Lol, there you go again. Hospital workers who don't want to obey the rules don't want to be hospital workers. They have the power of choice but no right to dictate the terms of employment. No matter how you try that's why you can't accept this basic fact: no one was forced. When presented with the choice they chose whether to take the vaccine or look for other employment. What you demand is the right to both refuse the vaccine in violation of company policy and to keep their employment. You wouldn't argue that for any other corporate or company policy or term of employment, but in this case you've got such a compulsion to resist that you have to act like you'd be fine with employees doing whatever the hell they want no matter what the company says. So yeah, I guess you were right, they were forced just like every other employee is "forced" to follow company policy to keep their job. What they weren't "forced" to do was take the vaccine if they didn't want it because they had the option to walk away.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I accept your acquiescence.

Just your equating of crt and liberal ideology told me all I need to know, add to that how mad you seemed about my post and I knew it was better for me to let it go. For what it's worth you seem like an intelligent person. A badly misinformed and poorly principled one, but still an intelligent person. I think you could be better if you let go of whatever trauma is informing your worldview.

---

You're a joke.

---

Lol, there you go again. Hospital workers who don't want to obey the rules don't want to be hospital workers. They have the power of choice but no right to dictate the terms of employment. No matter how you try that's why you can't accept this basic fact: no one was forced. When presented with the choice they chose whether to take the vaccine or look for other employment. What you demand is the right to both refuse the vaccine in violation of company policy and to keep their employment. You wouldn't argue that for any other corporate or company policy or term of employment, but in this case you've got such a compulsion to resist that you have to act like you'd be fine with employees doing whatever the hell they want no matter what the company says. So yeah, I guess you were right, they were forced just like every other employee is "forced" to follow company policy to keep their job. What they weren't "forced" to do was take the vaccine if they didn't want it because they had the option to walk away.

Maybe a logic format would work better for you.

If there are hospitals that would have allowed people to choose whether or not they wanted the vaccine, AND
If the government fines hospitals massive amounts of money for employing anyone without a vaccine,

THEN it is the GOVERNMENT'S POLICY that caused layoffs in the hospitals that didn't mandate the vaccine for their employees. 

Ergo, the government made a policy that FORCED many people to have to choose to take a vaccine or lose their livelihood. I'll say it slowly...

Just
because
your
hospital
was 
already 
employing 
those 
mandates

(which is a moral dilemma, not a systemic problem)

Doesn't
mean
other 
hospitals
would 
have 
made 
the
same 
decision.

Every person who worked at a hospital that wasn't stupid enough to rush into that kind of decision had the freedom of choice. There were plenty of hospitals who had not made it a requirement for their employees until the government created a mandate that forced them to do so, which, by proxy, forced people to make a choice to lose their jobs or get vaxxed. This logic is simple. It's not complicated. You are capable of understanding what I'm saying here. If you refuse to acknowledge this point, it's because you don't want to.

---

I accept your acquiescence.

Just your equating of crt and liberal ideology told me all I need to know, add to that how mad you seemed about my post and I knew it was better for me to let it go. For what it's worth you seem like an intelligent person. A badly misinformed and poorly principled one, but still an intelligent person. I think you could be better if you let go of whatever trauma is informing your worldview.

You know what? I'll give you the courtesy of explaining why I don't take you seriously. First of all, show me where I said CRT was liberal. I said it was born out of progressive ideology. Liberalism and progressivism are not synonyms. Sorry you don't get that. I have zero problems with liberalism, and I increasingly see the benefits of laws that protect US citizens from greedy elites with the caveat that individualism is paramount, which is a directly in line with American liberalism. Progressivism is born out of collectivist ideology and doesn't give two [BLEEP] about the individual. Liberalism may have driven it to prominence in the US, but progressivism is a different animal entirely, and this distinction is the primary reason there is infighting in the Democratic party. Admittedly, this is an oversimplification of the two ideologies, but if you want to go into it at length, create another thread, and we can discuss it. The main point is they are not the same.

