How can we break our addiction to contempt?

Once again, that's not what they're doing. "I'm not going to take the medicine so everybody has to stay inside" you will note was not part of the dialogue.

> Furthermore, it’s downright ghastly to gloat about the upcoming, totally avoidable, suffering that they’ll be imparting on people that _AGREE WITH THEM_ in order make their point and own the libs.

People have a history of hostility to those they perceive, whether rightly or wrongly, as unnecessarily depriving them of their livelihood.

> We might actually be having a two way conversation if your next response included words like “snow” or “plow” or “stranded in your house by no fault of your own.” But please go on with your regurgitated Facebook nonsense about experiments or whatever.

Sure, It doesn't matter what tasks the people under discussion are saddled with, up to and including dealing with snow, plowing, etc, and it doesn't matter what consequences the absence of their actions will result in, up to and including leaving people stranded in their house by no fault of their own. The logic still applies.

Not wanting to take medication is not the same as actively wanting to inflict misery on other parties, and equating the two as you are continuously trying to do is false.

Displaying hostility to parties responsible for hostile actions is about as newsworthy as "sun rises in morning". In fact the hostility you're displaying to them here is just as unsurprising and not the problem at all.

The issue is purely one of logic; you're equating motivation to refuse a medicine with wanting to provoke misery for an opposing party. Clearly no such motivation exists. If it did exist, they would not have needed to say "I don't want to take this medicine, fire me if you have to." they could just jump straight to the end and go on strike to "own the libs" and no other reason.

Refusing to take medicine is not the same thing as "planning on causing harm" no matter how many times you attempt to falsely equate the two things.

> I get that it didn’t jive with your narrative

Narrative has nothing to do with it, you can still believe what they're doing by refusing to take the medicine is the wrong choice and simultaneously acknowledge that their incorrect choice is not the same thing as the consequence levied upon them by a third party when they refuse to take the medicine.

> but it’s a reality that I’m describing, so sorry about that.

If you really think that's the case, then the inability to separate cause and effect is an enormous blind spot you should work on.

> Good job using the word “snow” in the middle of hand waving away actual material suffering while trying to accomplish

You were the one that insisted the word would change the underlying logical structure of the question, unsurprisingly it did not. That was my entire point all along.

> Are you personally willing to be unable to leave your house because it’s important to you that the municipal workers won’t be vaccinated?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the logical structure of coerced action resulting in a refusal and dismissal and the second order effects of that chain of events. But for the record, I am willing to suffer whatever consequences are necessary in order that the aggressive violation of individual bodily integrity and autonomy of peaceful people is unacceptable, up to and including the immediate destruction of the entire universe.

A universe where peaceful people minding their own business are not free to make their own choices is not worthy of existence. Cross that line and you've gone most of the way down the road of justifying the worst excesses of authoritarian abuse throughout history. There's a very good reason it's in the Nuremberg codes, it wasn't an accident to be revoked next time there's some "catastrophic emergency" going on. There are certain lines you do not cross and that is one of them.

The opposing position is ironically that of those who inflicted hundreds of millions of deaths, the largest cause of non natural death in fact, on the entire species in the previous century, so you'll excuse me if I take your view with several solar masses of sodium chloride.

> you’re willing to inflict that same suffering on an infinite number of people in order to get your way.

Exactly the opposite, I'm not willing to inflict any aggression on any number of peaceful people minding their own business, period.

> Considering “destruction of the universe” would include a lot of innocent deaths

Better dead than enslaved.

> You literally advocate for murdering both those that agree with you and those that don’t, as well as yourself, because things aren’t the way you want them to be.

I advocate for nothing, I merely do not accept that slavery is a valid institution, and it doesn't matter what you put in the alternative column against it. The alternative of violating the autonomy and integrity of peaceful people doing me no harm is once again, the worst possible outcome.

> Let me guess, you’re in your mid teens and recently read The Fountainhead?

Over 40, read it a long, long time ago, has nothing to do with my position on live free or die. Slavery is outright unacceptable. If you do not have the right to choose which drugs you must take, you are a slave. It cannot get more simple than that. That has nothing at all to do with the sensibility of taking the drugs in question, it has nothing to do with whether the drugs in question are good or bad. It could be the most obvious choice in the world, and the drugs in question could be a panacea that brings about a world utopia, and the logic of enslaving people would still be utterly unacceptable.

The ends do not justify the means. Multiple world changing extremely violent wars were fought over just these issues. Your side always lost.

This was not a controversial position for the past half century plus, the fact that it is now should make you very cautious. Although with bloody-handed "for the greater good" communism by another name in such vogue these days, I expect that it won't at all.

I'm sorry, I find this conversation extremely depressing and I'm going to leave it at that, you have a nice life.

EDIT; for the record, the disgusting strawmen in response to this message do not warrant their own response regardless of how idiotic they are. And I will not be providing one.