Jump to content

Coronavirus: Triple Edition


Amentep

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

claim a woman is loony is not misogyny unless the claim is made because she is a woman. as noted already,

Well yes, it was noted by me a post ago...are you feeling alright?

166215__front.jpg.45518d58bdab611f0e3a026d3b8c6489.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

260 kids and teens infected with COVID-19 at Georgia sleepaway camp

@Hurlshot

no doubt hurl is following such news close. am genuine curious regarding what his impression is o' teacher concerns in hurl's neck o' the woods. are teachers worried? is a small % concerned or is apprehension more widespread? does your school/district have a plan for preventing spread and what is protocols if an outbreak occurs? testing and contact tracing is already pushed to/past meaningful limits in many parts of CA; is your school district having the capacity to test, trace and quarantine? is your district considering a total shutdown if X number of kids and staff is infected, or is your school district adopting a more fluid plan? is teachers past a certain age or with comorbidities being asked to teach their classes same as usual? if a teacher has a spouse or child with a comorbidity, does the teacher have options other than quitting job if they don't wanna expose loved ones? etc.

from an outsider's pov, many public school districts look like they is approaching a covid-19 school year with less planning than even mlb. am hopeful such is less true than appears and that at the very least hurl's school district has taken intelligent and serious precautions.

...

is too late for hurl to take a sabbatical? am guessing such ain't really a thing for public school teachers. might wanna take one anyways.

ty in advance for any insights you might wish to share, and good luck.

 

  • Like 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every school district in my county is starting out in distance learning, so that is a relief from that perspective for me, my wife, and my kids. We have no real capacity to test, and the plans change almost daily. Stage 2 involves only having half the students attending school in person each day. That sounds nice, but it isn't actually cutting my class sizes in half, so that kind of defeats the purpose. 

I don't know, I report back to work on August 10th and I assume I will be teaching digitally as of the 13th, but it's going to be a bit of a mess. I've got to create a weird schedule where I teach online classes to 170 students and keep my 2 kids plus a neighbor's kid on task for a regular school day. It will be an adventure. Oh and we are adopting a new textbook curriculum, but that is low on my list of worries. 

My parents, sister, and her two young kids live in Georgia, so things could be much worse. Some states are set up for some serious issues.

  • Like 1
  • Gasp! 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

 Stage 2 involves only having half the students attending school in person each day. That sounds nice, but it isn't actually cutting my class sizes in half, so that kind of defeats the purpose. 

 

we were kinda wondering how such would work from a practical pov. we realized half students couldn't mean each teacher were needing to teach each class twice... or perhaps that is what it means in a few places.

no federal guidelines or help is gonna make this an extreme large living experiment with hurl and students acting as guinea pigs. on the positive side, the abject failures o' a few school districts should be obvious by octoberish and such examples should serve as effective warnings o' what not to do in the future. small comfort to those guinea pigs sacrificed for the cause.

again, good luck.

HA! Good Fun!

 

  • Like 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.livescience.com/summer-camp-covid-19-outbreak.html

A little under 600 attend Georgian "sleepaway camp" for youths (average age of 12), having tested all attendees (including staff) within twelve days before they arrived. Within 2 weeks of everyone arriving and the camp starting, 260 of the 344 tested were positive for coronavirus. Whoops. ...Bonus points: they were all then sent home to infect their families. Double whoops, :p.

Also: https://www.si.com/college/tmg/tony-barnhart/spanish-flu

1918.jpg?w=788&q=40&h=505.8451612903226&

...We maybe didn't used to be as collectively foolish as we are now? ...I mean, I wouldn't go to a sports game at all during a pandemic so this still seems a bit foolish to me, but it's better than the numbskulls we have now, I suppose.

Edited by Bartimaeus

Put fascists and sociopaths on your ignore list.

