[joshka]

Fine - so you're taking the "oppressive" act definition as opposed to the singular ruler.

Let's continue to unpack that - "opressive" implies "unreasonable" acts

Continue "unreasonable" suggests that the actions conform to no reason

So your point about tyranny effectively becomes that you don't think masks or ensuring that people interact less reduces the spread of COVID. However there's real evidence of both of those things helping reduce the spread.

Effectively your argument is that you don't want to do a thing, so someone making you do that thing is a tyrant?

I'm not sure we get anywhere else on this.

[throwitaway1235]

lol you guys with focus group dialectic games. My dude. Forcing someone to stay in their house under threat of gunshot is tyranny. Same with covering their face.

Is that argument clear enough?

[joshka]

Not really, you're saying that any law enforcement that has a gun, threatens its use. Given the amount of speeding fines handed out daily that's provably wrong. The guns and laws around the use of those guns are there to ensure that you don't disagree using violence. That's not a threat, but a conditional measured response. There are many things tyrannical in this world we have right now, but this example in Australia is not even close. :D

Again I'll note, "staying in the house" is a reasonable thing to ensure the populace do when the effect of not doing so is potentially harmful to the entire population. I say this as an Aussie living elsewhere. I yearn for the freedoms that you've had in Australia for 2020. We've got some of them over here due to vaccinations, but who knows how long that will last.