No, a hypothetical is just helping people see a logical inconsistency. If you agree that people should be free to refuse vaccinations with no negative consequences, then you are logically consistent when you leverage the “my body, my choice” stance. Is that your stance, for vaccines? Many people in this thread insist that there should be consequences to refusing a vaccine (no interaction with society, for example), but that is not really a choice then.
Dismissing points out of hand does not dispute those stances; it does not move to convince the people that hold those stances that the stances are flawed.
No, a hypothetical is just helping people see a logical inconsistency
Yes, just like JAQing off. That’s all that they want to do right? Just ask questions that point out logical inconsistencies? What’s so wrong about that? Who would possibly say that Tucker Carlson didn’t always have the best of intentions using this exact same method?
If you want to push the vaccine angle, then yes, sometimes, nuance exists in life. Government workers and military should absolutely be required to choose between vaccination and being let go. That does not mean that women should be forced into organ donation slavery by the government, and you continuing to try to link the two is absolutely JAQing yourself the fuck off.
No one who’s in favor of government-forced organ donation slavery is going to change their mind. The only way to fight fascism is to dismiss it out of hand. Giving it any amount of validity is letting it win.
Who would possibly say that Tucker Carlson didn’t always have the best of intentions using this exact same method?
Tucker uses whataboutism. He would never strive for logical consistency; that would ruin his entire stance. You do want logical consistency, right? That is something you strive for? Or are you like Tucker?
Government workers and military should absolutely be required to choose between vaccination and being let go. That does not mean that women should be forced into organ donation slavery by the government, and you continuing to try to link the two is absolutely JAQing yourself the fuck off.
It means that “my body, my choice” isn’t the argument people pretend it is. Because in some situations, “my body, my choice” doesn’t apply. So now you need to defend why it applies to pregnant people and not anti-vaxxers. Logically. And you know what? I bet you could do it if you really tried-- but what’s the point? Why bother with the “my body, my choice” defense at all, if the defense itself needs a defense?
No one who’s in favor of government-forced organ donation slavery is going to change their mind.
This is untrue. After Roe was struck down, polls indicated rising support in nationally-available abortion. People can change their mind, but it’s very unlikely if no one bothers to try to change it.
It means that “my body, my choice” isn’t the argument people pretend it is
On this I am in agreement with you, and have never used that argument. The only valid argument is “government can’t force people into organ donation slavery”.
but it’s very unlikely if no one bothers to try to change it
Those people who have “changed their mind” on abortion haven’t done so through rational discussion with those who know that forced organ donation slavery is wrong. Like any conservative, they had to see the results of their lack of concern for others have an impact on themselves or others that they care about, or at least others who look the same as they do.
Once white forced-birth mothers started dying, being forced to give still births, and crying on the witness stand, some of the “centrists” (i.e. conservatives who want to pretend they’re not) began to see the monsters they had become.