Quote

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Raithe said:

Yeah, the Garmin attack was pretty massive. It seems a bit silly to hold a bunch of people's workout data hostage for $10 million, but people were freaking out. Why exercise if we aren't going to get our digital accolades?!?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

116715487_3164479973595136_8578255379335220191_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=hkZF9b7JRZsAX8iXhIz&_nc_ht=scontent-mia3-1.xx&oh=1c992650f66a7bfff4a62b58de6687bb&oe=5F53FA3D

  • Like 1
  • Hmmm 1

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) you don't have a right to abstain from wearing a mask in many situations.

is not debatable. perhaps gd believes everyone should have a right to forgo masks, but is not actual a legal right. need discuss? hope not.

'course the hastily crafted venn diagram complete misses the point many freedom loving patriots similar ignore and that is even if there were a right to not wear a mask, would it be wise to do so?

the florida man who set a quran on fire had a right to do so. fed government had no authority to stop florida man from doing his florida thing. however, burn quran is nevertheless a contemptible act which should be criticized by all. both you and florida man got the right to free speech. such freedom provides you with Personal Responsibility. 

"right to ________ "

thorough misunderstood concept. problem with rights is people conflate noun with the adjective. just 'cause you have a right don't mean exercise o' such is the right thing to do. 

2) fact some is taking political advantage o' school reopening, or covid in general, does not alter the underlying science

gonna ignore the tinfoil hat bit 'bout "public control," but there is no doubt any number o' skeevy political creatures is using fears related to schools to further polarize their bases. so what? can say such 'bout any political relevant issue. were a whole lotta northern politicians who didn't care one bit 'bout slavery in the early 1860s who nevertheless chastised and ridiculed southern democrats. fact there were indeed politicians who were exploiting the slavery issue for personal political gain didn't change inherent evils o' slavery.

particular with so many single parents who do not work at home, school openings is a vital concern and predictable the political vultures is swooping in to get their piece o' the quickly decomposing carrion. 

distraction. irrelevant. 

any political charged issue with enough people interested will bring out more than one political vulture. so what? 'course gd is out on the fringe where he presumes they, the ubiquitous political operatives at all levels of government, is all corrupt... or at least so uniform corrupt that any choice makes no difference.

*insert eye roll* 

blame on meme? am suspecting gd will defend, and then blame on meme. can't have both ways.

*shrug*

HA! Good Fun!

 

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add further thoughts for the discussion from a random internet quote.. ;)

The problem in America is not simply a pandemic that is out of control. It is the fact that we expect ordinary citizens to be able to fend for themselves during... it. The lack of universal healthcare means that anyone contracting Covid-19 and needing hospitalization could be bankrupted by it. It means anyone laid off from work loses their employer-connected health benefits.

That is such an insane arrangement. It defies common sense. We have to take this crisis and use it to change what is wrong with how we think of healthcare, insurance, and how we protect those most vulnerable to our system's failures. Rugged individualism may have been a nice idea in the 19th century. It is an unacceptable baseline for a 21st century nation.

"Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, I'm alright with the entire healthcare industry collapsing, so hopefully we can rebuild it properly. Let the insurance companies burn to the ground. 

I've got about 16 years before I want to retire, so hopefully it happens before then. Because the number 1 question everyone who wants to retire today has to ask is if they have enough to cover their medical expenses. That is a ridiculous question to have to ask. You have worked your entire life, and rather than enjoy your twilight in this country, we make senior citizens stress about their healthcare.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gromnir, correct, everyone SHOULD be left to make their own decision on masks. The government is not our goddamned nanny. That said it is rude, inconsiderate, and weapons grade stupid not to. And I am 100% cool with Kroger and other stores refusing to admit or serve the jerks who don't.

Before we get too far into a semantics discussion I didn't make the meme and take no responsibility for its specific wording. Although I do think it has a pretty good point. 

As far as public control I would not say there is some kind of conspiracy or cabal at work here. But many state governors went absolutely power mad with senseless, capricious, and altogether unnecessary and unexplainable rules. Few more than that bitch in michigan. When a man is arrested for not wearing a mask while fishing alone at a lake you've gone way too far.

Edited by Guard Dog

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

@Gromnir, correct, everyone SHOULD be left to make their own decision on masks. The government is not our goddamned nanny. That said it is rude, inconsiderate, and weapons grade stupid not to. And I am 100% cool with Kroger and other stores refusing to admit or serve the jerks who don't.

