[InsideOutSanta]

> Your government refuses to let you leave the country?

This argument also applies to you: by your logic, vaccine mandates are perfectly fine because you can leave the country.

> That aside, they also command you to own both a car and a gun?

The problem isn't me owning a car and gun, the problem is obviously everybody else. I'm rather unlikely to drive into myself while driving my own car.

[defrost]

First up, for clarity, I have no issues with COVID vaccines and how they were used in Australia - the very few cases of myocarditis were mild and resulted in no deaths.

Second up, I'm confused by your use of "mandate" and how your government mandates you to remain in that country.

> by your logic, vaccine mandates are perfectly fine because you can leave the country.

Not by my logic, nor that of Dana Scott, Christopher Strachey , Alonzo Church or others.

> I'm rather unlikely to drive into myself while driving my own car.

You can drive into a wall or off a cliff, and yes, injured by own car (or tractor) is an actual not infrequent injury.

[InsideOutSanta]

> how your government mandates you to remain in that country

I never said that. I said that government inaction is also a mandate; look at the context for my comment.

If you're arguing that leaving the country makes government action (or inaction) acceptable, then by your own logic, all government action (or inaction) is acceptable, which supports my point: vaccine mandates are fine, because by your own logic, if you disagree with them, you can leave the country.

> You can drive into a wall or off a cliff, and yes, injured by own car (or tractor) is an actual not infrequent injury.

You're missing the point I'm making, which is that not driving a car does not mean I won't get run over by other people, which is the actual point I brought up.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure why you're responding to me, since you don't seem to be arguing against anything I actually said?