forced vax or forced mask usage compared to wearing the star of david was the comparison. when infringing on freedoms, where is the line in the sand drawn?
Yes, but listing a Republic’s responses to a deadly virus, juxtaposed with an act of the Holocaust, and literally asking “where is the line drawn,” a.k.a., expressing an opinion that there may be little difference between the two is classic moral relativism. Any person with a moral compass (whether from religious or non-religious humanistic backgrounds) would find a very significant moral gap between the two for drawing lines . . . in other words, morality (or immorality in the scale of the Holocaust) can not be reduced, twisted, altered or rendered as a false equivalent to laws requiring (1) the wearing of seatbelts, (2) the requiring polio vaccines, (3) the requiring of small pox vaccines, or (4) requiring masks and vaccines for the current disease.
If you literally don’t know where to draw the line, let me suggest that there is a wide moral gap between requiring either masks or taking vaccines as those acts are at least putatively for the preservation of life irrespective of race, and the forced-wearing of the Star of David, which was an act of open state-sponsored racial hostility leading, ultimately to the deaths of several million people, with no pretense that it helped cure any disease.
You may not agree with any of this, given the near death-grip moral relativism has upon modern society, left and right, religious and irreligious, but the proper retort to my position would be to term it “moral absolutism,” or accuse me of being “judgmental;” accusations to which I would gladly plead guilty.
