[krapp]

>By accepting this mandate we're not only accepting this jab, we're accepting all the future crazy ideas that the government will come with.

No we're not. Accepting mandates doesn't somehow force everyone to automatically accept anything any politician claims or does in the future. That's not how anything works.

[alea_iacta_est]

> That's not how anything works.

That's how everything works, it's called a precedent.

[giaour]

In this case, the precedent would be *vaccine mandates*, not government-mandated kale with every meal.

You're conflating mandates for which there are precedents with completely novel and exotic government actions.

[alea_iacta_est]

Exotic like what, lockdowns for example? How crazy of me...

[giaour]

Quarantines are not a novel or exotic public health measure. Try again.

You specifically called out the government making you quit smoking or forcing you to eat better in your original post.

[alea_iacta_est]

Lockdown and quarantine are very different.

And it's you who mentionned "completely novel and exotic government actions", to which I point out that it's already happened with lockdowns.

There's nothing in history that resemble what has happened in those last 2 years, whether you agree or not won't change that fact.

[RayRayRah]

1918 had some cities implement lockdowns as a response to the rapidly spreading Spanish Flu. And then there were anti-lockdown protests which caused some cities to lift their lockdowns early and the virus surged. Business owners also railed against the lockdowns, and were sometimes successful in getting them lifted.

There was a similar situation with mandatory masks, and then loud anti-mask protests which resulted in the lifting of some mask mandates.

What happened over the past two years has happened before, and will probably happen again. You can find examples of lockdowns in other pandemic eras. Venice partially locked down in 1575 due to the plague.

You may disagree with lockdowns, but there's plenty of precedent. Your "fact" is incorrect.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/how-citie...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/breaking-poin...

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/historical-precedents-lock...

[giaour]

My dude, "nothing in history" is a very strong statement. You should read up about what state actors did to limit the spread of the plague. I'm sure someone could find something older, but lockdowns are attested to as a public health measure since at least ~500 BCE (whenever Leviticus was written).

I don't feel like you're engaging in good faith, so I'm going to go ahead and quit responding.

[batty]

That's not even how a precedent works.

[alea_iacta_est]

Oxford definition: "an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances."

[giaour]

The operative word there is "similar."

[alea_iacta_est]

Yes, similar as in "if we don't do that, insert_whatever_crazy_idea_here, we're gonna overwhelm the hospitals!!!"

Because it's been the justification from day 1: "not overwhelm hospitals".

[giaour]

Yeah, that's not how precedent works. Precedent is used to justify the means, not to point out that past actions had the same or similar ends.

[gruez]

There's literally people in this thread that are justifying vaccine mandates because we had them before.

[culi]

In order to show that literally it turned out fine. It didn't turn into us being mandated to lose weight or whatever that commentator is scared of happening

It's justification for the sake of allaying that commentator's fears. Most people that support the mandate support it because it makes sense and they've thought about it. In fact, I'd wager that those who are against the mandate are more often susceptible to being brainwashed than those who are enthusiastically for it

[alea_iacta_est]

Let's see, those for freedom and individual choice would be more brainwashed that those against?

Interesting theory.