As for the mad about your post... your post was "Bruh." Who the [BLEEP] are you to bruh me? It's not like you are some intellectual giant that I've gone toe to toe with in previous discussions. You've never shown yourself to be particularly well read or willing to honestly engage on a topic in depth. You can't even get the point that I picked CRT because I know it's something FSG wouldn't want forced on him by the government, not because I think it's the same thing as vaccines. Nothing annoys me more than people who "crack the code" of breaking down analogous content. You literally can point out a difference in any single analogy because they are NEVER the same thing, otherwise, it wouldn't be an analogy. 

So, no... I didn't EQUATE the two. I just substituted one for the other because we are talking about the role the government should play in leveraging the power of the federal government against businesses to get them to do their bidding. We are not comparing vaccines to CRT. The choice I made there is irrelevant. It's like if I said, I would really like to fly like a bird or a bat, and you responded with "they are completely different." No [BLEEP].

---

Just your equating of crt and liberal ideology told me all I need to know, add to that how mad you seemed about my post and I knew it was better for me to let it go. For what it's worth you seem like an intelligent person. A badly misinformed and poorly principled one, but still an intelligent person. I think you could be better if you let go of whatever trauma is informing your worldview.

You know what? I'll give you the courtesy of explaining why I don't take you seriously. First of all, show me where I said CRT was liberal. I said it was born out of progressive ideology. Liberalism and progressivism are not synonyms. Sorry you don't get that. I have zero problems with liberalism, and I increasingly see the benefits of laws that protect US citizens from greedy elites with the caveat that individualism is paramount, which is a directly in line with American liberalism. Progressivism is born out of collectivist ideology and doesn't give two [BLEEP] about the individual. Liberalism may have driven it to prominence in the US, but progressivism is a different animal entirely, and this distinction is the primary reason there is infighting in the Democratic party. Admittedly, this is an oversimplification of the two ideologies, but if you want to go into it at length, create another thread, and we can discuss it. The main point is they are not the same.

As for the mad about your post... your post was "Bruh." Who the [BLEEP] are you to bruh me? It's not like you are some intellectual giant that I've gone toe to toe with in previous discussions. You've never shown yourself to be particularly well read or willing to honestly engage on a topic in depth. You can't even get the point that I picked CRT because I know it's something FSG wouldn't want forced on him by the government, not because I think it's the same thing as vaccines. Nothing annoys me more than people who "crack the code" of breaking down analogous content. You literally can point out a difference in any single analogy because they are NEVER the same thing, otherwise, it wouldn't be an analogy. 

So, no... I didn't EQUATE the two. I just substituted one for the other because we are talking about the role the government should play in leveraging the power of the federal government against businesses to get them to do their bidding. We are not comparing vaccines to CRT. The choice I made there is irrelevant. It's like if I said, I would really like to fly like a bird or a bat, and you responded with "they are completely different." No [BLEEP].

I was going to write a long response, but it would probably just lead to more arguing that I don't see a point in. I'll just leave it at apologizing for thinking you had committed the oft encountered mistake of conflating liberalism and progressivism.

I will say, since the bruh thing seems to have gotten under your skin, it was because you were conflating indoctrination, which the government should have no interest in or right to do, and protection of public safety, which is one of the government's strongest mandates.

---

Lol, there you go again. Hospital workers who don't want to obey the rules don't want to be hospital workers. They have the power of choice but no right to dictate the terms of employment. No matter how you try that's why you can't accept this basic fact: no one was forced. When presented with the choice they chose whether to take the vaccine or look for other employment. What you demand is the right to both refuse the vaccine in violation of company policy and to keep their employment. You wouldn't argue that for any other corporate or company policy or term of employment, but in this case you've got such a compulsion to resist that you have to act like you'd be fine with employees doing whatever the hell they want no matter what the company says. So yeah, I guess you were right, they were forced just like every other employee is "forced" to follow company policy to keep their job. What they weren't "forced" to do was take the vaccine if they didn't want it because they had the option to walk away.

Maybe a logic format would work better for you.

