3 ms·

What the hell? No. forcing someone to undergo a medical intervention is strictly more invasive than asking for their social media handle -> a policy doing such

What the hell? No. forcing someone to undergo a medical intervention is strictly more invasive than asking for their social media handle -> a policy doing such is strictly more oppressive. >but we were facing a threat Precisely the same argument is made WRT visa candidates. You do get and have gotten specifics, you're either illiterate or don't want to read them.

mrtksn 1y ago
It’s really about fundamental definitions. You define safety precautions as such, therefore your thought process. You are not wrong, just you built it on that kind of basis. It’s the same about visa etc. It’s always a trade off between things. And trh definitions are all about what you value and what you’re afraid of. Afraid of the virus? PCR and vaccinate everyone, those who don’t want to can choose not to work and if this puts then in hard position though luck. Afraid of people protesting you, sabotage your agenda etc? Check their social media to make sure you are admitting friendlies. Freedom of thought? Who cares, we have bigger fish to fry. Our citizens will do the thinking from now on, will re-asses later. BTW, I agree that the pandemic was mismanaged horribly in most of the world. It’s just that I disagree with you stance on the vaccine but I sympathize with you that you should not be put in a position to choose between your job and getting vaccinated.
- msgodel 1y ago
  Our discussion (at least originally) is not about whether the oppression is justified which is why we would care about how threats are judged. It's about the degree of oppression. Again I do not think there is a realistic argument you could make where forced medical intervention is less invasive than reading public social media posts, regardless of how helpful the medicine might be.

3 ms·

What the hell? No. forcing someone to undergo a medical intervention is strictly more invasive than asking for their social media handle -> a policy doing such

by msgodel 1y ago

mrtksn 1y ago
It’s really about fundamental definitions. You define safety precautions as such, therefore your thought process. You are not wrong, just you built it on that kind of basis. It’s the same about visa etc. It’s always a trade off between things. And trh definitions are all about what you value and what you’re afraid of. Afraid of the virus? PCR and vaccinate everyone, those who don’t want to can choose not to work and if this puts then in hard position though luck. Afraid of people protesting you, sabotage your agenda etc? Check their social media to make sure you are admitting friendlies. Freedom of thought? Who cares, we have bigger fish to fry. Our citizens will do the thinking from now on, will re-asses later. BTW, I agree that the pandemic was mismanaged horribly in most of the world. It’s just that I disagree with you stance on the vaccine but I sympathize with you that you should not be put in a position to choose between your job and getting vaccinated.
- msgodel 1y ago
  Our discussion (at least originally) is not about whether the oppression is justified which is why we would care about how threats are judged. It's about the degree of oppression. Again I do not think there is a realistic argument you could make where forced medical intervention is less invasive than reading public social media posts, regardless of how helpful the medicine might be.