(09-10-2021 03:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 02:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Glad you clarified that they want to restrict access to unvaccinated and not close things.

A distinction without a difference, except in pedantry.

The only difference is whether they simply want to close things (your presumption)... or whether they want to close things that don't comply.... or close people who don't comply through the use of federal powers.

Since the entire discussion for pages now is about the latter, I didn't think i needed to be more clear. Context matters.

Absolutely disagree that this is a distinction without a difference based on what you typed earlier.

Given the context of COVID-19 in this discussion, and that there were lockdowns/shutdowns all across the globe (and still are) saying that :insert group here: is in favor of shutting down anything communicates (intentionally or unintentionally) the wholesale closure of something.

I see what you meant to communicate now, but that idea is vastly different than widespread closures given that it affects far fewer people.

And I would push back that "the left" wants to close anything (see your bolded) - where have you seen widespread support of closures of X, Y, or Z because they don't comply (and also, don't comply with what?)?

My feeling is we have gotten past the "shut it down" mentality, and now the focus is on increasing vaccination rates - and one way is through restricting access. That being said, I wouldn't be shocked if calls for shut downs start back up if we see significant spikes this winter.

So the left has matured past the 'shut the place down' mentality and now wants to graduate to the 'shut the people down' mentality. Quite the marked improvement.