@kekcoin @benis @harding Clothes don't cause myocarditis. And of course, people _have_ fought hard to wear what they want in public, even as employees of schools.

@pete @benis @harding And neither does seeing a naked person. Point not so much being to try to quantify what is a worse tradeoff, more the point that maybe don't promote violence.

@kekcoin @benis @harding Yeah, you've got that logic backwards. There's a lower bar to mandating clothing be worn due to the lack of risk to the wearer than to mandating people get risky injections with no long term testing. And _even with regard to public nudity_ people have fought that and won.

@kekcoin @benis @harding Note that in Canada the section of the criminal code on public nudity actually requires any prosecutions to get the consent of the Attorney General first. This is specifically because the law is recognized to be dubious and the legal system wants top-level review before it gets used.

Really good chance that in your hypothetical you don't actually get charged with public nudity.

@pete @benis @harding I'd love to see you prove that last point.

And to clear up any confusion - I am not arguing in favour of vaccine mandates. Just that murdering (or pepperspraying) random clerks doesn't actually hurt the people who made the vaccine mandatory.