[tsimionescu]

No, I am pointing out the 2 most relevant differences. You are doing your best to ignore those and look at the similarities.

The government, in practice, can only issue mandates and bans that are relatively easy to follow, and extremely urgent. That's why banning radioactive material is easy and has wide support, but banning alcohol or tobacco is not.

While the government is extremely corrupt and oligarchic, it's still not a dictatorship that can actually up and decide to ban dancing on some idiot's whim.

[throwawaylinux]

They aren't really relevant to the issue though. The matter at hand is that mandating overweight people lose weight would improve their health outcomes and take pressure of the medical system, improving helath outcomes for others as well. This is the justification for vaccine mandates and coercion.

[tsimionescu]

I've explained this enough, you're obviously arguing in bad faith at this point.

[Dylan16807]

And then that justification is weighed against the difficulty and invasiveness of implementation.

[throwawaylinux]

I've never seen that weighing or justified anywhere. Do you have any sources on that?

Mandating overweight people lose weight is not more invasive than mandating people undergo unwanted medical procedures. Forced medical procedures are actually an incredibly serious and problematic issue with a long and dark history.

The problem I have is not any one particular procedure, it is the idea of coercion, and the bullying and excluding of people (disproportionately disadvantaged, non-white, etc too, I might add).

[Dylan16807]

> I've never seen that weighing or justified anywhere. Do you have any sources on that?

You have to be kidding. The difficulty and invasiveness of different interventions for covid alone has been constantly under discussion.

> Mandating overweight people lose weight is not more invasive than mandating people undergo unwanted medical procedures. Forced medical procedures are actually an incredibly serious and problematic issue with a long and dark history.

You're being vague on purpose.

When you replace "unwanted medical procedure" with a much more specific "approved vaccine shot" that stops being true.

> The problem I have is not any one particular procedure, it is the idea of coercion, and the bullying and excluding of people (disproportionately disadvantaged, non-white, etc too, I might add).

You can't take a hard-line stance against coercion unless you're asking to abolish government. Any reasonable analysis takes the particular coercion into account.

[throwawaylinux]

> You have to be kidding. The difficulty and invasiveness of different interventions for covid alone has been constantly under discussion.

I'm not kidding. Who has weighed it? Where was it decided that coercion and forced medical procedures was the right balance? Because it wasn't long ago they were off the table. Where did this most recent re-weighing occur, can you give me a link.

> You're being vague on purpose.

No I'm not, that's what it is. You're minimizing the seriousness of it because "it's just a jab".

> When you replace "unwanted medical procedure" with a much more specific "approved vaccine shot" that stops being true.

What does "approved" have to do with anything. Medical experimentation, forced sterilizations, and things of that sort were all "approved" somewhere, and many were "just routine procedures". And it's not a slippery slope, these are things which all have happened within living memory, likely even with some of the same people still in positions of power in governments and institutions responsible.

> You can't take a hard-line stance against coercion unless you're asking to abolish government.

I certainly can and am.

> Any reasonable analysis takes the particular coercion into account.

And forced medical procedure of any kind whatsoever is a gravely serious issue to me.