Before we get too far into a semantics discussion I didn't make the meme and take no responsibility for its specific wording. Although I do think it has a pretty good point. 

you are channeling vol and skarp_one. honest. as we predicted, gd blames and meme and simultaneous defends. sheesh. this is not the late show with you providing opportunities for Gromnir to do his carnac the magnificent impressions. 

and gd has weird ideas 'bout who is government and what is the purpose o' its existence. if a large number o' people engage in an activity they should not be doing, particular activities which put lives at others at risk, The People reasonable respond by demanding those irresponsible people stop their dangerous behaviours. is why we got drunk driving laws. The People, through elected representatives and democratic process decide that drunk drivers need nannies. most o' us can see the wisdom in not relying on personal responsibility o' drunkards and callous d-bags who get behind the wheel after drinking. sure, one may say many drunk drivers has never caused an accident, so why do we criminalize for behaviour which ain't yet actual caused harm? 

is even less rationale for applying gd's should not rationale to masks. at least with the drunk driver we ordinarily know who is responsible for accidents. yeah, there is hit & run situations, but typical we know who caused the accident which killed a woman and two o' her kids when a drunk driver swerved into oncoming traffic on a 2-lane highway. with covid-19, the person responsible for death o' grandma may be complete unknown. some maskless jerk at a supermarket spreads covid-19 infecting a couple other people, and those asymptomatic people spread to others, and so on and so on. eventual, an otherwise careful person nevertheless becomes infected and brings the disease home to grandma. proximate cause nightmare does not change reality o' an unnecessary death. gd argument presumes personal responsibility, but covid makes it extreme difficult to assign responsibility. 

there is no right to be maskless. democratic process says behaviours and activities is fair game for legislation as long as law passed is rational related to espoused goal and don't otherwise abridge some other fundamental right. rational. reasonable. and again, takes into consideration other fundamental rights 'pon which The People may not tread.

gd's stand on masklessness "right" is a matter o' principle? generalized notion government should not tell folks what to do? gd admits it ain't reasonable to be maskless, and seems to realize there is no actual right to masklessness. nevertheless, gd defends right to engage in a dangerous activity which makes assigning personal responsibility problematic.

*snort*

as to the US healthcare system, am admitting it is broken, just not the way most people assume, and costs o' fixing is rare genuine considered before making changes.

hospitals is stoopid and is caught in an insane cycle, but +90% o' the time they ain't gouging folks. the reason why folks with no insurance may sometimes/infrequent negotiate bills which is pennies on the dollar is precise 'cause the current business model assumes X number o' folks will not be able to pay. prices o' procedures keep rising because hospitals need to cover the costs o' many unpaid hospital bills. is absolute idiotic and insane, but the entire industry is caught up in the self-perpetuating insanity.

in the 80s, bob went into the hospital for burst appendix and surgery saved him. lucky for him? he couldn't pay his bill 'cause insurance only covered a fraction of costs. hospital didn't wanna show as a loss, so they kept bob's bill on the books as long as possible, and as a solution they raised the price o' a bunch o' other procedures in hopes o' recouping what they knew would need be a loss.  'course bob's credit were destroyed, but at least his life were saved.

a couple years later, doug has a burst appendix and same problem as bob, but the hospital has been raising costs since bob. is now even more folks like doug than there were in bobs time 'cause prices increased so much... and so on and so on and so on...

is all complete insane. procedure costs went up cause so many people couldn't pay their bills, and 'cause costs went up, more people failed to pay bills and the industry as a whole started charging more 'cause o' the obvious (albeit flawed) logic. after all, if hospitals were charging more for procedures, then why aren't doctors and nurses making more money? costs go up and everybody wants a cut, which only exacerbated the problem.

and am only addressing one underreported issue with healthcare.

is so many things wrong with the healthcare system and while is a few notorious sinister mercenaries who make headline news, the general problems ain't a result o' greed or graft. decades ago the medical industry adopted a self-perpetuating scheme o' stoopid and they got no way to extract themselves from the mess they collective created.

