"Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable"
I am not taking anything to extremes as far as I can see. The situations are not 100% identical to be sure, but as I said, most of the arguments I have heard about unvaccinated could also be applied to the overweight.
And as a disclaimer I'm sorry to have to use overweight as my example, if there was another equally good one I would use that instead because I worry it would cause pain to people even though I hope it's clear that I don't actually feel this way. But similarly I know people who don't want the vaccination and especially don't want to vaccinate their young boys, and they feel horribly bullied and coerced by it so I speak out.
Having just now re-confirmed that levels of nasal virus drop faster in vaccinated people to make sure I'm not being illogical, the creation of laws that allow businesses, schools, and others to legally stop you from entering isn't "horrific, dystopian, nasty, bullying" the way you characterize it at all, like banning obese people due to their burden on healthcare costs would be.
To me, it really does come off as a trying to point out the issues with mandates by drawing it to the absurd conclusion of excluding overweight people from society. So hopefully that clears up why I saw it that way, but maybe I'm incorrect definitionally.
There are always going to be mandates or policies that conflict with what parents, or people in general want to do. To me that doesn't make it nasty or bullying, though they may feel horribly bullied if it affects them. If anything I'd say those feelings (and most examples of nasty bullying I've seen) extend from the acts of anti-science politicization of masks and vaccines, which in my opinion is a great disservice to the public. We now people who now feel like nasty bullies are creating new mandates in a nasty dystopian nightmare world, which I think is extremely unfortunate.
I've never seen anywhere that case has been made, certainly not made in a comprehensive and compelling way that you couldn't reasonably disagree with.
Is coercing people into getting vaccinated by preventing them from travel, jobs, etc. going to save thousands of the willingly vaccinated who otherwise would have died? Where are the numbers? Do you understand the gravity of coercing people to get unwanted medical treatments, or at least if you don't think it's a big deal at least accept that many people actually do extremely strongly believe notions like the government staying out of their bodies and medical issues?
And then can you logically make all these arguments and numbers in a way that they can not with similar arguments be applied to automobiles and related deaths, obesity and related issues and medical system load, etc etc?
None of this has been thoroughly examined, litigated, justified and sold to the public on its merits as far as I can see. Still. It still has not been. There has been propaganda relentlessly pushed out there in the form of fear and urgency and appeals to authority rather than facts or evidence. There has been no room to question things or present different opinions -- people who dared to do have been attacked, bullied, fired, deplatformed, and censored.
I really don't get what is the glitch here? You seem fixated on finding logical parallels to an ongoing response to a global pandemic, which is honestly getting quite repetitive to discuss.
It's compared with the current level of deaths to vaccination rate given it's not going away.. The logical conclusion of unsurprising policies as a response to the novel coronavirus, or any highly transmissible zoonotic virus.
Are we even on the same page here that less deaths is better from the perspective of public policy?
Honestly your rhetoric, message after message gets so tiresome to engage with, by virtue of hyperbolic it is. "Relentless propaganda", "daring to have different opinions gets you attacked bullied fired etc etc".
It's a national healthcare apparatus' response to a virus, nothing more or less.
After reading it all, repeating it every which way, it's just not compelling to me. This doesn't need to be some hyper-emotional, hyper-politicized topic, where parents of young boys need to fearfully victimize themselves as patriot-martyr enemies of the fascist state. I'm getting to the point of having a kind of second-hand embarrassment at the characterization.
The glitch? The glitch is getting you to complete your ideas and form a coherent response.
> You seem fixated on finding logical parallels to an ongoing response to a global pandemic, which is honestly getting quite repetitive to discuss.
I'm fixated because I posted some questions in a covid thread that doesn't mindlessly toe the line, and that's exhausting you? I rather think you would be less upset in the end if you just conceded you don't have good answers. Sometimes it's okay to admit you don't know everything.
This flustered incoherent rambling is what's embarrassing and exposes you as incapable of addressing what I wrote just as surely as a simple admission would have. With the additional benefit of the latter being retaining some dignity. The entire thread is here plain as day for anybody to read, and the point is still floating around happily well above your head:
> Are we even on the same page here that less deaths is better from the perspective of public policy?
So what to do about the overweight person question. I know you're getting flustered and angry because you can't answer it, so you're just pretending it's not relevant or it's somehow "absurd", without actually being able to articulate why.
Why not just stop participating in the conversation if it's upsetting you so much? You're clearly not getting any benefit from considering different perspectives.
Correct.
> but you want to propose it to make a point about how much of a "horrific, dystopian, nasty, bullying attitude" you think the belief in vaccine mandates are, and how if one believes the anti-vaccinated should be restricted then it's effectively equivalent?
Much the same arguments made for bullying and coercing people to getting unwanted medical procedures can be used for either, yes.
> Seems like an reductio ad absurdum fallacy to me,
Why? What is any more absurd about it? 30% of health expenditure is a staggering cost to society. This is not just meh no big deal like the common cold, it's a real cost borne by everyone. And as we see, when they do get covid they get much more complications from it, which makes covid spikes more problematic too. Why can obesity be so easily brushed aside but not people who choose not to be vaccinated from covid?