Personal Freedom vs. Public Welfare

[7djengo7]

Two helpful recent developments in your deep-fried milkshake-quaffing country (thank God I live elsewhere):

1. Morons self-identify by the red ball caps;
2. Profanity removed (conceptually a distinct category from morons, although many fall into both camps) self-identify by refusing to undertake the most act of consideration for others - wearing a mask.

It used to take more work to identify the morons and the *Profanity Removed* - now it is much easier.

Don't you know you're not welcome to say that highlighted thing on TOL, you vicious enemy of God, truth, logic and mankind? You can get kicked right off here for that, lickety-split.

MAGA (Mask All Gullible Apes)

That's you, Nazi leftard: a gullible ape. K:

 

[7djengo7]

I will answer serious posts - this one cannot be taken seriously for reasons an 8-year old could enumerate.

LOL

Just because you're only almost 7, why should that stop you from trying to "enumerate" your "reasons" for us?

Ah....that's right: You ain't got any reasons!

 

[chair]

If the mask wearer is really hoping to avoid infection why on Earth wouldn't they wear a mask designed to protect them from infection?

I see that you avoided responding to what I wrote. Respond, then maybe I'll answer yours.

 

[expos4ever]

Don't you know you're not welcome to say that highlighted thing on TOL, you vicious enemy of God, truth, logic and mankind? You can get kicked right off here for that, lickety-split.

MAGA (Mask All Gullible Apes)

That's you, Nazi leftard: a gullible ape. K:

Hypocrite. You have said far worse things of me - and untrue ones at that. By contrast, my statements are essentially accurate. I have ZERO concern about being banned from this cesspool - I would almost welcome it.

 

[ok doser]

I have ZERO concern about being banned from this cesspool - I would almost welcome it.

Or you could just skip all the drama and leave. People do that you know. Grown up people.

 

[chair]

If the mask wearer is really hoping to avoid infection why on Earth wouldn't they wear a mask designed to protect them from infection?

Why don't you try answering my question. Is the non-mask wearer willing to accept the consequences of his actions, i.e. not use hospital facilities if gets sick?

 

[expos4ever]

Or you could just skip all the drama and leave. People do that you know. Grown up people.

And miss out on the opportunity to heap well-merited scorn on people who richly deserve it?

Look: it has become patently clear that a certain segment of American society simply cannot be reasoned with - the red-hat-wearing, conspiracy-theory espousing, anti-vaxxer, semi-racist, anti-science, flat earth, "the guv-ment is comin' to git mah gunz" crowd.

Decades ago, such people self-censored for fear they would be ridiculed. And ridiculed they indeed would rightly have been - making fun of dumb ideas is actually part of the process through which we advance. However, through some hideous perfect storm of circumstance (perhaps all that Mountain Dew addles the mind?), a critical mass of such people has formed. And in numbers there is strength; their dulled minds reason that if enough of us believe that President Obama was born in Kenya, maybe it's true.

So I consider it my responsibility to dredge up the tried and true strategy of ridicule. If it is ridicule you and your ilk want, it is ridicule ye shall surely get.

 

[ok doser]

And miss out on the opportunity to heap well-merited scorn on people who richly deserve it?

Look: it has become patently clear that a certain segment of American society simply cannot be reasoned with - the red-hat-wearing, conspiracy-theory espousing, anti-vaxxer, semi-racist, anti-science, flat earth, "the guv-ment is comin' to git mah gunz" crowd.

Decades ago, such people self-censored for fear they would be ridiculed. And ridiculed they indeed would rightly have been - making fun of dumb ideas is actually part of the process through which we advance. However, through some hideous perfect storm of circumstance (perhaps all that Mountain Dew addles the mind?), a critical mass of such people has formed. And in numbers there is strength; their dulled minds reason that if enough of us believe that President Obama was born in Kenya, maybe it's true.

So I consider it my responsibility to dredge up the tried and true strategy of ridicule. If it is ridicule you and your ilk want, it is ridicule ye shall surely get.

:yawn:

Drama queen

 

[Yorzhik]

Chair was already shown how masks don't help much. He was kind enough to provide the studies that showed they don't help much. So as far as COVID is concerned, requiring masks is an overreach of government at the very least.

I do not follow your logic. I do not know how effective masks are. But even if they only reduce transmission by a modest fraction, they are still worth wearing.

I know how effective masks wear according to science. Since you admittedly don't know what you are talking about you should defer to people like me.

Anti-vaxxer thinking is the very definition of irrational thinking. Besides, is anyone talking about forcing people to be vaccinated? I doubt it. I am in favour of not allowing those who refuse to be vaccinated to access public spaces - school, places of employment, etc. That is not the same thing as forcing them to be vaccinated. One certainly has the right to be stupid about your own body. But one does not, at least should not, have the right to force the consequences of such stupidity on others.

