Zanzibart, forgive me...
The biggest problem with ideas like this is denying people their own choice in opinion. It is very important for all of us to be able to freely discuss various subjects and approaches to things. If the only way to proove your point is to deny your opponents their power to speak, maybe your point is shit any way.
Eich and people who believe him have the right to their opinion and should not be discriminated against in any way, even if you or I might disagree with him. Censorship is never a good thing, no matter how vile the object of that censorship may seem.
@newt @Johann150
The only issue with these people is, that they are too stupid to distinguish between moral should and legal must.
They think most people should and legal must is the same thing, but once a legal must is implemented, people who refuse for WHATEVER reason (including heart problems FFS) will face law enforcement and jail.
And if you ask these people, if they believe unvaxed people should be killed, put to jail or even just discriminated against for the rest of their lives, all of a sudden, their opinion changes. (with obvious psychopatic exceptions)
Now, to that kung flu crap, I think Zuby did put it very well into words in his thread.
https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1412012537986568193
His music still sucks tho
@newt
What part of what I said do you disagree with?
My guess would be, this is the same problem as with anti-vaxxers (in general sense, not kung flu), flat earth enthusiasts, or other people holding socially unacceptable views. If you talk to them, you may surpsigingly find that many of them are quite bright. What they are different in is their epistemological approach to the world. In other words, they apply different judgement to sources of information they receive.
Think about it for a sec. Is there really a big difference between a person denying the efficiency of kung flu lockdowns and a person denying that the earth is a spheroid? Both of them operate on information that they alone aren't able to prove or disprove (ok, I know how to prove that the earth is round using some ancient tech, but still). So it's solely the matter of whom you trust as your source of info.
@newt
Well, there we truly disagree.
The concept of legal enforcement is just too foreign for people to understand on instinctual level, and it is never triggered on the intellectual one.
That is why you should demonstrate to people on both instinctual and intellectual level what they are realy saying.
My brother used to say pro-vax shit without hesetation, until I outright said to him, that if he gets what he wants, a fining squad will shoot me. It took THIS DIRECT message for him to get my problem with his "informed opinion".
@newt
No, that is the entire core of the issue.
Dumb person thinks, that the question is:
(Moral) Should people get the jab?
But in fact, what they are advocating for is:
(Legal) Should we lock up/shoot people who refuse the jab for any possible reason?
That is why I say, it is an IQ question. If you can say there should be a law, while a question of the enforcement said law is not triggered in your brain for 1/2 a second required to see the result, you are stupid. That is the definition.
Again, I've seen renowned physics professors being perfectly fine with lockdowns, and I don't think people who could muster differential equations have low IQ.
If you read that Zuby thread I linked, he points out how many people have a problem with understanding evil or malice. For them, malicious people are just mistaken, because it's somehow unfathomable how a person could be just fine with hurting others en masse just to acquire more power.
@newt
Oh, I do understand malice. That is not the hard part. But I saw these "smart people" solving differencial equasions myself. And while I do not believe in EQ or other new age shit, inability to think in a layered action/consequence style has nothing to do with your ability to understand abstractions.
There are many inteligences. And people who lack the ability to see chain of actions and reactions are stupid. I am sorry, but I doubt you will change my mind on this topic.
And yes, there are people who believe in mandating the jab. Just in my family, there are 2 believers, and I am not sure, how low should the number of these people get to be insignificant in your opinion.
@newt
And no, I am not making a strawmen.
If a law is created I will refuse to comply.
If cops are send, they will either arrest or kill me.
It is that simple. And this is the message you have to tell to people to understand what a LAW means.
@newt
Yeah, that is something else...
I got the death-dread when I was 6. How can people get into adulthood without realizing that one day, they will die is beyond me.
If I say, it's because they're stupid, we would return to the same loop, so I'll just leave it at "it's a mystery 
"
I remember reading a study recently on how the amount of time spent with parents during formative years affects people's behaviour in adulthood. Growing up with less parental guidance makes for less risk aversion, among other things. I'll try to find it later, it's a truly interesting thing to read.
@newt
I was talking about the dread from the FACT that they will die.
But that study does sound interesting.
But it wasn't due to stupidity. It was pure fear in him talking.