Splake wrote:
Souris River is... attacking an individuals freedom to get a vaccination and still seek employment.
Where are you getting this info from? In this very thread, SR stated that some of their employees are vaccinated and that they respect their decisions and do not hassle them, let alone cut them loose, let alone "attack vaccinated people's freedom's to be employed". Your claim is not just speculative, it is in direct contradiction to what's on the table.
SR knows (as everyone else does) that people who
are vaxed are people who
don't get rejected, and that people who are
not vaxed are people who
do. That means the "attack" (if we're going to use your word) exists
before SR even got involved, and it is an "attack" on those who are NOT vaxed.
Yes, you and I and others, would not call it "attack"; we'd call it something else. But since we are talking about what "SR is doing" (not what we are doing), we are to consider what SR's perspective is, since that perspective (not ours) is what prompts their (not our) doing.
SR sees freedoms being "attacked" and so they stand
against that "attack"; and how do they go about this stance? By opening their doors to those (to those) "attacked". Are you going to say that this is NOT what they did? Are you going to say that instead, SR was attacking the freedoms of vaxed people? Where is your evidence?
And when a person acts against freedoms being "attacked", unsurprisingly, that person may end up doing something to help those whose freedoms are being "attacked". However, doing that can have the effect of excluding those whose freedoms are NOT attacked (from the help). That would be the byproduct.
If you help one bunny because you think it's drowning, then by virtue of going over to it, you neglect the other bunny. But, we say, that's OK, because the other is not the one drowning. The vaxers are not the ones rejected. SR is fighting to balance things out, not to
Generate an imbalance. When you say "SR is attacking the freedoms of vaccinated people", you are saying that SR is after an imbalance.
Some say SR is hypocritical. Spending a dollar to make a dollar is hypocrisy too. It's how things work sometimes. Standing against "attacked" freedom can prompt the act of
supplying freedom to those losing it. Which deed, in turn, excludes others from the supply. Note: this is exclusion by virtue of inclusion. Big difference.
Eg, you have a deadly bleed on your chest, and as I apply direct pressure to it, it causes a bit of blood to leak out of a cut at your finger tip (the byproduct). And since you are biased to activity at your finger tip, you complain that I am "attacking" you by forcing blood out of your finger. That is exactly what you're doing by saying that "SR is attacking the freedoms of vaccinated people"
Note,
where the deadly bleed is, depends on perspective.
SR could easily be more principled and well-intended than many who slam them. The crux, however, is that the foundation on which SR pivots is crooked (misguided, confused, uneducated, we say). So the beams that extend out from their foundation end up slanted in our sky, misaligned with our world and goals.
One such beam was their recent choice of an ad, which we call discrimination. Whereas, if just we stood on their 'crooked' foundation, we'd see that it is a stance against discrimination / violated freedoms. Note, because our foundation differs from theirs, their choice
gets seen as discrimination.
This is the same mistake SR is making, just on the flip side. They like us are consumed with their own perspective, and complain about
nothing except what's going on at their finger tip. Just because we are part of the mainstream, is no excuse to close the windows around us, so we cannot see the things we complain about in a different light.
The problem is that their foundation is misguided and confused (we say), but the choices they have made are principled, true to their hearts, and well intended. That obviously does not mean it's OK what they're doing; from OUR perspective it's not OK because (simply) it spreads the virus. But the things we accuse them of, and the ways we plan to crush them, puts us right on par with SR (or worse).
By the way, SR does does not "actively promote false information". Responding to people accusing them of discrimination, and answering hate mail questions, will naturally elicit a reference to their views (in those emails). That's not "actively promoting false information". But for you to say it is, out here on a forum, is for you to actively promote false information.
Someone above said "SR opened the door for these range of responses.. I bet they don't care". Even that is biased. SR didn't open the door except from OUR perspective. What opened the door to this range of responses, is the circumstance that our world is made up of diverse standpoints. That, in and of itself, is the open door. We just don't notice it's open until a clashing
pronounces.
(as opposed to quietly lurks)