If there are hospitals that would have allowed people to choose whether or not they wanted the vaccine, AND
If the government fines hospitals massive amounts of money for employing anyone without a vaccine,

THEN it is the GOVERNMENT'S POLICY that caused layoffs in the hospitals that didn't mandate the vaccine for their employees. 

Ergo, the government made a policy that FORCED many people to have to choose to take a vaccine or lose their livelihood. I'll say it slowly...

Just
because
your
hospital
was 
already 
employing 
those 
mandates

(which is a moral dilemma, not a systemic problem)

Doesn't
mean
other 
hospitals
would 
have 
made 
the
same 
decision.

Every person who worked at a hospital that wasn't stupid enough to rush into that kind of decision had the freedom of choice. There were plenty of hospitals who had not made it a requirement for their employees until the government created a mandate that forced them to do so, which, by proxy, forced people to make a choice to lose their jobs or get vaxxed. This logic is simple. It's not complicated. You are capable of understanding what I'm saying here. If you refuse to acknowledge this point, it's because you don't want to.

The logic is simple, you just refuse to accept reality. Yes, they had a choice therefore they were not forced. I'm glad we agree.

P.S. - Your personal bias impacts your statements every bit as much as mine does. You think you're able to negate it, but you clearly aren't.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

No, I don't think I am immune from bias, but I am arguing from a logical point of view. You have yet to refute the logic part of it. We can both agree that hospitals could voluntarily mandate the vaccine for their employees from a free market perspective. I can admit that, even though I think it's unethical for a novel vaccine. Regardless, I wouldn't say they were "forced" under those circumstances, because they could choose other employment. HOWEVER, when the government imposes massive fines on all hospitals, there is no more freedom to move to another hospital. That's the logic that you keep ignoring.

---

No, I don't think I am immune from bias, but I am arguing from a logical point of view. You have yet to refute the logic part of it. We can both agree that hospitals could voluntarily mandate the vaccine for their employees from a free market perspective. I can admit that, even though I think it's unethical for a novel vaccine. Regardless, I wouldn't say they were "forced" under those circumstances, because they could choose other employment. HOWEVER, when the government imposes massive fines on all hospitals, there is no more freedom to move to another hospital. That's the logic that you keep ignoring.

Again, you assume a right to employment in healthcare. "Forcing" of all types happen including education, licensure, insurance coverage, legal compliance, contracting...you have to do a ton of things to work in the industry. If you don't comply with those things you don't get to work, that's life. There is no right to a job in health care. And this isn't restricted to just healthcare, it's a fact of life that you think just doesn't apply here because you think it's stupid.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You know what? I'll give you the courtesy of explaining why I don't take you seriously. First of all, show me where I said CRT was liberal. I said it was born out of progressive ideology. Liberalism and progressivism are not synonyms. Sorry you don't get that. I have zero problems with liberalism, and I increasingly see the benefits of laws that protect US citizens from greedy elites with the caveat that individualism is paramount, which is a directly in line with American liberalism. Progressivism is born out of collectivist ideology and doesn't give two [BLEEP] about the individual. Liberalism may have driven it to prominence in the US, but progressivism is a different animal entirely, and this distinction is the primary reason there is infighting in the Democratic party. Admittedly, this is an oversimplification of the two ideologies, but if you want to go into it at length, create another thread, and we can discuss it. The main point is they are not the same.

As for the mad about your post... your post was "Bruh." Who the [BLEEP] are you to bruh me? It's not like you are some intellectual giant that I've gone toe to toe with in previous discussions. You've never shown yourself to be particularly well read or willing to honestly engage on a topic in depth. You can't even get the point that I picked CRT because I know it's something FSG wouldn't want forced on him by the government, not because I think it's the same thing as vaccines. Nothing annoys me more than people who "crack the code" of breaking down analogous content. You literally can point out a difference in any single analogy because they are NEVER the same thing, otherwise, it wouldn't be an analogy. 

