Jaywalking? More like fascism.

@averagejoe1 said
But I AM for traffic laws. Let's just all hope that the powerful in the Reset Society do not ask us to submit to a traffic law requiring transgression of our person.
You see, that seems to be in the works. Brrrrrrrrr

What is dance around the dilemma ? Dont get you there.

You've restated my statement without answering the question. Why is it ok for a government to restrict actual freedom of movement, but a minor inconvenience like a vaccine has the elicited such a strong negative response from you?

Forcing me to cross the street at specific places impacts more than just my commute time. It has made permanent changes to my neuronal wiring. Big governments excessive punishment of walking has changed the thickness of my calf muscles.

I haven't even brushed the surface of all the research I did on this. There was a time we used to be able to freely walk in the public streets. Did you know the idea of jaywalking laws were written by and lobbied for by big oil and big auto? They saw people dying in the streets and how that could impact their bottom line.

Follow the money, man. The vaccines are a distraction from the real enemy.

@wildgrass said
You've restated my statement without answering the question. Why is it ok for a government to restrict actual freedom of movement, but a minor inconvenience like a vaccine has the elicited such a strong negative response from you?

Forcing me to cross the street at specific places impacts more than just my commute time. It has made permanent changes to my neuronal wiring. ...[text shortened]... act their bottom line.

Follow the money, man. The vaccines are a distraction from the real enemy.

Follow my clear point, man...
First, you call the traffic of cars ';Freedom of Movement'. Naa, I don't think so. Cars don't 'freely move', there has to be some regulation or traffic grid, within which the traffic moves. Being restricted within the grid, it is thus not 'freely' done. Whew.

So, start a thread on traffic, but let us not think that traffic laws about 'where to stop and go' are the same as a law that MAKES a citizen open his shoulder to a needle that he just, dammit, does not want inserted into his skin., Whatever his reason.
Now, can I hope for a cogent response to my point, that you might say, yeah, good or bad, needles, cars or whatever, we just can't compare the two.?
Help me Rhonda. And one does not 'walk freely' in a motorway, a public street. That is a misstatement. One may walk freely in a park, maybe, assuming city government doesn't want to keep you off the grass! I would say, "Hey, I have a right to walk here!" No, probably not.
Could it be a privilege? That would be a good thread subject...first thing you learn in law school, the diff in a right and a privilege.

@vivify said
This was pretty damn well written.

Huh?
Don't read much?

@averagejoe1 said
Follow my clear point, man...
First, you call the traffic of cars ';Freedom of Movement'. Naa, I don't think so. Cars don't 'freely move', there has to be some regulation or traffic grid, within which the traffic moves. Being restricted within the grid, it is thus not 'freely' done. Whew.

So, start a thread on traffic, but let us not think that traffic ...[text shortened]... be a good thread subject...first thing you learn in law school, the diff in a right and a privilege.

Can someone who understands Joe's point please try to distill this argument? Is he saying we can't compare various ways in which our government restricts our freedom, or that we can and some like skin are more aligned with his ideas on freedom? Maybe it makes sense but I don't see it.

Of course "one does not walk freely in the street." However, one used to walk freely in the street. That freedom was taken away from you, and you don't seem to care. This seems to me a much more egregious permanent restriction of freedom than your fauci ouchie.

@averagejoe1 said
But I AM for traffic laws. Let's just all hope that the powerful in the Reset Society do not ask us to submit to a traffic law requiring transgression of our person.
You see, that seems to be in the works. Brrrrrrrrr

What is dance around the dilemma ? Dont get you there.

https://www.powerthesaurus.org/less_than_average/synonyms

@wildgrass said
Can someone who understands Joe's point please try to distill this argument? Is he saying we can't compare various ways in which our government restricts our freedom, or that we can and some like skin are more aligned with his ideas on freedom? Maybe it makes sense but I don't see it.

Of course "one does not walk freely in the street." However, one used to walk freely in ...[text shortened]... are. This seems to me a much more egregious permanent restriction of freedom than your fauci ouchie.

