Although I will say, if "freedom" is the "one argument [you are] not open to" I don't think you have the moral high ground.
Although I will say, if "freedom" is the "one argument [you are] not open to" I don't think you have the moral high ground.
> Although I will say, if "freedom" is the "one argument [you are] not open to" I don't think you have the moral high ground.
We'll have to disagree on this one. "You can't make me" isn't going to win you any arguments at the supermarket with your mom, it's not going to win you any arguments at home with your spouse, it's not going to win you any arguments at work, and it sure as heck isn't going to win you any arguments in public health policy.
Again, I'm open to the idea they may not be necessary to achieve meaningful results, however that is a conversation that can be had without invoking the toddler clause.
Yes we will, since you are arguing in bad faith. I can smell the condescension from here. I never said "you can't make me" but YOU said "petulant children who won't be told no" and "toddler clause" and "muh freedom"
THAT is the type of rhetoric that "isn't going to win you any arguments at the supermarket with your mom"