Are you complaining that I'm using rhetorical techniques against you? The smallpox and 1918 flu pandemics from 100 years ago are guidance for what is going on today.
We can look at how our grandfathers solved the issue in their time, and compare-and-contrast with what worked today. As you mentioned, it was controversial back then. Both you and I have arguments we can borrow from them.
---------
How about instead of arguing against history, you actually take those arguments and use them for yourself? Or perhaps you recognize that the arguments said 100+ years ago weren't actually that strong or powerful.
> Jacobson v. Massachusetts said the solution to compulsory vaccination is democratically repealing policy and law. This is exactly what these people want and are fighting for
Cool.
Now explain how you'd get rid of smallpox in the early 1900s.
You're welcome to add whatever you think adds to the discussion.
Or do you just sit around and counterpunch in discussions, never actually contributing directly? There's a reason why sitting around and just countering arguments is called the "fallacy fallacy" / "Argument from fallacy".
--------
I bring up smallpox and "Jacobson v. Massachusetts" for a few reasons.
1. We defeated smallpox. It took decades, but it was soundly defeated.
2. Legally, there's a strong set of arguments that prove that these measures are constitutional.
3. There were big controversies in the early 1900s over these arguments, and we can replay those arguments again if you so desire. In effect, we know that the state's right to protect our health care system trumps the individual's choice on whether-or-not to get the vaccine.
Everything is just as controversial and the issues are the same.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts said the solution to compulsory vaccination is democratically repealing policy and law. This is exactly what these people want and are fighting for