7 ms·
Read my comment more carefully before straw manning my argument. I specifically said: > And no, that isn't because some small amount of "selfish" people Perhap
by CrazyPyroLinux 6y ago
Read my comment more carefully before straw manning my argument. I specifically said:
> And no, that isn't because some small amount of "selfish" people
Perhaps that distracted you, but my point was that even if everyone intended to comply, there are practical limits to that compliance in practice.
Although I will say, if "freedom" is the "one argument [you are] not open to" I don't think you have the moral high ground.
- arcticbull 6y agoThere are practical limits to compliance, and the countries that have successfully knocked the case counts to single digit daily indicate it is not necessary to breech those limits to achieve material results. > Although I will say, if "freedom" is the "one argument [you are] not open to" I don't think you have the moral high ground. We'll have to disagree on this one. "You can't make me" isn't going to win you any arguments at the supermarket with your mom, it's not going to win you any arguments at home with your spouse, it's not going to win you any arguments at work, and it sure as heck isn't going to win you any arguments in public health policy. Again, I'm open to the idea they may not be necessary to achieve meaningful results, however that is a conversation that can be had without invoking the toddler clause.
- CrazyPyroLinux 6y ago> We'll have to disagree on this one. Yes we will, since you are arguing in bad faith. I can smell the condescension from here. I never said "you can't make me" but YOU said "petulant children who won't be told no" and "toddler clause" and "muh freedom" THAT is the type of rhetoric that "isn't going to win you any arguments at the supermarket with your mom"
- arcticbull 6y agoTotally fair.