The problem with mandates illustrated by the Streetcar Problem

I see a lot of false assumptions and bad strawman arguments about the rights of individuals to not receive the mRNA injection vs. the rights of others to be "protected from the unvaccinated." So to help with a visual discussion, I've used the Streetcar Dilemma to help illustrate the risk of deaths from COVID-19 vs the risks of death from the vaccines to help guide the thought process more honestly. I hope this helps!

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

Sometimes, a picture paints a thousand words.

Bravo! 👏

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

But they're not openly admitting that it is as simple as 1 death vs. 5 deaths.

The whole equation changes when the official statement claims that the 1 death never happened, and that it definitely won't happen.

originally posted by: BrokenCircles
a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

But they're not openly admitting that it is as simple as 1 death vs. 5 deaths.

The whole equation changes when the official statement claims that the 1 death never happened, and that it definitely won't happen.

Lying doesn't change facts and as such doesn't change the equation.

to be accurate, the guy on the left . . . the one pulling the switch to redirect the train

yea, that guy should be labeled "Pure Blood"

because he is responsible for all of those covid deaths

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

The best solution to that dilemma would be to de-activate the streetcar, and switch back to horses, or advance to cars and busses.

If there are people on the track at all, why use the track until ALL the hostages are untied first?

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

The best solution to that dilemma would be to de-activate the streetcar, and switch back to horses, or advance to cars and busses.

If there are people on the track at all, why use the track until ALL the hostages are untied first?

That would certainly make sense if the ultimate goal was something other than depopulation and control.

I like your example because if you pick the mandate all 6 die anyway.

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

The problem as I see it is the ones in charge do not know which track has the least people on it or will not tell anyone if they did. They have changed the numbers and waved the switch handle several times, just to make some noise, but insist they know what they are doing.

At the moment, the one at the switch has a bucket on there head and is trying to figure out the switch as they go. It will only end in desaster ether way.

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

Every 1% of unemployment equals 40,000 deaths.
Enable a vaccine mandate and how high does unemployment climb?

The way I see it, the people who believe in the rights of individuals are going to win the argument no matter what.

If they choose not to take the vaccine then the government either stays out of their business or they enforce vaccines, thereby becoming authoritarian.

Then the pro vaxxers have a new dilemma, comply and support their authoritarian government or revolt.

Honestly, I'm rooting for the government to be challenged and overstep their boundaries.

It will be the catalyst for people to wake up, then real progress will happen one way or another.

Can't stop the inevitable.

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

You got your labels backward.

originally posted by: SentientBunnySuit

That would certainly make sense if the ultimate goal was something other than depopulation and control.

One detail you forgot about is the long term effects of the "vaccines" . What if they cause cancer long term or damage the immune system in such a way it can't fight off the next flu or cold in 2-5 years or so.

The world could become a lonely place by 2030-2040 if only the unvaxxed are left.

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

Ahh ... I get it. You gotta think like a psychopath to understand that logic ... damn. That is evil. Thanks.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

Lying doesn't change facts and as such doesn't change the equation.

Lying changes everything because it means that there are most likely more relevant unknown factors that should have been added as a visible part of the equation, but were intentionally left out instead.

originally posted by: BrokenCircles

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

Lying doesn't change facts and as such doesn't change the equation.

Lying changes everything because it means that there are most likely more relevant unknown factors that should have been added as a visible part of the equation, but were intentionally left out instead.

Agreed, their equation.