Even when the streets were only cluttered with oxen carts 250 years ago, you could not walk freely in that street.. it was a right of way. People walk on sidewalks and paths. Streets are for… Oh never mind I think we go nowhere with this 250 yr old fact. Which, is about a 1500 yr old fact in Europe!!

As to comparisons of freedom, i think my para above indeed makes sense.
Everyone is mad at average Joe today.

@averagejoe1 said
Even when the streets were only cluttered with oxen carts 250 years ago, you could not walk freely in that street.. it was a right of way. People walk on sidewalks and paths. Streets are for… Oh never mind I think we go nowhere with this 250 yr old fact. Which, is about a 1500 yr old fact in Europe!!

As to comparisons of freedom, i think my para above indeed makes sense.
Everyone is mad at average Joe today.

LOL Joe didn't you hear, I've done my research. Jaywalking was coined by the auto industry and did not exist until the 1920's. Laws prohibiting walking were heavily lobbied by car manufacturers, not pursuant to address any real societal problem other than allowing cars to drive faster.

Can you imagine getting fined for jaywalking in 17th century England, while the plague was killing 25% of London's population? Like, uh, we have real problems.

What freedom restrictions did they have in London at that time? A quick check of the 1665 history book shows a 40 day "mandatory" quarantine period for everyone traveling from out of town. A few years later, the great fire burned down 14,000 houses in London, leading to a "mandate" that houses were built from brick and stone.

You're complaining about a tiny pinprick in your arm? Those people had real problems.

If you really cared about William Wallace's freedom, you would work big to small here. Real restrictions on freedom exist and you don't care.

@wildgrass said
LOL Joe didn't you hear, I've done my research. Jaywalking was coined by the auto industry and did not exist until the 1920's. Laws prohibiting walking were heavily lobbied by car manufacturers, not pursuant to address any real societal problem other than allowing cars to drive faster.

Can you imagine getting fined for jaywalking in 17th century England, while the plague ...[text shortened]... 's freedom, you would work big to small here. Real restrictions on freedom exist and you don't care.

You have slyly interjected the auto industry, that lobbyists were interested in making the streets clear, that cars could drive faster. Uh,yeah, I spect that happened. A good idea, so, here we are. Traffic lights, restricted crosswalks, and requisite fines. So here we are.
.???????? We got it.

You are right, authorities would prob not have bothered with fining jaywalkers, maybe not even speeders, with all the mortality issues abounding.
.???????????? We get that, too. .??

Yes, a mandatory quarantine, such as the ones Trump put in place for the Muslims and others, was similar to the one you mention., and like today, was definitely a good idea.
Got that.

In liberal-Eze, you call the injection of a foreign substance into an unwilling person’s body a pin prick. Is not an injection very very very different from a pin prick.?
Are you going to restrict my freedom from such injections? What do you call such restriction.? And out of curiosity, you think traffic would flow without incident without govt controls? Of course, a person can choose to not be involved in traffic.

@averagejoe1 said
You have slyly interjected the auto industry, that lobbyists were interested in making the streets clear, that cars could drive faster. Uh,yeah, I spect that happened. A good idea, so, here we are. Traffic lights, restricted crosswalks, and requisite fines. So here we are.
.???????? We got it.

You are right, authorities would prob not have bothered with fin ...[text shortened]... ithout incident without govt controls? Of course, a person can choose to not be involved in traffic.

You seem to be making a lot of excuses for top-down big government control, while still calling yourself a conservative... Don't you think we can make our own dang risk assessments about whether or not we want to be hit by a truck or not?

...you think traffic would flow without incident without govt controls?

Replace "traffic" with "medical care" and one could say the same thing in defense of vaccine mandates. One could, if one were speaking to a non brainwashed mind.

You can make the argument that jaywalking mandates are ok and vaccine mandates are not ok, but don't then act like it is just vaccines taking away your freedoms. Both mandates impinge on freedoms. Both mandates are reasonable from a public health standpoint. You like one and not the other. It's not about freedom.