> People die from alcohol withdrawal, and dispensaries are medical care for a lot of folks.

This is the exact type of argument that merely helped to inflame the debate.

The real distinction is that church services are mass gatherings of people, whereas liquor and pot are retail establishments that only serve a few people at a given time. Stores can institute policies to make people come into even less contact - whereas for churches the mass of people coming together is intrinsic.

The original argument fallaciously skips over that actual reality, and frames it as if public health administrators are godless heathens more interested in people getting their weed and booze than people going to church. Your counter argument, despite being technically correct, actually buttresses support for the original one.

“People will die if we do x” is important, even if it hurts the fee-fees.

“It’s a mass gathering” arguments met the same resistance. Any argument would have.

Whatever your own feelings on the matter are, condescending to people with terms like "fee-fees" only engenders more conflict and outrage.

It's a fraction of a drop in an ocean of online hostility and malevolence, but is still a contributor nonetheless.

I'm with you on the idea that fascists will make any argument, and only value arguments as weapons rather than a good-faith attempt to figure things out. But I still believe there are people in the middle who are swayed by better arguments.

Maybe that's just my fatal flaw of being eternally hopeful that people will actually use their intelligence. But if this isn't the case, then what are we even doing?

(as for your actual argument, one can make the same argument that people will die without being able to get their fix of social church interaction. so then we're talking about numbers for hypotheticals, and right back to the dynamic where it's not even about logic)