (this is the choice you make), nobody will physically force you into a shower. But when you’re walking around smelling like weeks old sweat and garbage, your employer will definitely not let you come back to work (and this would be the consequence). Same goes for walking around like a virus dispenser.
Honestly I’m more confused as to why you pretend there weren’t people calling for prison for the unvaccinated. We agree that voluntary association is good, why deny there were also people who wanted a government mandate?
Sure though, I suppose you’re right, “employer mandates” is a thing, I concede that point (well, at least that it still doesn’t mean optional, but it doesn’t necessarily mean governmental). That doesn’t change the fact however that people were calling for more than that, people were calling for arrests, maybe not you but those people did exist. It is that which the above poster was comparing to abortion, not the much lighter version you’re talking about.
I never said these people don’t exist at all. I said I’ve never met one. So I guess I’m saying they’re definitely a tiny minority.
And again: employer mandates still mean it’s optional. Absolutely optional. It’s optional because it’s not forced.
You know what baffles me the most about this, though? That you’re so hell bent on defending another random poster, who still hasn’t even taken the time to clarify his own post or even respond to me. How can you be so sure that’s what he meant?
Nobody is coercing you to do anything when your employer doesn’t want people spreading disease in their company. Nobody is coercing anyone if e.g. hospitals refuse to hire someone who hasn’t had certain vaccinations. It has nothing to do with coercion. It has to do with the fact that actions and choices have consequences. You don’t get to willingly disregard (the safety of) everyone else and expect to be welcome everywhere.
If I choose not to shower, and stink to high heaven, some employers won’t hire me. If I choose not to wear shoes, or walk around in my underwear, I will be denied access to many places. Does this mean I am being coerced to shower and wear clothes?
Actions have consequences. It’s just that simple. You can always choose to not do x, but when it’s a requirement for y, you won’t get to do y unless you do x. And speaking of rights, what about everyone else’s rights to not have to sit/work/eat/wait next to Typhoid Mary? Or is it really your opinion that whatever someone does, their right to do whatever is more important than the rest of society? Do you think businesses should be forced to allow anyone inside no matter what? Employers are not allowed to set requirements for their employees?
I mean, it’s quite a departure for a party that whinges about the First Amendment to straight up move to the government controlling what can be published, i.e. actual literal censorship. But hey, conservatives aren’t very logical.
Always remember that if the conservatives who claim to love the US, had been born in 1750, they would have been Loyalist Redcoats.
I mean…if the loyalist redcoats had won, you’d have health care, gun control and there wouldn’t have been a civil war, slavery would just have ended like it did in the rest of the empire.
Big jump in logic here. The decay of the British empire wouldn’t even be a thing if the crown held the states. As long as we’re playing pretend I’d say it would have ended up worse for everyone.
Lol. Why not pretend the Byzantine Empire would still exist if they had North America? I was talking about a much tighter period of time, roughly 50 years. Canada was essentially self governing by the late 1800s.
It is right up there with the same people arguing for abortion because one should be able to decide what medical procedures (including drugs) should be done to them also arguing for COVID vaccine mandates, i.e. arguing that people should be forced to take a drug.
But then that’s one of my biggest grumps about pro-choice arguments (and I am pro-choice) - there’s a tendency to argue that supporting abortion is just an application of some broader principle but also to have abortion be the only controversial case where that principle actually applies.
Except nobody was physically forced down and vaccinated against their will. You can still choose not to be vaccinated, but choices have consequences. I’m not saying the government should arrest people for not being vaccinated, but people, institutions, companies and hospitals should definitely have the choice to not want to let those people inside.
I think he was saying not that it happened, but that people wanted it to happen really really bad, and that many of those same people who wanted it (or supported it, not achieved it), also support pro choice when it comes to what amounts to an ideologically similar issue (my body my choice, bodily autonomy.)
Tbf, if he is indeed saying that, he’s right, pro-choice people did want forced vaccinations by law, though you’re also right that they did not get forced vaccinations by law.
Before any reactionaries jump down my throat, I’m pro-choice myself and am simply trying to clarify what looks to be a misunderstanding in these couple comments here.
