You didn't prove anything. "Impose" is just a synonym.
He wasn't given good choices but he was still given choices. We saw "lose a successful career" but a career isn't something you can have. It wasn't "forcibly" taken away from him because it's not a physical thing. No one pointed a gun at him, no one held a knife to his throat. This is what the word "force" means.
I'm not going to keep going around and around about this. Words have fixed meanings, and when you use them vaguely, you come to all sorts of strange and wrong conclusions.
No wonder no one understands what "rights" are. They can't even get simple concepts like "force" right, so how are they going to understand natural rights?
You didn't prove anything. "Impose" is just a synonym.
lol ok You want to pull an Anticlutch. Let's go.
v. imposed ◊ imposing ◊ imposes <im'pOz> 1. To force oneself upon others, especially as a guest. 2. To lay as a charge, obligation, penalty, etc.; "to impose a toll or fine." 3. To lay on, as the hands, in the religious rites of confirmation and ordination.
See, forcing also means imposing, and he was forced to take a decision.
Do you ever get tired of arguing with brick walls?
lol I’m getting used to it.
He was not "obliged" to do anything. That would mean he had a duty to take the jab and keep his job. He did not. He was fully able to quit the job at any time. It's called at-will employment. Even if he was under contract, adding the jab as a requirement would be a modification of the contract's terms and therefore likely unenforceable.
I don't know why you keep going on about this. You're just wrong. I don't know what "pulling an Anticlutch" means because I don't follow this board that closely. All I remember about that guy's posts is that he usually says stupid inane shit that doesn't make any sense.
lol OK Anticlutch #2.
Yup, i've had this 'debate' with others of the 'forced' crowd.
He was coerced and gaslit into complete disregard for his own personal agency with all too familiar consequences.
And just like the others i've seen, they just cant seem to acknowledge the subtle but diametric distinction between meanings. I usually blame either dumbed down common core/ public schooling or Engrish as a second language.
One implies zero blame - the other just naivety, ignorance and failure of self.
Imagine if you will going into work today and they tell you - 'Once a month for the next half year. drink this indeterminate poison. Or pack your bags' - Waaaah , i was forced.
EDIT: Would rather be homeless and broke than still have a job only to find i have an incurable disease/ illness that best guess means i'm dead in <5 yrs. Good luck providing for the family/ dependents now. RIP to the lemmings ....
EDIT2: >he wasn't forced to make a choice.
Oh lmao, this is this where you switch tact and imply you meant 'he was forced to make a choice', entirely distinct and separate from your earlier comment ' forced to keep his job '. Because he wasnt 'forced to keep his job' either, no one was.
Makes conscious decision to acquiesce personal sovereignty - Words have meanings. joos/ retards and shabbos goy continually conflate/ confuse/ obfuscate empirical truth as a vector for dismantling European hegemony.
Let me add that if he were "obliged", that would mean he had a positive obligation to remain in the job. He had no such obligation. Hence, at-will employment.
Engrish is hard, I know.
(post is archived)