> This is gross, it's basically an end to the dicussion. One is an immutable characteristic (being Jewish), the other one is a choice.
Nice work plugging your ears and declaring an end to the discussion, this is surely the way to go and a sign of intellectual maturity.
You know that one of the bloodiest wars in European history was fought between who chose to be Protestant and who chose to be Catholic, correct? At the time, people like yourself surely were making the argument the conflict would quickly end if only those foolish and evil Catholics would just understand their error, repent, and do the right thing and join the Reformation. Catholics were, of course, deeply harming society, since an offense on God like indulgences was an offense on all and risked destroying society. And, of course, if you were in Spain, the opposite argument was made regarding the rebellous Protestants undermining the much-needed authority of the Church. While the bodies stacked up.
The nature of tribalistic discrimination is not rooted in choice or not choice. It is rooted in the identification of tribes and the ability for such a tribe to be oppressed due to a power differential, often motivated by fear, stereotyping, blame, or distrust. Tribes of which it is often the case that immutable characteristics drive the labeling process for obvious reasons, but often due to choices or beliefs. Humans have murdered millions and millions of people in tribal conflicts that are entirely grounded in choices of religion, political alignment, or other beliefs or behaviors that allow easy segmentation and identification of who is in which group.
I realize you want to try to clamber up to some kind of moral high ground by boxing me into something I'm not - I'm used to this method being used by those defending the idea it is just that millions of people shouldn't be able to work or go to the grocery store if they are unvaccinated - but you're just making yourself look foolish by declaring an end to discussions because of your emotional reaction to what I am saying. The tribalization of the choice to take the vaccine or not, combined with the very direct rationalizability of the oppression of these people (as nicely demonstrated by your previous reply) is a danger zone and is one that people who understand human behavior and history should be very concerned about.
Unless we have a stroke of luck and the threat of the virus subsides (something which seems increasingly less likely), we we should expect is an increased ratcheting up of oppression of the unvaccinated, who will dig in as well. The result, as always, will ultimately be violence, once the unvaccinated cannot tolerate it any further. Many will never get the vaccine: by making it a form of civil disobedience now, not merely a healthcare choice, we have guaranteed it. So we should hope that we get lucky and the seeds of conflict dissipate by science quelling the threat of the virus sufficiently that bystanders can no longer stomach barring unvaccinated people from public life.
Nice work plugging your ears and declaring an end to the discussion, this is surely the way to go and a sign of intellectual maturity.
You know that one of the bloodiest wars in European history was fought between who chose to be Protestant and who chose to be Catholic, correct? At the time, people like yourself surely were making the argument the conflict would quickly end if only those foolish and evil Catholics would just understand their error, repent, and do the right thing and join the Reformation. Catholics were, of course, deeply harming society, since an offense on God like indulgences was an offense on all and risked destroying society. And, of course, if you were in Spain, the opposite argument was made regarding the rebellous Protestants undermining the much-needed authority of the Church. While the bodies stacked up.
The nature of tribalistic discrimination is not rooted in choice or not choice. It is rooted in the identification of tribes and the ability for such a tribe to be oppressed due to a power differential, often motivated by fear, stereotyping, blame, or distrust. Tribes of which it is often the case that immutable characteristics drive the labeling process for obvious reasons, but often due to choices or beliefs. Humans have murdered millions and millions of people in tribal conflicts that are entirely grounded in choices of religion, political alignment, or other beliefs or behaviors that allow easy segmentation and identification of who is in which group.
I realize you want to try to clamber up to some kind of moral high ground by boxing me into something I'm not - I'm used to this method being used by those defending the idea it is just that millions of people shouldn't be able to work or go to the grocery store if they are unvaccinated - but you're just making yourself look foolish by declaring an end to discussions because of your emotional reaction to what I am saying. The tribalization of the choice to take the vaccine or not, combined with the very direct rationalizability of the oppression of these people (as nicely demonstrated by your previous reply) is a danger zone and is one that people who understand human behavior and history should be very concerned about.
Unless we have a stroke of luck and the threat of the virus subsides (something which seems increasingly less likely), we we should expect is an increased ratcheting up of oppression of the unvaccinated, who will dig in as well. The result, as always, will ultimately be violence, once the unvaccinated cannot tolerate it any further. Many will never get the vaccine: by making it a form of civil disobedience now, not merely a healthcare choice, we have guaranteed it. So we should hope that we get lucky and the seeds of conflict dissipate by science quelling the threat of the virus sufficiently that bystanders can no longer stomach barring unvaccinated people from public life.