So what’s new in DuhSantistan?

In terms of setting a school policy, it makes very little difference as to what the kids do at home. That's not something authorities are supposed to try to control. To try to dictate that would truly be the kind of tyranny that you were suggesting that requiring vaccinations was. It may impact the efficacy of requiring them to be vaccinated before they come into school - the perfect is always the enemy of the good. You try to control what you can and play percentages. That's not exactly subtle, but it seems to evade the conservative mind during this culture war.

My point was pretty simple and I don't think it's very logically refutable.

You labelled as some form of totalitarianism, tyranny, I don't recall exactly what term you used, excluding children who had not been vaccinated from attending school in person with other kids. At least I think that's the point you are trying to make. I didn't go back in the thread to see if it was something more specific. And I find it generally futile on this board asked people to define their thesis.

If that was the point you are making, it made no sense. Schools routinely require all types of proof of vaccination before allowing students to attend in common settings with others. So do other societal institutions both for children and adults, both here and across every jurisdiction I'm aware of, although I'm sure there are some rare jurisdictions that don't require it.

You may think that there was not a significant risk of infection, but that's a disagreement in judgment, not in tactics. You tried to label as some type of totalitarianism requiring individuals to be vaccinated before they share space with many others. As a matter of political science, of government, that is a routine governmental power not questioned for close to a century (if not more), here and in most other jurisdictions.

I realize we're in a culture war, and all logic is gone. But to say that you have a problem with a government that excludes access to those who have voluntarily gone unvaccinated is not opposing "authoritarianism", but just opposing authority, opposing government, in a form that most humans have realized is necessary for at least a century.

But go head, stew in your victimization

 

Not sure why the jerky ending, but my point was that if simply bussing some migrants to a rich area is authoritarianism then so is keeping thousands of citizens out of school. I havent come close to playing a victim here, so yeah, your lack of actually reading the thread makes you look silly. So try it before commenting .

And again. THE KIDS DIDNT VOLUNTEER NOT TO BE VAXED. THEIR PARENTS DID.

 

That sounds an awful lot like you are saying two wrongs make a right.

 

And breaks the law? Both in Florida and Texas. In Florida because the money was authorized for removing illegals from Florida, not legals from Texas, and in Texas because lying to people to transport them across state lines is kidnapping.

 

I now see I was wrong on everything. The ALLCAPS made me realize the power of the argument.

 

No. Im saying call out both wrongs or shutty.

 

Well I have said it multiple times and it seems to be missed. I was helping you out.

 

It's not missed - it makes no sense

 

You said:
"But to say that you have a problem with a government that excludes access to those who have voluntarily gone unvaccinated is not opposing "authoritarianism"

I said:
"THE KIDS DIDNT VOLUNTEER NOT TO BE VAXED. THEIR PARENTS DID."

How does my response not make sense exactly?

 

Because the issue is not punishment, it's preventing other kids in school personnel from being exposed. In that case, the kids are voluntarily unvaccinated. It may be their parents' decision, but under law, parents are the legal representatives for their minor children and make those decisions for them. So in terms of the same mechanism every other societal institution uses, the decisions of the parents are the decisions of the children. (more on that below)

It's something the law deals with every day. If the interest of minors are at stake, someone else must represent their interests and can bind them

Parenthetically, there's a piece in todays St. Pete Times which makes the opposite point in a very different context, a student that was involuntarily transferred among schools because her mom was a MAGA asshole (I know, tautology), that harassed the staff could not be contained. But I digress.

You keep looking at keeping kids from knowing their as some form of punishment coercion. Hence the emphasis on victimization. You believe children are being punished. It's more about preventing exposure to the other individuals, not punishing the kids.

Again, it's not punishment. Kids are being excluded for the decisions of their parents, but because their parents have made a decision which makes those children unsafe. Not punishment.

