Idiotic post honestly.
Did you read any of this discussion even or just here to troll?

Cannibalism could be life, too.

eh some of column A, some of column B. i get it you're all about personal liberties and freedom and "i'm not gonna do what they tell me to do." Wouldn't anti-vax be up that alley? You know, being told by Big Pharma to inject things into your body?

I don't really feel like engaging with you.

that's certainly a first!

In some places it is still or was until rather recently. I'm not a relativist but you are correct that it could be. And you don't have to like it but if you go to an area where cannibals exist, you might end up catching some germs there as well.

Try to troll a little less and be a little less of a douche and then maybe.

i mean, not like i'm ever going to change your mind on literally anything, nor did i think we were gonna have a deep conversation. i was just wondering if your philosophies extended to anti-vax too. Like where does the line for your "personal autonomy/freedom is paramount over all" end? Maybe it doesn't

Luckbox, this conversation, I think, shows what I was talking about earlier wrt politicization.

You haven't indicated that hand-washing is onerous or that it doesn't help anything. You don't like the idea of "state-mandated xyz" though, as a violation of your core political identity, so you aren't terribly concerned with specific reasonableness, even if you do recognize that there must be some reasonable limitation to pure freedom.

In this discussion, you first tried to move the goalpost (to enforcement), then you tried to avoid the issue (don't use the bathroom, carry gel), but you never really addressed the fundamental reasonableness of a hand-washing requirement. Instead you are deciding that you don't want state interference and then coming up with reasons why your position is okay.

My point was that "that's life" is not a meaningful position in this discussion.

I get that life can be dangerous. This is why we're talking about rules to begin with, to make it less dangerous.

I'm probably more of a utilitarian than a libertarian. Greatest good for the greatest number...although there is definitely a strong mix of libertarianism in my personal ethos. I'm not too keen on mandatory vaccinations though.

Question for the "voting is pointless, republicans and democrats are on the same team, vote if you want, but don't try to get me to vote for your team" crowd here. I scrolled back two pages and didn't see much discussion about amy coney barrett.

Do you not care about judicial appointments at all? Does that fall into the same basket as voting - i.e., who cares what color tie appoints the judges, they are all the same?

Judges appointed by the different color ties are not the same in legal practice (both procedurally and analytically). Even if legislatively you thought there were no practical differences between red and blue governance, voting simply to get your preferred set of judicial appointments ought to be reason enough to spend the time to vote. I guess if you think that the type of judges either side appoints are all bad, then whatever, but I dont see a solution there short of burning down the entire system.

It's never going to be the case where I agree that laws should be passed mandating that people wash their hands.
Whatever you want to say about goalposts or not-- although I'm pretty sure most of the shifts came from you. Yes, I do wash my hands after using the restroom. I think it's reasonable that people do it. I think it's reasonable that people eat healthy too.

america explain

Hmm?

The difference is that you all love the boots and I don't like them as much.
And there is a certain tyranny involved in being overly safe. I don't really want the government involved in all aspects of life keeping me safe though.
And if that means also endangering you then I'm ok with that too.

You believe that mandatory public health precautions infringe on your individual rights?

With vaccines?!

Luckbox pls

Yeah. The whole "it's for our safety" is actually the biggest pathway to tyranny that currently exists.
And I would say that that particularly applies to health. Because once you give up the right to your own body the sky is sort of the limit.

slippery slope, another fallacy

Some slopes are indeed slippery.

Your claim to oppose mandatory public safety measures purely to protect personal autonomy rings false when you're also opposed to doing them voluntarily.

Four months ago, where Luckbox flips out because I point out that he doesn't seem to care if his actions kill others:

Today:

How about for people who work with and serve food to others?

Is there some point there eyebooger? What am I supposed to be seeing there?

the problem with accepting the slippery slope fallacy is that we would have to start allowing other fallacies in as well