I was careful to say “imply” and “follows from” so as to specifically avoid putting words in your mouth. I did not say that this is what you said, but that this is what it implies, or follows from your premises (explicitly or implicitly stated). I dont even know why you’re bringing up “to win a reddit argument” since we’re both communicating through the same medium for an exchange of ideas? Why is me responding to your thoughts on Reddit any different than you responding to mine?

If it isn’t clear, my philosophical problem was with you saying “we DO stop at red lights” [capitalized by me for emphasis] etc etc being included among these is that many people DON’T and it does not lead to tearing apart the fabric of society, which, uh, sounds like kind of a “exaggerating to logical extremes” to me.

Like I said though, it is my personal opinion that the whole “vaccine” requirement led to more division and harm in society than would have happened without such a mandate. We can argue and disagree about that (here on Reddit) certainly. But I’m also trying to point out the philosophical / logical problems with your argument that whatever ONE PERSON or ONE GROUP of people thinks is the thing that will better hold society together is therefore the right and moral thing to do, because they have determined as such.

Going back, I honestly dont know why people feel the need to make some personal attack about “just trying to win a Reddit argument.” We’re both human of course and thus feel the need for self-expression.

Edit: I also didn’t really follow your question about Kabul and Copenhagen if you’d be willing to expand. Was it cuz I brought of semantics of people mandating the jab being “criminal” being debatable on a semantic level? Or something else about those places in particular I didn’t catch? Or an old philosophical argument? Are you saying “potato-pohtahto” about “sacrifices that benefit society” and “that which is morally correct?” That one is another version of saying the other?