LOL! Forcing people out of living their lives if they don't do what you say isn't forcing people!?!?! You've lost all credibility.

And someone who admits they don't know what they are talking about doesn't get to say what is stupid or not :darwinsm: :darwinsm:

And on a note of clarification, I'm not an anti-vaxxer. But, as you admit you don't know what you are talking about on masks but still advocate mask policy, I'm not surprized you talk about my vaccine position without knowing it, either.

 

[Idolater]

Baseball.

Major league pitchers can throw the ball a hundred miles an hour, by the time the ball reaches the seats behind home plate it can still be traveling over 80 MPH, and if a fan gets hit in the face with a baseball traveling 80 MPH it might break their face, they might need to go to the doctor and have surgery to repair the damage.

If there were no net or fence behind home plate, and a fan was struck by a ball and injured, then that fan has the right to sue the pitcher for damages. If this occurred a number of times, pretty soon pitchers would have to not throw the ball as hard as they could, because they have no way of controlling whether a batter nicks a pitch and sends that "foul tip" screaming backward at an unsuspecting fan sitting in the seats behind home plate.

Does the pitcher have the right to throw the ball as hard as he can? Does the fan have the right to sue the pitcher for damages if they are struck with either an errant pitch that the catcher misses, or with a foul tip (that neither the pitcher nor the catcher can prevent)? If a batter tips the pitch, all the velocity of the ball came from the pitcher, not the batter, all the batter did was deflect its trajectory.

The solution to this problem is the netting or fence constructed by the owners of the ball field. With the backstop in place, the pitcher can throw the ball as hard as he can without worry that he'll be sued by a fan sitting behind home plate if the batter makes slight contact and sends a foul tip back at the fans. The owner of the park has the right to not install such a backstop, and they have the right to install the backstop. But if the owner exercises his or her right to not install a backstop, then the pitchers will all trim down the velocity of their pitches, so that if the ball is tipped, they minimize their financial risk from being sued, and the game of baseball will I think we'd all agree suffer as a consequence.

When the owner of the park installs a backstop, then the game can be isolated from financial risk and as a result the quality of the play will maximize, which is what the fans really are there to see in the first place.

In this case, the ball park owner deciding against exercising his or her right to not install a backstop, physically protects the paying fans sitting behind home plate, and it protects the pitchers from financial risk, and it encourages that the game be as competitive /high-quality as possible, which is what the fans, the pitchers, and the owners all want.

When people voluntarily decline to exercise their rights, for the good of themselves and of others, this is a virtue, and we oughtn't force people to be virtuous, we should only force people to be just, to respect our universal rights.

Do we have a right to go about our business without wearing a face covering? (And why does this question sound like I'm posting in a Muslim forum discussing whether women should wear face coverings in public?)

My answer is yes, we have that right. And therefore, I think that any laws made to force people to wear a face covering as they go about their business is an unjust and immoral law. But if people voluntarily decline to exercise their right to not wear a face covering in public, then it sounds like it would help everybody out, and if that is true, then to decline to exercise your right to not wear a face covering in public would be virtuous, but it would still be legal and moral to not wear a face covering.

 

[Yorzhik]

These questions are: since this principle applies to the flu, how do we stop the government from controlling every aspect of everyone's life? If you don't know, do you realize that is also negligent homicide if someone dies from a policy you support and you are wrong?

There isn't a simple answer to this question, as I think you know. Governments by their very nature interfere with everyone's life, be it through taxes, traffic laws, military draft, or limiting water use in time of drought. There's a need to reach a balance between the public good and personal freedom. Somewhere between anarchy and a totalitarian state.

Where do you think the line should be?

Understand that the policy you advocate has come with a number of warnings from people like me. Turns out, we were right. How did we know? Because we were not deaf to the lessons of history. And using common sense, logic, and reason we can see what forced masking, forced vaccinations, and stay-at-home orders comes with... ultimately death.

You might say, "It's only because the virus didn't turn out to be as bad as we first thought. If it had been as bad as we first thought then the government would have been right to trample on everyone's rights." And that is where understanding the roll of government makes the difference. A proper justice system will always react. It won't pro-act because it has a monopoly on violence. People will take care of themselves and a proper justice sysem won't have anything to say about it. A proper justice system won't have the resources to control everyone's life which means if it wants to force people to wear masks or force people to take a vaccine or force people to stay at home, it simply won't have the manpower to do it. So the best policy is to stopy worrying about other people and take care of yourself. If you ware worried about a virus, then self quarentine and wear a virus suit outside your home - you'll only have to do it until a vaccine you trust comes out. Get that with the knowledge that we've been working on vaccines against corona virii for decades and have never come up with one yet but you'll be golden!

