BizyDad
Keep going. Keep growing.
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
I see where you are coming from. But I read in her post a spirit of, "Hey freedom lovers, can you use your freedoms to protect your fellow man?". And she is after all still advocating for an elective government to lead it,not a 1984 tyranny nor communist regime.This is not what she wanted.
Her post below:
There is nothing in the above, about the other side, that points to healthy debate, moderate speech, appreciating the other side's viewpoints, etc...
It's very clear what she is saying. Basically that the other side is doing what it wants, and for what?
Like our freedoms are worthless, no matter the reasoning behind it.
But again, these are my interpretations based on my biases.
And even if she didn't say it, I will. Can people in this thread dial it down a notch? Just one notch.
It hasn't been proven that a vaccine stops the spread. So the non-vax crowd has a good point.
And our highest law begins with the words, we the people in an effort to form a more perfect union... And isn't a more perfect union one where individuals agree to help each other?
To me, the basic questions are how much does the vaccine really help, and what is the proper role of government in leading the fight against covid.
And I believe the true answer to these questions isn't known by anyone, but everyone here is speaking as if they know the truth.
I think more people should have some humility about their opinions, and I think you did a good job of showing how that can be done @eliquid .
I agree her argument is flawed. But I also felt it had some merits to the discussion, especially considering the army was drafted to service, unlike now where service is voluntary.Uhmm. yeah she did.
Wither it was vaccination or inoculation, the point behind the original post ( and you know this ) was prior, even our first president ( showing history of use ) FORCED a group of people to do X.
That could have been vaccination, inoculation, or a freakin colonoscopy. The point was government forcing a group of people to do something for the safety of others.
I know you get this.
But the major flaw was, she was presenting this as government forcing people to do X for the safety of others. Her example is flawed because the military is not the same as civilian life.
Her example that the Commander In Chief of the military orders a solider to do something during war, is not the same as my state Governor telling me ( a civilian ) I have to wear a mask or forbade me from church during a pandemic that 99% of people live from.
Her argument is flawed, and so is yours. And that's okay cuz both of you are bringing good points. My point is that we all are using flawed arguments, myself included.
But when history repeats itself, it doesn't play every note perfectly. It hums a similar tune. And we can learn from the similarities rather then tossing it aside due to the differences.
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum:
Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.