[war1025]

> The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies.

It's funny that the party of "my body my choice" is so against people wanting a say over what goes into their bodies. I am personally vaccinated, but I think it's reasonable to let individuals make that choice.

Also regarding election fraud, when on election night you see charts like [1] with enormous one party spikes, it is entirely natural for people to be suspicious. Those people then asked for audits and were told to go to hell. If you want to undermine trust in the election system, that is exactly how to accomplish it.

None of this is "you aren't allowed to lie" it's "You aren't allowed to ask questions"

[1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/politics/us/2020/michigan-w...

[skinkestek]

Exactly this.

Again, I don't believe there was widespread fraud but people who refuse to discuss what happened and refuse inspections sure aren't helping us becomong more confident.

[bigtex1988]

Last I checked, pregnancy isn't contagious. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Who was told to "go to hell"? There were plenty of recounts in all of the close states. Even the recent farcical commission checking fraud in Arizona didn't find anything.

As to the "spike" in that picture, a simple Google search of "Michigan spike voting" produces plenty of resources showing how the "spike" was not fraud. And if you're so worried about the spike in Biden votes later in the process, why are you not also worried about the spike in Trump votes at Nov 3 21:00 (on the graph on the right)?

You're being downvoted because these arguments are so bad as to almost clearly be in bad faith.

[war1025]

> You're being downvoted because these arguments are so bad as to almost clearly be in bad faith.

I'm being downvoted because some subset of people here view down vote as "I disagree". I used to be bothered by it. I don't think much about it anymore.

Edit:

I'm also fairly certain I've got some followers who take it upon themselves to go through my comment history and start downvoting other posts of mine just for good measure. You know, really sticking it to the man or whatever.

[stouset]

I downvoted you. Not because I disagree, but because I too believe your arguments are in bad faith and/or misrepresenting the positions of those you disagree with.

> It's funny that the party of "my body my choice" is so against people wanting a say over what goes into their bodies.

Unlike anti-abortion laws which force women to take pregnancies to term against their will, I am aware of zero proposed legislation that aims to force people into vaccination against their will. The one potential exception to this is for entry to public schooling, for which religious exemptions are (generally but not always) easy to come by.

If not bad faith or misrepresentation, then what?

> Also regarding election fraud, when on election night you see charts like [1] with enormous one party spikes, it is entirely natural for people to be suspicious. Those people then asked for audits and were told to go to hell.

It is reasonable for people to be suspicious. But far from being told to go to hell, people have been given repeated and convincing evidence for why these spikes occur (blue votes tending to cluster in high-density, high-population districts). There was even ample discussion in advance of the election about how, where, and when we expected these spikes to occur, why they're expected, and demonstrating their historical precedent.

Some people still demanded investigations of fraud. Most of those claims were dismissed through official processes due to lack of evidence. Being denied an investigation into claims that have been repeatedly debunked is not being told to go to hell. In fact some of those claims were investigated, but essentially zero systemic fraud has been found to date.

If not bad faith or misrepresentation, then what?

[AnimalMuppet]

> Unlike anti-abortion laws which force women to take pregnancies to term against their will, I am aware of zero proposed legislation that aims to force people into vaccination against their will.

Just this week, Biden was talking about having people go door-to-door to push the unvaccinated to get the shot. Arizona publicly told him to get bent - they weren't going to do that in their state.

So, that's not "forcing" people, but it's too close for my taste. I'm going to presume that you wouldn't be fine with the state sending people door to door to push those who were pregnant to carry to term.

[stouset]

> Just this week, Biden was talking about having people go door-to-door to push the unvaccinated to get the shot... So, that's not "forcing" people, but it's too close for my taste.

Can you acknowledge that—even taking this completely at face value—going door-to-door encouraging the use of a vaccine has absolutely nothing in common with legally forcing women to take unwanted pregnancies to term, regardless of which side of either policy you care to take?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Trying to draw parallels between these two situations is absurd to the point of bad faith or willful misrepresentation.

> I'm going to presume that you wouldn't be fine with the state sending people door to door to push those who were pregnant to carry to term.

For reasons completely independent of "my body, my choice" which was the original goalpost.

This is an issue of public health for which we had to globally shut down international travel and social gatherings for a year and a half, and which had incalculable economic impact on billions. Can you also acknowledge that such consequences might perhaps clear a higher bar than that of a choice whose impact is fundamentally limited in scope?

Recognizing that difference in impact is why we've spent $20bn on vaccine development and who knows how much on the actual vaccine rollout.

[AnimalMuppet]

> Can you also acknowledge that such consequences might perhaps clear a higher bar than that of a choice whose impact is fundamentally limited in scope?

"Fundamentally limited"? Given that a fetus is genetically human, and genetically different from the woman who carries it, it's clearly both human and not part of her body. There are plenty of completely reasonable people who see those two facts as putting abortion as being perilously close to murder, at best.

First, given that it's genetically a different individual, "my body, my choice" seems willfully blind to the rest of what's involved in abortion. Second, though, if you do regard abortion as murder, the death count per year is of the same order of magnitude as from Covid. So "fundamentally limited in scope" is assuming the answer to something that is, at best, very much still in debate.

[s5300]

I'm gonna guess that you're unaware of the states/large regions in which military recruiters go door to door, constantly send mail, and come to public schools in an effort to recruit kids.

Why is there no uproar about this after decades of it...?

[AnimalMuppet]

Maybe you shouldn't guess what I'm aware of.

[jhgb]

> It's funny that the party of "my body my choice" is so against people wanting a say over what goes into their bodies.

Public health is public health, not purely your business.

> I am personally vaccinated,

Good on you!

> but I think it's reasonable to let individuals make that choice.

No, it's not and if you don't see why then you have a major problem with understanding modern medicine.