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

It's just the shame the freedom to spread disease and death never made it into the Bill of Rights, isn't it? Anyway, some of you guys have a novel approach to loving your neighbor going on there, in the finest of TOL traditions.

 

[expos4ever]

It is telling (and disturbing) to recognize that the real fault line between camps on this issue is not the "defenders of freedom" vs "endorsers of tyranny" fault line; it is instead the "immature self-centered child" vs "mature socially responsible adult" fault line.

 

[ok doser]

... even if [wearing masks] only reduce transmission by a modest fraction, they are still worth wearing.

Spoken like a true retarded sheeple:thumb:

And one who has no appreciation for a balanced equation or unintended consequences or (as Donald Rumsfeld so famously said) that which we don't know we don't know.


On the one side of the equation we have your blind faith that wearing masks has some non-zero effect on decreasing infection transmission.

On the other side of the equation we have your implied assumption that there are no negative consequences to wearing masks, or at least no negative consequences which are worth considering.

As a health care professional myself I can tell you that that is a false assumption.

 

[Lon]

When people get organized into groups, they set up rules. Rules that interfere with personal freedom. A church, for example, may have membership dues, or expect you to dress a certain way during prayers, or to be quiet at certain times. The biggest penalty that you may run into if you don't follow the rules is that you will be thrown out of the group. Nobody is going to whip or imprison you for talking during the sermon.

Odd example. I don't remember "dues" or "special dress" etc. The consequence of all actions is associated with choice and behavior.

Other groups, for example countries (though I think this applies to tribal groups as well), have more rules, and more ways to enforce them. Many of these rules are for the public good, but they often infringe on personal freedom, and they are enforced, in most countries by fines, imprisonment or in extreme cases the death penalty.


Traffic rules are an example. You can get fined, or lose your driver's license for parking in the wrong place, running a red light, not stopping at a stop sign, and a host of other rules. In some places you can go to prison for driving without a license, or driving drunk- because the state has decided to infringe on your personal freedom for the public good. The state forces you to pay taxes. Sometimes it forces you to join the army. That's what governments do. All governments do this to some degree, not just totalitarian ones (as some try to pretend).

The question is- what ought to be the limitations on this? I'm obviously bringing this up because of the current mask issue, but the problem is a general one.

How does one draw the line?

In the U.S. where freedom is paramount, you'd want to 1) be democratic and not mandate (not been representatively happening lately, rather we are getting judicial mandates without democratic input or approval based on what justices, steeped in law and politics, believe is 'right.'). While I appreciate representative government in our republic, we need more checks and balances thus a tension exists today.

Now for your question: Where is the balance? I think, in a capitalist society, simply being willing to take consequences is good. The Judicial can make rules, and citizens can pay and/or challenge those rules.

For instance, I'd like to see arrests made for all the destructive protests with a minimum $500 penalty (guilty by association as well, you march, you pay consequences) and/or 30 days in jail with a permanent record. Will this be enacted? It depends on the citizenry and government representatives. It isn't that hard to curtail, but in an atmosphere of 'twice gun shy' with these problems being over 'brutality' the arrest idea is a difficult proposition, but I believe it is the right one. Two wrongs don't make a right and if we are consistent, there should be penalties for acting out, regardless of what is considered 'politically correct.' It isn't correct to be destroying property or taking especially young innocent lives over this time of turmoil. Two thugs, one killing the other, does not warrant this kind of behavior nor fall in lines with what BLM would truly stand for. It is simply wrong and wrongheaded cabin-fever and needs to be curtailed.

Why don't you try answering my question. Is the non-mask wearer willing to accept the consequences of his actions, i.e. not use hospital facilities if gets sick?

One of the problems is that there is no indication by statistics yet, of whether a mask is effectual. The virus is so small, it easily escapes the fiber in most masks and can easily enter the mask of another. The 6 foot distance and not touching your face until you disinfect is probably the better course. The mask can help curtail the distance so I'm a wearer. It also helps me remember not to touch my face and keeps me mindful of other safe practices so I'm for it, regardless of its ineffectuality. Do we want to criminalize/penalize nonwearers? I don't believe so at this time. If we are practicing our own safe habits, it is likely enough to cover the 'negligent' (if that's what we want to call non-compliers). Stores and other public facilities have a right to insist and deny access on their own terms and I think those are their own consequences. -Lon

 

[expos4ever]

LOL! Forcing people out of living their lives if they don't do what you say isn't forcing people!?!?!.

