[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

At least this time you aren't jumping in to throw a tantrum about another thread and your inability to read the text of the law. I see the inability to follow the thread and the arguments remains.

Read. The argument from the thread's openly and oft stated troll is that because one can choose to break the law, choice remains. He then doubles down and agree with "In a sense every single action ever taken in the history of humanity is a choice" in #1770, and uses that as the justification.

The ”troll” happens to be correct. Your name calling doesn’t change that fact.

Originally Posted by G1911

The problem with his justification should be obvious to any person who can read at a third grade level. If, because in some sense, a person always has a choice of how to respond to pressure or coercion or force, then every action taken (for an action cannot be taken after death) in the history of humanity qualifies as leaving a 'choice'.

What you’re wanting to do is change the definition of the word “choice” in order to match your politically motivated ideology. If a third grader is told that he needs to eat his broccoli or else he doesn’t get dessert, that third grader knows he has a choice. (A) Eat the broccoli and get dessert or (B) don’t eat the broccoli and don’t get dessert. Not even a third grader is naïve enough to think that since both options aren’t favorable to him, he has no choice.

Originally Posted by G1911

A state and society run by this logic, would be most extreme totalitarian state possible, one beyond any that has ever existed. It removes any possible restriction, rejects any morality or limits. If every action still gives the victim choice in this sense, and this is acceptable, there is no possible action that goes too far. Ever.

You’ve created a strawman argument. Neither the “troll” or I have said what I’ve put in bold above. Let’s say a parent tells his third-grader to steal the neighbor’s hose or get punished. The third-grader is given a choice between two options. But it is not acceptable for the parent to make this demand. Even the third-grader would know that.

Originally Posted by G1911

This is the worst possible justification. Hence why every other poster, except you and the self-proclaimed troll, are engaging with the actual question. Nobody denies that there is sometimes necessity of coercion; a society cannot function with, say, a murderer on the loose and no action taken against them because their victims have the choice to try and run or to fight or to submit. There are gates around the coercion, very strong gates and the times and circumstances of coercion are very limited and defined by law. Civilization is not inherently coercive, because the coercive element is not the totality or primary driver and coercion is only used under pre-defined and very specific circumstances. In a good society, the coercion is only used for the bare minimum necessary for a functioning and safe society. In a bad one, for many more purposes. But no regime in the history of the world has gone as far as the justification here allows. Hence why the rest of the debate, between both sides, has been whether or not this case justifies coercion, in this case mostly economic pressure as the coercive element.

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. But even if there had been a federal or state requirement that everyone get the vaccine, you’d still be wrong. “Nobody denies that there is sometimes necessity of coercion.” “In a good society, the coercion is only used for the bare minimum necessary for a functioning and safe society.” The vaccines have been proven to safe and effective in reducing the severity of the virus. Hence, if the vaccine had been required for all to take, it would have been for the safety of society and would be justified. Even by you.

Originally Posted by G1911

I get that you are really excited about forcing political opponents into doing what you want, but one would think you would seek a less extremist justification than an open totalitarian defense. Like we were debating before the troll. I liked when the left was liberal and literate and not openly endorsing total authoritarianism over a 'vaccine' that does not function like a vaccine.

It’s unfortunate that you don’t think the vaccine has helped. But I get that your political ideology won’t allow you to go there. Hence, you attempt to change definitions and make strawman arguments in order to show what a big, bad government we have.