So, no... I didn't EQUATE the two. I just substituted one for the other because we are talking about the role the government should play in leveraging the power of the federal government against businesses to get them to do their bidding. We are not comparing vaccines to CRT. The choice I made there is irrelevant. It's like if I said, I would really like to fly like a bird or a bat, and you responded with "they are completely different." No [BLEEP].

I was going to write a long response, but it would probably just lead to more arguing that I don't see a point in. I'll just leave it at apologizing for thinking you had committed the oft encountered mistake of conflating liberalism and progressivism.

I will say, since the bruh thing seems to have gotten under your skin, it was because you were conflating indoctrination, which the government should have no interest in or right to do, and protection of public safety, which is one of the government's strongest mandates.

Then just say that. I would engage in good faith. I don't like it when I write a lengthy post with several different points of contention, then someone responds with a one-word response. I'll admit it rubs me the wrong way when posters do that and don't give me the courtesy of being specific about what they agreed or didn't agree with. It's comes across as lazy and disingenuous.   

I get it... I do it all the time to Mikey. Sometimes just want to express disagreement with him without putting any effort into it. It's intended to be dismissive, but I also frequently get in long debates with him, know him, and generally respect him. I also trust he knows I will engage him in good faith if he wants to know what annoyed me. I apologize for getting testy, but it's my default response to getting casually dismissed. 

As to your point made above, there are many on the left who would say CRT is for our public safety. Now, I know that is not the same to me and you, but it's the justification that would be used to implement it. The federal government is an ever-encroaching power grab, and almost everything that is eroding individual freedoms is under the guise of what's best for the collective. I recognize your point of distinction, and I think it's reasonable, but I still don't think it matters in the long run. I have gone to great lengths to discuss my disapproval of the way the CDC has handled the pandemic in the Covid thread, and why I think there is more policy being created for profit than for the genuine concern of the American people. Until we get that cleaned up, it's hard for me to take the public safety argument seriously, not because I think it's important to you, but because I don't believe it's important to the elites.

---

No, I don't think I am immune from bias, but I am arguing from a logical point of view. You have yet to refute the logic part of it. We can both agree that hospitals could voluntarily mandate the vaccine for their employees from a free market perspective. I can admit that, even though I think it's unethical for a novel vaccine. Regardless, I wouldn't say they were "forced" under those circumstances, because they could choose other employment. HOWEVER, when the government imposes massive fines on all hospitals, there is no more freedom to move to another hospital. That's the logic that you keep ignoring.

Again, you assume a right to employment in healthcare. "Forcing" of all types happen including education, licensure, insurance coverage, legal compliance, contracting...you have to do a ton of things to work in the industry. If you don't comply with those things you don't get to work, that's life. There is no right to a job in health care. And this isn't restricted to just healthcare, it's a fact of life that you think just doesn't apply here because you think it's stupid.

Yes, and I think the word "force" is perfectly reasonable to use in all those situations. It's ok to admit when the government is forcing people to do stuff. It's not always bad, but you don't get to tell people they are using the wrong word. That's federal compulsion that results in one losing their job if they don't comply. It's ok to refer to that as force. This is your issue, not mine.

---

Again, you assume a right to employment in healthcare. "Forcing" of all types happen including education, licensure, insurance coverage, legal compliance, contracting...you have to do a ton of things to work in the industry. If you don't comply with those things you don't get to work, that's life. There is no right to a job in health care. And this isn't restricted to just healthcare, it's a fact of life that you think just doesn't apply here because you think it's stupid.

Yes, and I think the word "force" is perfectly reasonable to use in all those situations. It's ok to admit when the government is forcing people to do stuff. It's not always bad, but you don't get to tell people they are using the wrong word. That's federal compulsion that results in one losing their job if they don't comply. It's ok to refer to that as force. This is your issue, not mine.

For now just agree to disagree. You can continue to post all the facts that will come out. He may or may not change his mind in the future and admit he was wrong.

On the off chance we are both wrong, I'll freely admit it and hopefully you will do the same.

---

There is no agreeing to disagree in this situation. I am not arguing about the efficacy of the vaccine. I am not arguing whether or not the law was good or bad. I am happy to do so, but that was never my contention.

