The Supreme Court also validated slavery and other actions that proved to be incredibly damaging to the society.

As for George Washington, if you are attempting to make the argument that the government has a right to inoculate it’s military soldiers during war time against a disease, so be it, there is your precedent to argue upon. Furthermore, Washington has a habit of requiring many things, including the Militia Acts which required every able bodied male to own a military firearm. I don’t currently see an argument to enforce that idea. Pick and choose.

But using his small pox inoculation program from the 1700’s and a tiny military of rag tag farmer soldiers as a basis to go after an entire free and educated society of hundreds of millions in the 2000’s for an experimental vaccine, you are stretching this further than it could go.

The information is out there for people to make decisions now. They’ve made it, make a better argument.

If you're referring Dred Scott, I agree the Supreme Court validated slavery (this is at least one of the causes of the Civil War). That is, the decision had such consequence that the nation was nearly split, and after the war, several amendments were added that overrode the Court.

I don't see anybody gearing up to have a civil war over vaccines, just a bunch of "make a better argument for why you have the right to tell me I have to do this, with economic or social consequences if I don't" responses. The military already exited folks who didn't comply with COVID vaccines, and the Biden administration has already requested that the SC officially rule on workplace mandates (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21A244/206997/2021...).

The penalty in the case is irrelevant to the nature of the government's power. Also equating vaccines to apartheid is unrealistic and in poor taste.

No, it is very much relevant. And, systematic denial of employment, education, access to government services etc to a group based on a medical condition very much is apartheid. It is in poor taste to deny it, but I guess the apologists in South Africa were legalistically talking about “nature of the government’s power” too.

As it happens I am a naturalized South African - married to a black woman who had to endure apartheid.

I recited your argument to her and I am quoting her response in saying… “you are a f-ing idiot - I had no choice in being born black and I had no way of becoming white to avoid the consequences of apartheid. The unvaccinated have a choice - they are just choosing not to exercise it.”

You have falsely equated the two scenarios by abstracting away the thing which matters most: the choice to improve your situation.

If discrimination is only wrong because of lack of choice of the discriminated trait, then why is it wrong to discriminate based on people's religion? Or would you say that it isn't?

I would say that there is not a single non-religious human being on this planet.

Human rights are a religion - they don’t exist. We made them up so we can coexist; and so that we can improve the quality of our lives.

What makes discrimination wrong is that it diminishes the well-being of the discriminated against.

So you are welcome to insist that your well-being is being diminished by vaccine mandates but it would be a peculiar argument since most people are choosing to vaccinate because it improves their well-being.

You seem to be struggling with the fact that objective morality is a social construct.

It's not about WHO makes the decision. It's about the inherent quality of the decision being made irrespective of who makes it.

Of course it's your choice to drive your car into a wall at 200km/h, but in the way society uses the word "objectively" and "true" it is objectively true that driving into a wall at 200km/h is detrimental to your well-being. And it is objectively true that in doing so you are making a bad decision.

In the same way that is objectively true that seatbelts save lives, it is objectively true that vaccines save lives. Therefore not doing what's conducive to your well-being is a bad choice.

The metrics, measurements and methods used to arrive at these conclusions are as objective as empiricism allows for.

>Those who don't want to vaccinate also choose to do so because it improves their well-being

Yes. They using the exact same words. Are you convinced by their arguments? I am not.

What I am convinced of is how intellectually dishonest they are in parroting words without bringing evidence to the table.