folks like bernie is part o' the problem, though ironic, his approach to the healthcare may be the only possible way to deal with the issues. bernie plan for healthcare reform appeals to many precise 'cause is big picture and general. actual costs is just details for bernie. you can't just bottom line costs if you ignore a whole bunch o' costs such as billing industry evaporating overnight and the current debt load hospitals is current carrying... debt load which has been made worse by covid-19 btw as elective surgeries is how many hospitals were carrying staying above water 'cause o' bobs and dougs, and those elective surgeries aren't happening. charlie fox.

the thing is, if you know all the details and costs, it is gonna paralyze you. is no way to get legislators on board en masse once costs is presented intelligent and thoughtful. as most reasonable people would expect, but few wanna admit, there is no simple and ez solution to healthcare.

bernie's plan sucks. bernie is misleading on costs. ok. now what?

am thinking we gotta recognize there is no good plan and perhaps what is more important is getting people to support change. is so against our personal nature, but perhaps we can resolve to work out the details later, but what is most important today is getting people to agree that wholesale change is required. 

bernie's plan sucks, but it may be the plan we need.

HA! Good Fun!
 

  • Like 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

you are channeling vol and skarp_one. honest. as we predicted, gd blames and meme and simultaneous defends. sheesh. this is not the late show with you providing opportunities for Gromnir to do his carnac the magnificent impressions. 

and gd has weird ideas 'bout who is government and what is the purpose o' its existence. if a large number o' people engage in an activity they should not be doing, particular activities which put lives at others at risk, The People reasonable respond by demanding those irresponsible people stop their dangerous behaviours. is why we got drunk driving laws. The People, through elected representatives and democratic process decide that drunk drivers need nannies. most o' us can see the wisdom in not relying on personal responsibility o' drunkards and callous d-bags who get behind the wheel after drinking. sure, one may say many drunk drivers has never caused an accident, so why do we criminalize for behaviour which ain't yet actual caused harm? 

is even less rationale for applying gd's should not rationale to masks. at least with the drunk driver we ordinarily know who is responsible for accidents. yeah, there is hit & run situations, but typical we know who caused the accident which killed a woman and two o' her kids when a drunk driver swerved into oncoming traffic on a 2-lane highway. with covid-19, the person responsible for death o' grandma may be complete unknown. some maskless jerk at a supermarket spreads covid-19 infecting a couple other people, and those asymptomatic people spread to others, and so on and so on. eventual, an otherwise careful person nevertheless becomes infected and brings the disease home to grandma. proximate cause nightmare does not change reality o' an unnecessary death. gd argument presumes personal responsibility, but covid makes it extreme difficult to assign responsibility. 

there is no right to be maskless. democratic process says behaviours and activities is fair game for legislation as long as law passed is rational related to espoused goal and don't otherwise abridge some other fundamental right. rational. reasonable. and again, takes into consideration other fundamental rights 'pon which The People may not tread.

gd's stand on masklessness "right" is a matter o' principle? generalized notion government should not tell folks what to do? gd admits it ain't reasonable to be maskless, and seems to realize there is no actual right to masklessness. nevertheless, gd defends right to engage in a dangerous activity which makes assigning personal responsibility problematic.


 

1. The big difference between drunk drivers and maskless d-bags is you can see and avoid the latter. 

2. GD: "Its smart to wear a seatbelt. I always do"

State of Tennessee: "Thou shalt wear a seat belt. We command it"

GD: F--k you. Get out of my car and don't tell me what to do. I'm still wearing the seatbelt but not because you told me to.

It's kinda like that. 

Fine, no more memes unless I make them.

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Guard Dog said:

1. The big difference between drunk drivers and maskless d-bags is you can see and avoid the latter. 

2. GD: "Its smart to wear a seatbelt. I always do"

State of Tennessee: "Thou shalt wear a seat belt. We command it"

GD: F--k you. Get out of my car and don't tell me what to do. I'm still wearing the seatbelt but not because you told me to.

It's kinda like that. 