Let me ask you a question. Suppose your body involuntarily fired bullets out of each of your ears every 60 seconds, but there was a cure that you refused to get. Should you be allowed to visit public places? If your answer is yes, please explain why your right to fire bullets into other people's bodies, especially when you can get this problem fixed, trumps the right of others to, you know, continue living.

 

[ok doser]

Baseball.

Major league pitchers can throw the ball a hundred miles an hour, by the time the ball reaches the seats behind home plate it can still be traveling over 80 MPH, and if a fan gets hit in the face with a baseball traveling 80 MPH it might break their face, they might need to go to the doctor and have surgery to repair the damage.

If there were no net or fence behind home plate, and a fan was struck by a ball and injured, then that fan has the right to sue the pitcher for damages. If this occurred a number of times, pretty soon pitchers would have to not throw the ball as hard as they could, because they have no way of controlling whether a batter nicks a pitch and sends that "foul tip" screaming backward at an unsuspecting fan sitting in the seats behind home plate.

Does the pitcher have the right to throw the ball as hard as he can? Does the fan have the right to sue the pitcher for damages if they are struck with either an errant pitch that the catcher misses, or with a foul tip (that neither the pitcher nor the catcher can prevent)? If a batter tips the pitch, all the velocity of the ball came from the pitcher, not the batter, all the batter did was deflect its trajectory.

The solution to this problem is the netting or fence constructed by the owners of the ball field. With the backstop in place, the pitcher can throw the ball as hard as he can without worry that he'll be sued by a fan sitting behind home plate if the batter makes slight contact and sends a foul tip back at the fans. The owner of the park has the right to not install such a backstop, and they have the right to install the backstop. But if the owner exercises his or her right to not install a backstop, then the pitchers will all trim down the velocity of their pitches, so that if the ball is tipped, they minimize their financial risk from being sued, and the game of baseball will I think we'd all agree suffer as a consequence.

When the owner of the park installs a backstop, then the game can be isolated from financial risk and as a result the quality of the play will maximize, which is what the fans really are there to see in the first place.

In this case, the ball park owner deciding against exercising his or her right to not install a backstop, physically protects the paying fans sitting behind home plate, and it protects the pitchers from financial risk, and it encourages that the game be as competitive /high-quality as possible, which is what the fans, the pitchers, and the owners all want.

When people voluntarily decline to exercise their rights, for the good of themselves and of others, this is a virtue, and we oughtn't force people to be virtuous, we should only force people to be just, to respect our universal rights.

Do we have a right to go about our business without wearing a face covering? (And why does this question sound like I'm posting in a Muslim forum discussing whether women should wear face coverings in public?)

My answer is yes, we have that right. And therefore, I think that any laws made to force people to wear a face covering as they go about their business is an unjust and immoral law. But if people voluntarily decline to exercise their right to not wear a face covering in public, then it sounds like it would help everybody out, and if that is true, then to decline to exercise your right to not wear a face covering in public would be virtuous, but it would still be legal and moral to not wear a face covering.

Fans that wish to sit behind home plate without a fence or a barrier are welcome to bring their own catcher's masks to protect themselves or not if they choose to run the risk. I see no reason to blame the pitcher or the hitter.

 

[ok doser]

One of the problems is that there is no indication by statistics yet, of whether a mask is effectual.

There's a reason that health care professionals - nurses, doctors, physical therapists, respiratory therapists - who have to work with infectious patients wear masks that are very different from the cloth masks that we're all being advised to wear.

 

[Idolater]

Fans that wish to sit behind home plate without a fence or a barrier are welcome to bring their own catcher's masks to protect themselves or not if they choose to run the risk. I see no reason to blame the pitcher or the hitter.

I deliberately also ignored the legal solution of having fans signing waivers, it was not an exhaustive metaphor, just something to generate thought, maybe a different point of view or frame of reference. The bottom line is that if there's no right being harmed, then we're talking about virtue or personal ethics or morality, not public policy or law, wrt wearing or not wearing a face covering in public. And I also drew a parallel between whether Muslim women (or all women, in the case that we're under an Islamicist regime) have the right to walk about without a face covering, again to maybe illuminate a different angle.

 

[ok doser]

I deliberately also ignored the legal solution of having fans signing waivers, it was not an exhaustive metaphor, just something to generate thought, maybe a different point of view or frame of reference. The bottom line is that if there's no right being harmed, then we're talking about virtue or personal ethics or morality, not public policy or law, wrt wearing or not wearing a face covering in public. And I also drew a parallel between whether Muslim women (or all women, in the case that we're under an Islamicist regime) have the right to walk about without a face covering, again to maybe illuminate a different angle.

If masks work then Kung Flu infection rates in Muslim countries for women should be zero, yes?