We are page 3 of this debate, because one of our resident libertarians is burying his head in the sand with regards to government coercion. The government is in the "force" business. It's what they do. When they made a mandate, people had to make choices they would not otherwise make, and there was no way for the free market to correct. Just like taxes, speed limits, licensing, etc. It's all force, and it's absolutely fair to call it that. I don't care if FSG thinks it's good force. He used hyperbole to deflect, then failed to address any of the logic associated with my position.

Here is the post that started the discussion:

So you can't help yourself?

"Forced" is a pretty simple word and he used it in a way that wasn't accurate in my estimation. It's was a pretty simple question I asked too, but I guess when you got your ax to grind even basics are too much for yo

As to the vaccine, I am happy to debate that stuff, but this isn't one of those times. I have said from the beginning that I thought it would take us at least 5 years to understand the true effectiveness and safety of the vaccines. I have always been open to changing my mind on the topic. To be frank, I am behind on the literature. It takes too much effort to stay on top of it, and I have just had too much to do. Plus, I'm a little burnt out on it.

Ultimately, I just found it condescending that FSG would be so hyperbolic in his response to NewJagsCity about the "use of words," when he could and should be able to see why that word is acceptable. Even accepting all of his premises, it still amounts to force by the government. Limiting it to physical restraint is immature and shortsighted.

---

There is no agreeing to disagree in this situation. I am not arguing about the efficacy of the vaccine. I am not arguing whether or not the law was good or bad. I am happy to do so, but that was never my contention.

We are page 3 of this debate, because one of our resident libertarians is burying his head in the sand with regards to government coercion. The government is in the "force" business. It's what they do. When they made a mandate, people had to make choices they would not otherwise make, and there was no way for the free market to correct. Just like taxes, speed limits, licensing, etc. It's all force, and it's absolutely fair to call it that. I don't care if FSG thinks it's good force. He used hyperbole to deflect, then failed to address any of the logic associated with my position.

Here is the post that started the discussion:

"Forced" is a pretty simple word and he used it in a way that wasn't accurate in my estimation. It's was a pretty simple question I asked too, but I guess when you got your ax to grind even basics are too much for yo

As to the vaccine, I am happy to debate that stuff, but this isn't one of those times. I have said from the beginning that I thought it would take us at least 5 years to understand the true effectiveness and safety of the vaccines. I have always been open to changing my mind on the topic. To be frank, I am behind on the literature. It takes too much effort to stay on top of it, and I have just had too much to do. Plus, I'm a little burnt out on it.

Ultimately, I just found it condescending that FSG would be so hyperbolic in his response to NewJagsCity about the "use of words," when he could and should be able to see why that word is acceptable. Even accepting all of his premises, it still amounts to force by the government. Limiting it to physical restraint is immature and shortsighted.

And that's your opinion, which is not the same as fact.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Sure, the last line of that post was opinion, but it's a fact the government is in the force business, and it's a fact that they created a mandate for hospitals. And it's a fact that those hospitals had to fire people that didn't get the vaccine or go under due to massive fines. And it's a fact that you can safely use that word in context and be correct. It's my opinion that you seem to be conveniently ignoring that in this instance.

---

This is just the beginning, My hypotheses is that we are going to see many more vaccine injuries and sudden deaths. The lawsuits are already flying; now they are going after the little kids. These people are real life monsters.

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

This is just the beginning, My hypotheses is that we are going to see many more vaccine injuries and sudden deaths. The lawsuits are already flying; now they are going after the little kids. These people are real life monsters.

20-40% increased deaths already. Just hoping the batches are real or a lot more people are going to start dying. Batches seem to show clusters of injuries but there is no way they release that data when they won't even talk about the increased deaths. We know they were watering down batches or changing ratios and ingredients from the released Pfizer info.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

Sure, the last line of that post was opinion, but it's a fact the government is in the force business, and it's a fact that they created a mandate for hospitals. And it's a fact that those hospitals had to fire people that didn't get the vaccine or go under due to massive fines. And it's a fact that you can safely use that word in context and be correct. It's my opinion that you seem to be conveniently ignoring that in this instance.