Fine, no more memes unless I make them.

no you can't always avoid the latter as anybody who has been to a grocery store these past months should be aware... and you are shifting responsibility to the victims which is exact opposite o' what any self-described libertarian should do. 

oh, and seat belts is another great example particular given recent turn of the thread. is costly to scrape your uninsured arse off the pavement. it costs Gromnir and everybody else money to save your life and then support your infirm self for perhaps decades. we, The People, says "no mas."

you got no right to forgo seatbelt wearing and your fellow citizens has decided your irresponsible behaviour is too costly to endure. so wear the damned seat belt and don't smoke in restaurants and use a freaking mask. The People is the government, through democratic process fought for by those "no taxation w/o representation" guys, who make their collective will known.

yeah, if fundamental rights is involved, then The People can go sit and spin. otherwise, take some personal responsibility and appeal to the democratic process.

victim blaming is unexpected cheap.

HA! Good Fun!

  • Like 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

no you can't always avoid the latter as anybody who has been to a grocery store these past months should be aware... and you are shifting responsibility to the victims which is exact opposite o' what any self-described libertarian should do. 

oh, and seat belts is another great example particular given recent turn of the thread. is costly to scrape your uninsured arse off the pavement. it costs Gromnir and everybody else money to save your life and then support your infirm self for perhaps decades. we, The People, says "no mas."

you got no right to forgo seatbelt wearing and your fellow citizens has decided your irresponsible behaviour is too costly to endure. so wear the damned seat belt and don't smoke in restaurants and use a freaking mask. The People is the government, through democratic process fought for by those "no taxation w/o representation" guys, who make their collective will known.

yeah, if fundamental rights is involved, then The People can go sit and spin. otherwise, take some personal responsibility and appeal to the democratic process.

victim blaming is unexpected cheap.

HA! Good Fun!

I am not "blaming" the victim by any means. But everyone does bear some personal responsibility for their own well being and that includes avoiding the d-bags whose carelessness puts you in danger. I'm in the grocery story, maskless d-bag in in the aisle coming my way, there are things I can do. Go the other way, turn my back on the SOB That kind of thing. I shouldn't HAVE to do that. He SHOULD be wearing his mask. Just like he SHOULD be wearing his seat belt. But no one can no should MAKE maskless d-bad do anything. 

If I took a walk down Chelsea Ave in Memphis tonight there is a pretty high probability I'll be robbed or f----d with in some way. There is a little less than even chance I'll even be killed. It's not illegal for me to be there. I have every right to do it. But if the worst happens and I ended up dead is it really blaming the victim to say I probably should have not engaged in risky activity? I'm not the one that made it risky. The d-bag who shot me did that. Probably wasn't wearing a mask either. But if I had done something other than engage in a dangerous activity I'd be fine. 

You see what I'm getting at here? Yes it IS the maskless d-bags fault. But I still could have avoided it myself without the government getting involved. 

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I am not "blaming" the victim by any means.

you sure as heck are. 

last response 'cause am disappointed we need have this discussion with gd.

go ahead and tell us to avoid maskless d-bags on an elevator who crowd in despite protocols. point out is our responsibility to avoid those grocery store folks when they come up behind you in checkout line and there is literal nowhere to avoid or literal brush past us from behind to get at the yogurt instead o' waiting for us to move or simple asking us to move. etc.

btw, is the same people who got their curious liberty notions regarding seatbelts, drunk driving and covid-19 mask mandates who is also not following social distancing guidelines. 

you provide limited examples o' what a person may to do to minimize the dangers o' maskless morons while ignoring fact the costs o' your choice is potential death. we aren't talking fundamental rights, so such costs is very much a factor. with no way to accurate attribute blame, and a libertarian inexplicable and beyond all expectation shifting blame onto victims, we still must needs balance your liberty interests and the social costs. that is the point o' the democratic process. pretty much every law entails such balancing--speed limits to toxic waste dumping. as a people we weigh costs to society v. value o' liberty.

costs

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

it's a freaking mask for chrissakes. 

a libertarian suggesting that the "right" to go w/o masks is legit 'cause is our duty to mitigate the admitted irresponsibility o' the maskless d-bags? seriously? that is not how libertarianism has been sold in our neck o' the woods. so much for personal responsibility being paramount, eh?

and yes, there should be laws which make you extinguish your cigarette in a restaurant even if it is possible for Gromnir to move away from you or leave the establishment. and sure, most drunk driving accidents happen on the road between the hours o' midnight and 3am, so clear all those victims is pushing their luck by driving at such times, but we gotta protect the right o' folks to decide for selves if they are fit to drive after drinking? your seatbelt? well, is no way we can avoid paying for such stoopid, so am not sure how to give you even tongue-in-cheek benefit o' the doubt. society as a whole is the victim, so...

mask mandates v. an imaginary right when we are looking at +160k american dead and estimates o' 300k from the washington model promoted by the wh by end of the year? where is the personal responsibility?

fundamental rights? sure. through the admitted cumbersome constitutional convention and amendment process we has decided, as a nation, that gd's liberty rights insofar as freedom o' religious exercise means other people may need to mitigate their discomfort 'cause we won't use the government institutions to curb such behaviours. is a relative short list o' such liberties, and for good reason. the reason the list is short is 'cause such liberties is a bar on democracy. 

HA! Good Fun!

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

I am not "blaming" the victim by any means. But everyone does bear some personal responsibility for their own well being and that includes avoiding the d-bags whose carelessness puts you in danger. I'm in the grocery story, maskless d-bag in in the aisle coming my way, there are things I can do. Go the other way, turn my back on the SOB That kind of thing. I shouldn't HAVE to do that. He SHOULD be wearing his mask. Just like he SHOULD be wearing his seat belt. But no one can no should MAKE maskless d-bad do anything. 

If I took a walk down Chelsea Ave in Memphis tonight there is a pretty high probability I'll be robbed or f----d with in some way. There is a little less than even chance I'll even be killed. It's not illegal for me to be there. I have every right to do it. But if the worst happens and I ended up dead is it really blaming the victim to say I probably should have not engaged in risky activity? I'm not the one that made it risky. The d-bag who shot me did that. Probably wasn't wearing a mask either. But if I had done something other than engage in a dangerous activity I'd be fine. 

You see what I'm getting at here? Yes it IS the maskless d-bags fault. But I still could have avoided it myself without the government getting involved. 

We're in a pandemic. A temporary pandemic, which will pass. Do we really all need to be treating grocery stores like warzones where we have to be ultra-alert of every single person in the store at every moment or risk our health and possibly lives? Not everyone lives in a place where foot traffic is low enough in your store that you can even realistically do this, either - I live in a very small town that's the victim of "tourism" during the summer (we call them the cidiots: city + idiot), and the literally one store we have is packed so often because of people preparing supplies to go up to their cabins or go fishing or other crap in the area that it's very difficult to be safe around them while also being able to do basic stuff. There's no order online or in-person pickup options, either. I get what I can from Amazon and stuff, but fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats kind of have to come from a local source by necessity...and so I'm exposed to morons, some of who are just feckless and brainless, while others are actively protesting masks and acting like you're some kind of alien or enemy for doing so.

In an ideal world, laws wouldn't be necessary because people would act intelligently and kindly - towards themselves and towards others. A subsection of humanity has consistently, over thousands of years, made laws necessary because the threat of some kind of punishment is unfortunately the only thing that will keep them in line...and then there are the veritable horde of other type of people where not even the threat of some kind of actionable punishment is enough to dissuade them.

On a side-note, I think what you're describing is literally the definition of victim-blaming: you are placing responsibility on the victim for wrongs done to them through no fault of their own. Walking down Chelsea Avenue is not an immoral or unlawful choice - I get that it is a choice that, if you have some combination of general wisdom and knowledge of the area, is foreseeably likely to expose you to risk because of the evils of others, but it's still not your fault, which is especially obvious when you start taking into account *why* people make the choices they do (I don't want to be exposed to coronavirus or shot up by some anti-mask gun-nut who's going on a rampage because of their """rights""" being threatened, but I do need to eat more than just plain cereal and rice...).

Edited by Bartimaeus

Put fascists and sociopaths on your ignore list.

Quote

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gromnir I never said they have the RIGHT to go without. I said it's not the government's place to tell them they must. Not the same thing. 

And I'm socially graceless enough to tell someone to back the f--k up in as many words. But, that's me. 

@Bartimaeus It's no one's personal fault they got sick. It may well be someone else's fault, namely maskless d-bag. Especially since we wear masks to protect other folks, not ourselves.  That said despite Grom's insistence the maskless and socially careless cannot be avoided I simply disagree that is the case. They can be avoided and should be. It is not blaming the victim for pointing out there steps that can reduce your chances of being a victim. Saying that does not make me unsympathetic to people who get sick. Like you said, it would not be my fault I was dead on Chelsea Ave, but if i'd had the sense not to do it it would not have happened. 

As for the state, yesterday I went to Walgreens, Kroger, and Lowes. Every one of them had a sign saying, in effect, no mask = no entry/service. IMO that is more effective than the police in Michigan arresting (or citing I don't remember) a man fishing alone. If the governments of the cities and states had placed the burden on places like stores, buildings, etc saying "thou shalt require thy customers and employees to wear masks" I'd have less of a problem with it. I have yet to see a credible news story about the police molesting someone for being unmasked in their car alone or in their home. There is enough rumor of it. That much smoke there is a fire somewhere. But I HAVE seen stories where people alone in parks, walking on the sidewalk alone, etc have been. There is a line that gets crossed here.

 

BTW guys as you know I have had a personal experience with a drunk driver. So I am 100% with Gromnir on not relying on the personal responsibility of drunks. It is an activity where harm to others is likely so no objections to state prosecutions on that. If that traps me in something of a contradiction here then so be it.  

Edited by Guard Dog

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"btw, is the same people who got their curious liberty notions regarding seatbelts, drunk driving and covid-19 mask mandates who is also not following social distancing guidelines.  "

FAKE NEWS.

 

I'm anti seat belt laws because they are nazish and anti freedom. I'm certainly not pro drunk driving. Hell, I don't even drive. And,  I find 'mask mandates' evil because they allow cops to murder people in cold blood plus gov't have half assed it - our local towns only started 'mandating' themr ecently when  COVID19 has basically become bone drivee. I've also done more than my aprt to social distance.

So, my question, why did you lie and stereotype? Stop the bigotry. Typical SJW Nazi Trump supporter you are.

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would have thought that driver licensing would be a better analogy to masks. In theory, if drivers only ever hurt/ killed/ damaged themselves or their property you wouldn't need mandated driver licensing because an idiot/ incompetent driver only hurts themself, and if you stay on your own property you don't need to be licensed (here at least). In reality though they effect other people as well, a crap driver who decides to speed and overtake unsafely and hits someone else head on isn't just cleansing the gene pool of their own stupidity, which is why there's mandated legal licensing requirements.

Same(ish, it is an analogy of course) with masks, if it were a matter of personal choice which only effected the wearer then not wearing them and taking your chances is fine. But it isn't, and in situations where there is uncontrollable spread someone refusing to wear a mask is potentially making others sick or even dead every bit as much as the driver who insists they don't need to be licensed because they've never had an accident. People have the intrinsic right to make decisions that effect themselves, but not ones that unduly and involuntarily effect others.

Really though, it's just a matter of good manners to wear one when there's uncontrolled spread and it should not have to be mandated. Sure, if you're doing social distancing/ lock down etc properly they aren't necessary, but for that you have to do social distancing properly which most either will not or can not. And on a more fundamental level, those who dn't like being told to wear masks also do have a fair overlap with those who won't do other things they're told to, like socially distance/ lock down.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to your vehicle, the "rights" you have are limited. There is no "right" to drive. It's a privilege that comes with conditions. Drivers license, seat belts, having insurance, not doing it three sheets in the wind,  etc are examples of those conditions. I have never argued the state does not have the authority to make me wear a seat belt... or else. I think they should not. Not can not. 

Whether they actually have the power to compel mask wearing in public is a bit more gray. But put that aside for a moment.  The argument I have been trying to make is not CAN NOT rather SHOULD NOT. At least not so broadly.  

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...