I’ve never known anyone who wanted to physically force people to get vaccinated. I did know many people, myself included, who absolutely wanted mandates. Don’t want to get vaccinated? Sure, that’s your choice. But other people get to choose not to be around you, and this includes your employer or any store owner or transport company, etc.
I have, so we’re at an anecdotal Mexican standoff it would seem.
“Mandates” doesn’t mean “optional,” in fact it’s quite the opposite of that.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mandate
Idk whether the misunderstanding comes from not knowing what a mandate is, but above you say:
But then go on to say that you didn’t mean “the definition of mandate” by your use of the word “mandate,” instead you meant a new definition created by you that boils down to voluntary association, not “mandates.”
So, which is it? Do/did you support the government forcing people by law to get vaccinated (mandates), or do you simply support people’s right not to employ or hang with people on the other side of their vaccination opinions (voluntary association)?
Please stop, you’re so transparent. Vaccine mandates already existed in places, which has never meant that people are physically forced to get vaccinated. Like in schools, or when you want to work in a hospital. There are mandates. Don’t want to get vaccinated? Then you don’t get to work there. You’ll never be physically forced to vaccinate.
When my employer wanted everyone to get vaccinated, that was also called a mandate. People could still not get vaccinated, it’s their choice, but then they weren’t allowed in the building. No government violence required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States#Private_mandates
There, plenty of mandates that have nothing whatsoever to do with physically being forced to get vaccinated. Just that when you choose not to, there are consequences. Actions have consequences, who knew?
If you still insist on pretending not to understand this, think of it this way: If you choose to not shower and never wear clean clothes (this is the choice you make), nobody will physically force you into a shower. But when you’re walking around smelling like weeks old sweat and garbage, your employer will definitely not let you come back to work (and this would be the consequence). Same goes for walking around like a virus dispenser.
Honestly I’m more confused as to why you pretend there weren’t people calling for prison for the unvaccinated. We agree that voluntary association is good, why deny there were also people who wanted a government mandate?
Sure though, I suppose you’re right, “employer mandates” is a thing, I concede that point (well, at least that it still doesn’t mean optional, but it doesn’t necessarily mean governmental). That doesn’t change the fact however that people were calling for more than that, people were calling for arrests, maybe not you but those people did exist. It is that which the above poster was comparing to abortion, not the much lighter version you’re talking about.
I never said these people don’t exist at all. I said I’ve never met one. So I guess I’m saying they’re definitely a tiny minority.
And again: employer mandates still mean it’s optional. Absolutely optional. It’s optional because it’s not forced.
You know what baffles me the most about this, though? That you’re so hell bent on defending another random poster, who still hasn’t even taken the time to clarify his own post or even respond to me. How can you be so sure that’s what he meant?
Choosing not to be around someone is you leaving, not them.
No, it’s also choosing not to let them into your building.
That is an entirely different point
“Choices have consequences” is not something that should be said in regards to a government coercing you about a matter of your rights.
Nobody is coercing you to do anything when your employer doesn’t want people spreading disease in their company. Nobody is coercing anyone if e.g. hospitals refuse to hire someone who hasn’t had certain vaccinations. It has nothing to do with coercion. It has to do with the fact that actions and choices have consequences. You don’t get to willingly disregard (the safety of) everyone else and expect to be welcome everywhere.
If I choose not to shower, and stink to high heaven, some employers won’t hire me. If I choose not to wear shoes, or walk around in my underwear, I will be denied access to many places. Does this mean I am being coerced to shower and wear clothes?
Actions have consequences. It’s just that simple. You can always choose to not do x, but when it’s a requirement for y, you won’t get to do y unless you do x. And speaking of rights, what about everyone else’s rights to not have to sit/work/eat/wait next to Typhoid Mary? Or is it really your opinion that whatever someone does, their right to do whatever is more important than the rest of society? Do you think businesses should be forced to allow anyone inside no matter what? Employers are not allowed to set requirements for their employees?
Long answer to a different point, don’t care, try responding to what I actually said.
Dude that’s so rude and doesn’t net you any points in your argument. Gotta respect people.
No…no I don’t.
It’s the exact same point. You disingenuously calling it “government coercion” doesn’t change anything.
But thank you for pointing out you don’t actually care. Means I don’t have to waste more time on this. I wish you a pleasant day.
Oh ok (fucking retard) you’re right