And you're ignoring that many if not most of those hospitals already had a mandate in place and would've included Covid as a component without regard to the actions of the government. You seem to think that a government mandate for something means that everyone does it against their will. But, as we go around the circle again, no one has a right to employment. Are you arguing that they do or not? If you agree with me that they do not then this conversation is effectively over because we are in accord. If you disagree with me and say that they do have a right to their employment then we need to shift to something entirely different. You want to talk about why the rules are in place and treat that as your evidence that they had no choice. That's wrong, they had a choice and if they choose to not comply with the rules then they chose to leave their employment. That's not unique to this Covid circumstance, it's a basic fact of life here in Reality World. If you'd quit trying to spin this to align with your anti-Covid vaccine perspective you would see that you agree with me because you would never defend a food service employee not agreeing to wearing gloves and a hair net on the line or washing their hands after using the restroom. There's just no way you would say the employer had to both keep them employed and allow them to flout company policy (even policy that's *gasp* mandated). Except in this one, and it has nothing to do with employment rights and everything to do with your feelings about the vaccine.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Sure, the last line of that post was opinion, but it's a fact the government is in the force business, and it's a fact that they created a mandate for hospitals. And it's a fact that those hospitals had to fire people that didn't get the vaccine or go under due to massive fines. And it's a fact that you can safely use that word in context and be correct. It's my opinion that you seem to be conveniently ignoring that in this instance.

And you're ignoring that many if not most of those hospitals already had a mandate in place and would've included Covid as a component without regard to the actions of the government. You seem to think that a government mandate for something means that everyone does it against their will. But, as we go around the circle again, no one has a right to employment. Are you arguing that they do or not? If you agree with me that they do not then this conversation is effectively over because we are in accord. If you disagree with me and say that they do have a right to their employment then we need to shift to something entirely different. You want to talk about why the rules are in place and treat that as your evidence that they had no choice. That's wrong, they had a choice and if they choose to not comply with the rules then they chose to leave their employment. That's not unique to this Covid circumstance, it's a basic fact of life here in Reality World. If you'd quit trying to spin this to align with your anti-Covid vaccine perspective you would see that you agree with me because you would never defend a food service employee not agreeing to wearing gloves and a hair net on the line or washing their hands after using the restroom. There's just no way you would say the employer had to both keep them employed and allow them to flout company policy (even policy that's *gasp* mandated). Except in this one, and it has nothing to do with employment rights and everything to do with your feelings about the vaccine.

Milton Friedman would have said that we should just let the free market sort out if kitchen staff should wash their hands or not.  He'd say that anyone who got food poisoning should just sue the restaurant that got them sick. No need for a mandate!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

And you're ignoring that many if not most of those hospitals already had a mandate in place and would've included Covid as a component without regard to the actions of the government. You seem to think that a government mandate for something means that everyone does it against their will. But, as we go around the circle again, no one has a right to employment. Are you arguing that they do or not? If you agree with me that they do not then this conversation is effectively over because we are in accord. If you disagree with me and say that they do have a right to their employment then we need to shift to something entirely different. You want to talk about why the rules are in place and treat that as your evidence that they had no choice. That's wrong, they had a choice and if they choose to not comply with the rules then they chose to leave their employment. That's not unique to this Covid circumstance, it's a basic fact of life here in Reality World. If you'd quit trying to spin this to align with your anti-Covid vaccine perspective you would see that you agree with me because you would never defend a food service employee not agreeing to wearing gloves and a hair net on the line or washing their hands after using the restroom. There's just no way you would say the employer had to both keep them employed and allow them to flout company policy (even policy that's *gasp* mandated). Except in this one, and it has nothing to do with employment rights and everything to do with your feelings about the vaccine.

Milton Friedman would have said that we should just let the free market sort out if kitchen staff should wash their hands or not.  He'd say that anyone who got food poisoning should just sue the restaurant that got them sick. No need for a mandate!

Sure, he did. That's not Reality World either.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato