The only way to know intent is to read minds. You came to the wrong conclusion.
Yet you made the claim we had the same intent in writing on this thread in post #30. Or are you retracting that claim?
If you don't think a whataboutism is relevant, then why bring one up?
I didn't.
Of course you did - you brought up the Patriot Act and the left's response to it. Really, if you are not going to pay attention to your own content, why should anyone else?
Your response is based on a straw man driven by a combination of a lack of reading comprehension and reasoning. People of principle are perfectly capable of apply the principle of "the rule of reason:" to their ethics or principles thereby eschewing kneejerk defenses of a misplaced application of a principle.
I have never heard of "the rule of reason", and when I google it, I get information about
US antitrust law. I don't think that's what you meant, so I assume this is language you have invented in this post, and you expected me to comprehend the meaning without explanation. I don't think that's fair.
I find it out that you feel expecting people to understand the English language is unfair. While the "rule of reason" has a specific application and history to US antitrust law, it is also a general principle that means rules or principles are subject to the use of reason depending on the facts of the situation.
Do you think it is reasonable for the Austrian government to fine (and possibly imprison) its citizens for not getting a Covid vaccine?
I think it is reasonable for any gov't to enforce a legal mandate in a reasonable and rational manner. I would expect the enforcement mechanism in this case is a forced vaccination.
Of course you did - you brought up the Patriot Act and the left's response to it. Really, if you are not going to pay attention to your own content, why should anyone else?
Yes, I brought up the Patriot Act. No, it wasn't a 'whataboutism'. It was to illustrate that people accept authoritarian actions because of their fear.
A "whataboutism" is used to illustrate a point. . The Patriot Act ha many diverse provisions and purposes. The proposed vaccine mandate does not.
it is also a general principle that means rules or principles are subject to the use of reason depending on the facts of the situation.
I've never heard it used like that, or even heard the phrase at all before today. Indeed, my further google searches uncovers only its use as a test of antitrust law. So yes, I do feel it is unfair of you to expect me to understand a phrase that you either made up with a definition peculiar to you, or is not in common use in the US or anywhere else in the English-speaking world, and that you mock me for failing to understand.
No one mocked you. Instead of whining about "unfairness", a simple question would have sufficed. Instead you persist in whining.
I think it is reasonable for any gov't to enforce a legal mandate in a reasonable and rational manner. I would expect the enforcement mechanism in this case is a forced vaccination.
That does seem to me to be the next logical step: physically enforced vaccinations. I'm alarmed, however, that for some people, the ease with which this idea has gone from
unthinkable to
desirable.
History indicates you alarm very easily.