If that’s the definition of force you’d like to live with, go for it.
Naw, not going to support your propaganda. I’m pro-requirement in many situations. I’m not pro-force.
4 Likes
What propaganda? You define the terms. Any propaganda is yours.
I am against laws that allow employers to fire people for any reason. If there are valid business reasons for firing employees such as poor performance or financial exigency that is diffrent. Unvaccinated employees can have detrimental effects on the health of other employees and possibly customers, not to mention the medical costs associated with any hospitalization.
Lets say we have an employee that controls dangerous equipment on the job endangering himself and other employees. He frequently shows up to work impaired. Employer says show up to work drunk and you are fired. Totally fine with me.
I wasn’t thinking about that argument before. It’s interesting. Would you extend it to other vaccines, including the annual flu shot? And other unhealthy behaviors or activities employees may participate in?
Some workplaces do require other vaccines, including the annual flu shot. Also prohibit other behaviors like illegal drug use.
Substantially every firing is for one of these reasons, or a violation of some company policy. (e.g., it is very difficult to not violate your company’s IT policies at some point)
The small number of firings for these reasons are moot because the company can easily turn it into one of these reasons.
I’m both surprised and not that you’d not have considered this.
1 Like
Some may. But would AcademicActuary extend his or her argument to other vaccines and behaviors/activities employees may participate in, and to what limits, if any, would AcadamicActuary place on that argument?
Some businesses prohibit firearms or anything that falls into the weapon category, including pepper spray.
And some business require employees to to wear a cap with the company’s logo on it. Or vests with 28 pieces of flair.
2 Likes
If the voters and readers of the poll are interpreting the terms differently, the poll is garbage. Please excuse the redundancy.
3 Likes
Right, because otherwise this anonymous internet poll would hold scientific value.
1 Like
I voted pro-force according to MountainHawks’ definition.
I think the pro force vs pro choice is a poor framing. It reads like something a republican candidate would use for “push polling”.
I think the government should keep people from murdering each other, because we have a moral obligation not to murder each other. Does that mean i’m “pro force”? Of course not. I’d prefer people choose to not murder each other.
I think that as a rule we have a moral obligation to be vaccinated. I’d prefer people to meet that obligation voluntarily. In some circumstances, that obligation is high enough and obvious enough that people should be forced to change their behavior somehow, either by removing themselves from the situation or getting vaccinated.
4 Likes
Are you in favor of laws which prohibit murder?
That should be obvious from what i wrote.
It started off being obvious, but less so as you kept writing.
1 Like
sounds like we all agree then
1 Like
Pro force…legal to make it required to what otherwise would be a privilege.
E.g. mandating a vaccine in order to vote = no no