Okay, back to the fact that society to function, parents have to legally represent their minor children. I deal with that issue regularly. There are exceptions. You have to get court approval for settlement which involves interest of children. In trust administration, there is even a specific statute, because sometimes parents have a conflict of interest with their minor children. But they are still the default representative

ESTATES AND TRUSTS Chapter 736
FLORIDA TRUST CODE View Entire Chapter

736.0303 Representation by fiduciaries and parents.—To the extent there is no conflict of interest between the representative and the person represented or among those being represented with respect to a particular question or dispute:
(1) A guardian of the property may represent and bind the estate that the guardian of the property controls.
(2) An agent having authority to act with respect to the particular question or dispute may represent and bind the principal.
(3) A trustee may represent and bind the beneficiaries of the trust.
(4) A personal representative of a decedent’s estate may represent and bind persons interested in the estate.
(5) A parent may represent and bind the parent’s unborn child and the unborn descendants of such unborn child, or the parent’s minor child and the minor or unborn descendants of such minor child, if a guardian of the property for the unborn child, minor child, or such child’s descendants has not been appointed.
History.—s. 3, ch. 2006-217; s. 4, ch. 2022-96.

Now the law would not recognize it, but I think there is a conflict of interest between a parent and a minor child when the parents are MAGA types. But not relevant to this question because it's not punishment - it's protecting the spread. Same as with every other vaccination you have to show before your kids enter school

 

You wont read the thread, but want me to read all that.

You expect kids to understand the difference between direct punishment and 8ndirect consequences?

They are harmfully isolated man. My kid felt it and she is vaccinated. I cant imagine how some felt if they were the last ones not allowed to go to school, play sports etc.

It was wrong and it was cruel. The teachers were vaccinated. Their peers were vaccinated.

And frankly some of it was punitive.
There was video of Dr. Wen stating the goal was to make being unvaccinated as difficult as posible. Thats punishment, disguised as motivation.

I am pro vax. I believe it saved my dads life. I am glad I got it as my covid bout was minor.

But this could have been done without sacrificing the mental health of millions of kids.

Maybe you dont have kids, or at least school aged ones. So maybe you cant see this from that perspective, But I saw a lot of kids change over the past 2-3 years. Thankfully all of them I know have safely returned to normal, but I know a couple stories of other families that have not been as fortunate.

 

Im glad to hear it.

Indeed, I agree that many leaders, including many Democrats, have caused more harm with their policies. I do still think that harm isn’t necessarily indicative of authoritarianism or even bad policy. Heavily taxing the few rich to lift up the many poor is likely low on net harm, but that doesn’t make it morally or politically justifiable.

I think the reason this DeSantis move is touching a nerve is that it feels like an tribal affront to human dignity simply to score personal political points. This is clearly not a proper role of government. So while I will agree that school closures likely resulted in more harm to the nation, I also think they were vastly more justified. Similarly, I think a person stealing a dollar causes much less national harm than McDonald’s selling unhealthy foods, but McDonald’s behavior is vastly more justified.

I am not judging your views, but I personally view this kind of behavior as disqualifying for the presidency, even if it isn’t that harmful to the immigrants themselves.

 

Just stop digging. No one is arguing it was easy for the kids. Not the point. None of that was relevant. Done with this

 

I’m glad parents put their feet down,

Brinksmanship and shoring up votes defines government. Democracy is rough and tumble. That said, DeSantis is a scrapper.

 

Not easy? For some it was devastating.
Tell me you dont get the impact without actually saying you dont get the impact.

We were fortunate to have well rounded kids that bounced back. I know of a couple that weren't so blessed

 

For starters, thank you from having an open minded conversation about this instead of the dismissiveness that some others show.

I am not a fan of this or any political games, but understand they are par for the course these days.

I just cant allow someone to go ape crap over this and yet support harming our kids.

It's mind numbing hypocrisy to me.

Again, thank you for the discourse.

 

The simple answer is that people reject your claim that supporting COVID mitigation measures meant they supported harming children. And there's no argument here that DeSantis was trying to help these people. So it's pretty obviously a false equivalence.

 

The idea that it’s okay to bus or fly asylum seekers to rich places is asinine. These people need help. Dumping them in a town of rich people is not helpful, and, of course, you know that. Moving them to a location that has a plan in place to provide help is ideal.

 

Sending kids to school early on in this pandemic would have been insane. Once the vaccines for kids became available, sending vaccinated kids to school made the most sense. Parents who refused to vaccinate their minor children had the option to home school them, send them to private schools that had a different policy or have them go to school online, where available.

 

That's an awfully dishonest description of what happened here. It's like claiming that the January 6th insurrectionists were simply trying to petition Congress for redress of their grievances.