[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

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

Nice deflection. I'm glad that you're willing to stand by something that we both agree about. But, this is the what you said that we were discussing, "What name were you called? Were(sic)?" This you completely ignored. But I get it. You were wrong and instead of admitting it, you deflect. Did you learn that at logic school?

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

This is getting comical. You keep arguing against something nobody has said. I asked you before and I'll ask you again, "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." Or in other words, when did Ben or I say "whenever the victim can choose to suffer the consequences the use of coercion is acceptable?"

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Wow, more comedy ensues. A link was posted earlier in this thread and Post #1377 was your response to the link. I realize the math needed to understand the numbers is probably above third-grade level, but I'll see if I can explain it to you. You said, "the link reports 89% of the province has taken a shot." What does that mean? Out of 100 people, 89 have gotten a shot. That means 11 have not. That means 8 people have gotten the shot for every person who has not gotten the shot. You further state that there are "3X-4X as many vaccinated patients as unvaccinated." Let's conservatively use the 4X number. That means 4 people in the hospital with covid have gotten the shot for every person in the hospital with covid who has not gotten the shot. See where I'm going? If the shot risk reduction was miniscule, as you claim, there would be 8 people in the hospital with covid for every person who has not had the shot. But there are only 4. That is a 50% reduction in the risk of being hospitalized by getting the shot. Is 50% miniscule? I think not.

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Again, arguing something nobody else is.

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Again, arguing something nobody else is.

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

At least you end on a high note. Comedy is almost always a high note.

I see you invoked Goodwin's Law elsewhere. Do you even know what Goodwin's Law states? If so, then please point out where I made any comparison to Hitler or Nazis. There are none. But, I guess it is my fault. I overestimated your level of intelligence. Although in my defense I did try to help you. See how I mentioned Ben's argument about the word choice is when I entered. I talked about the horrible options the woman was given. I put the word "Choice" in the title in bold. I pointed out there were no complaints about the title. This shows that even though the woman wasn't given any good options, the word "Choice" was still used in the title. Contrary to your definition of the word "choice." To further illustrate your denseness, if you really think what I did was reason to invoke Goodwin's Law, consider this. If we're talking about human resiliency in the face of adversity, I couldn't bring up Anne Frank because Nazis are involved in her story. If we're taking about people courageously putting their life on the line for others, I couldn't bring up Schindler's List because Nazis are involved in his life. Are you really that dense or are you just deflecting again?

Based on your constant deflections, arguing points only you are talking about, and utter denseness, I'm done with you. Have fun spewing you mental diarrhea.

Troll on.