Help me with the bolded.

You say you agree a private company can determine what risks they want to expose themselves to. But then you want WHO to create the list of prohibitions of what they can do in that regard?

Is it you and I coming to agreement and then we tell all businesses. Does chez get a say? Does govt come in and dictate?

Do we create a council?

Or do we let the private business decide what they think is acceptable risk and proof of risk?

Nah. This is mood affiliation talk. Luckbox Inc thinks he's arguing for liberty, when actually he wants to force private citizens to run their businesses the way he thinks they should be run instead of the way they want to run them. That's not liberty. You're not defending commerce or privacy here.

I don't want anyone to create a list. I say go for constitutional amendment for civil rights. You're trying to frame it in a way that makes it look good for you and bad for me. I'm framing it my way though.

No civil right to not be forced to take new vaccines?

Right.

But there are degrees of valuable slippery slope arguments. Meaning some are better than others.

For instance if i cite 'this is bad now... and it looks like it could get worse if it continues on the trajectory it is on' that is IMO a good slippery slope argument. It is identifying the initial thing as bad which is in the discussion and then going further.

You made a point my statement COULD lead to a slippery slope, and by default that means it is NOT bad now. It is just a hypothetical it could go there.

I can counter that with a hypothetical that it could not go there. An opposite hypothetical. And thus our two positions just cancel out and we are left with only the statement I started with which no one is saying is wrong or at issue as written.

So that then begs the question ...'what is the point'?

Wait what? Liberty is defending commerce or privacy? That's it?

I am not trying to be either mischievous or malicious.

Someone must answer those questions that come from your position.

If the private business is in any way restricted from making its own decisions, as your position suggests, then we need to understand WHO then is empowered to make them for them.

To simply say to them 'you cannot' without thinking thru 'who can' is folly.

DO you not understand that?

Please take a second and draft, even roughly what you think a Constitutional amendment might say?

I ask that only because I cannot even imagine what wording you envision.

Be serious. C'mon.

Don't lash out with strawman simply because you8 are having troubles defending your position.

In no way did he suggest giving corporations the powers to force you to take vaccines and you know that.

Yes, defending rights of commerce is part of preserving freedom.

Why are self described fascist groups like neo-Nazis against vaccine passports but in favor of stuff you probably support like massive immigration restrictions and police detaining of undocumented nonwhites?

Lol.
Well if the neo nazis don't like vaccine passports I guess I'll have to rethink my position.

Like are you serious with this?

Yes but it's a very plausible slipperly slope in the UK. If I thought the botton of that slope was unacceptable then I would definitly oppose vaccine passports for pubs. I would still be okay with them for international travel as the slippery slope from there is implausible.

These are judgements we have to make like with all potential consequences of our actions. They cannot be dismissed as irrelevent.

On nthis
You couold argue it's impossible but that would obviously be untrue. You could aegue it's unlikely and offer alternative hypothesis (which is exactly what I think we should do with everything). We have to make a judgement on all the possible consequences of our actions taking into account how likely we think they are and how good/bad they are.

There isn't a reason to draft an amendment. It's never happening. But there isn't a reason why it would be hard to give the unvaccinated the same protections that other groups have. It would be something that we'd have to decide as a society.
They're trying in Florida.

I thought my point was pretty clear. If actual fascists don’t see this as a step to fascism but support a bunch of right wing stuff IHIV does his argument about fascism is probably fos.

Skinheaded neo nazis don't have actual power.

I disagree. Consumer choice is being taken away by corporations, in the name of "social justice", this vaccine stuff is just another example. Amazon shutting down Parlor hurt consumers. Spotify removing 40 episodes of the most downloaded podcast in the world, at the bequest of it's employees and activist, hurt consumers. Vaccine passports hurt consumers. Twitter filtering truth according to what ever metric they define as the truth, hurts consumers and speech.


It's actually startling to see the flip that's going on right now in American political discourse. All of sudden Democrats are the champions of corporate america, and the right is raising the flag of concern. You are not going to tell me Democrats/liberals/progressives, are all of sudden capitalist, and believe in the sanctity of corporations.

Consumers should dictate corporate behavior, not corporations dictating consumer behavior.

So you foresee something along the lines of the 'unvaccinated' getting protections along the lines of 'Visibility Minorities Protections' and 'Sexual orientation protections'?

I cannot imagine how that would work???

Would it just be for this pandemic specially or all of them past and future?

Could a nursing home refuse entry to any who are 'unvaccinated' in your scenario to protect their elderly?

Per my prior question would the nursing home have to admit someone who refused the covid vaccine but could they deny a person who refused the 'next pandemic one'? And then how could they make them prove that without some form of vaccine passport?

I feel like once you get to nursing home age, and if you're unvaccinated and if covid hasn't already killed you, then you're good to go.
Idk the answers to your other questions since this is hypothetical and it doesn't matter.

Ok. so to the question I asked Luckbox aup thread.

You say 'Consumers should dictate what corporations can and cannot due such as in this area of safety'.

How would that work? Is it you, I and Luckbox, vote and send them the results? A citizen board? Appointed by whom?

If you are saying you want the right to take away the power for a companies founders, it shareholders and its Board to decide nd put that power in the hands of customers you need to flesh out how that worked.


And if you don't you have a problem as it looks like a bunch of nonsensical wishy washy statements you have not thought out and can answer yourself.

So I’m sure you must have had a great reason to cherrypick his garbagey takes.

None of us do either

What was the take that was garbage? He said kids shouldn't get the vaccine. This is a garbage take?

I honestly have no idea what you mean by this?

Who is good to go? Are you saying the unvaccinated person is good to walk and associate as they want in the nursing home regardless of current or future pandemic threat?




Of course the hypothetical matters.

A nursing home cannot deny a POC simply because they are a POC because that is a protected status.


If you give 'unvaccinated' protected status, then you immediately create this situation where the nursing home cannot deny them, so what do they do?

Why would the nursing home need to deny them?
I get that you're getting ready for covid 2024 and 2027 and beyond, or whatever. But how many future pandemics do you think are hitting?

The problem is one political party/faction has become so extreme that even progressives and trillion dollar companies find themselves on the same side on some issues. This wouldn’t have happened if Mitt Romney was the most influential conservative politician in the country