NeuroTypical

The Slow Return to "Normal"

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Lots of people are carriers for the virus, without showing symptoms.   But because government said have to, you're not gonna?  You visit your grandma with that attitude?  Seems sort of immature. 

Yes, if the government says it is required I will not comply. Sorry, I am not a slave and will not live like one any-longer. And my grandparents would have agreed with me because they were adults and believed in freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

What is the fundamental disconnect between holding that government has no authority to prohibit firearm ownership—protection of rights will necessarily allow occasional bad things to happen, perhaps even including mass murders—and simultaneously holding that government has no authority to mandate wearing respiratory masks? I don't see how someone believing both things is demonstrating cognitive dissonance.

After giving it some thought, you're right. I was looking at it wrong. Mass shootings are the cost of uninfringed gun rights, and risk of infecting strangers is the cost of an unregulated face. Both freedoms can result in unnecessary death, but THAT'S the cost of freedom. So you're right, anti-government conservatives are, in fact, intellectually consistent on these issues. It's good to know that conservatives will always protect personal liberty from government overreach that would seek to take away a person's right to choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Yes, if the government says it is required I will not comply. Sorry, I am not a slave and will not live like one any-longer. 

And if every scientist and medical expert says it's a good idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Godless said:

anti-government conservatives

I think this is an unfair and biased characterization. You should be more like me, never unfair or biased, always speaking naught but straight, sensible, 100% pure virgin truth.

17 minutes ago, Godless said:

It's good to know that conservatives will always protect personal liberty from government overreach that would seek to take away a person's right to choose.

You refer to a woman's so-called right to choose death for her otherwise healthy but as yet unborn child? I don't think any such right exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Godless said:

And if every scientist and medical expert says it's a good idea?

Having worked and studied in the medical field, I am much less impressed than most by a doctor's opinion. I am even less impressed by the current fad of "science by consensus". But I do believe that when a societal consensus is reached for something like wearing a mask for a limited time, that consensus should be honored. Funny, though, how so many of the women crying out about people disobeying the societal consensus (which doesn't as yet exist) about wearing masks are distinctly less enthusiastic about obeying the societal consensus of women not baring their naked breasts. Apparently, the only societal conventions they demand be followed are those they like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Godless said:

*Generic. I'm not sure what your specific views are on guns and the 2A, but I know many people who have tried saying that occasional mass shootings are the price of freedom are the same who are upset that they can't go to Applebees, or that they have to wear masks in public. The cognitive dissonance is truly remarkable.

I'm really not following the logic here.  You'll have to explain the dissonance to me.  Both are saying that the individual has freedom to do things.  And with freedom, comes some danger.  Did I miss something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

You refer to a woman's so-called right to choose death for her otherwise healthy but as yet unborn child? I don't think any such right exists.

It's a can of worms that I was reluctant to open, but seeing people swarm state houses with "My Body My Choice" signs in recent weeks has had the obvious irony ever present in my mind. The thing that fascinates me is the inconsistency with which the pro-life stance is applied to the abortion debate. Some people (including in your church leadership) believe that it is allowable in instances of rape. But aside from the circumstances of conception, what is different about the fetus of a rape victim versus the fetus of a consenting woman? There's a very emotional knee-jerk reaction to the idea of late term abortion that disregards the fact that those women want to have the child, but can't do so without considerable risk to their own lives. It's a horrible decision to have to make (and one my own mother had to make), but they deserve the right to choose what's best for them and their families. I can understand the desire to protect the interests of the unborn, even if you and I may disagree on when a fetus becomes a person with rights, but I've always found the universal disregard for women's health and choice surrounding this issue to be unsettling, and the use of government to enforce it even more so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm really not following the logic here.  You'll have to explain the dissonance to me.  Both are saying that the individual has freedom to do things.  And with freedom, comes some danger.  Did I miss something?

My logic was flawed, @Vort was right about that. I revised my stance in my following post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2020 at 12:34 PM, NeuroTypical said:
Yay Colorado 2nd phase! Nonessential businesses and services are coming back.
 
Non-urgent optional medical service obtained. Filthy truck run through the non-essential carwash which is back up and running!
 
Masks, handwashing, and social distancing still the norm, but dang, I'm glad the car wash place is back up and running. Don't want no businesses going under.  The kid running the line looked very happy to be there. 
 
Any good things coming back to you folks?
 

I'm starting to get some work again.  So, I can stop eating food storage. 

One of my biggest clients is still not moving.  Part of it is that his financier came down from Canada to iron out all the details.  Then he went home just before the quarantine -- and before signing the papers.  Now we're waiting for Canada to open up so that we can pick this back up again and hopefully begin the project.

The family is beginning to liven up.  Families are more open to play-dates for the kids.  My wife was happy to get a really good score on a term paper.  She's confident that she will get her degree at the end of May.  And she's beginning to entertain the idea of going back into the workforce.  Our kids are getting bigger and not in need of her on a daily basis anymore.

Most of the kids are about the same except for those who have play dates.

Some bad news.  My mom just died Tuesday night.  It was a heart attack. But it is going to go down as a COVID death because she had it a few weeks back (very mildly).  She was fully recovered, but they heard she had it, so... SMH.  We can't have a funeral because of COVID.  And we're not sure about a virtual service.

I spoke with my sister who lives in Salem, OR.  She said that she's deathly afraid of it.  She's in the age category and has asthma, and lupus, and.and.and...

She also just got out of the hospital about a month ago due to some kind of blood poisoning???  or something???  Her new husband works in the healthcare industry, so he recognized the symptoms and said she had to go to the emergency room.  They said he saved her life.  Another hour and...

So, she has to take the time to wear gloves and a mask everywhere because she's totally and completely in high risk groups.  When she brings her groceries home, she has to wipe everything down with bleach, including the shopping bags and all food containers. But she doesn't know what to do about the food itself.  You can only chlorinize that so much.

I mentioned the news that you posted about what tests were done on the virus.  And I suggested that she get one of those large bottles of alcohol and put a spray nozzle on it.  That will kill it and will evaporate quickly.

She said that she can't because of the run on rubbing alcohol in all the stores.  No one has it.  Her husband can't get it from work because they keep it locked up.  And only a few people have the key.  Can you imagine?  Hospitals lock up alcohol because it is such a hot commodity?

I mentioned the over-reporting of COVID deaths due to co-morbidity.  But she said it's even worse.  They under-report the number of cases because at the hospital they only have so many tests.  And they can't report a case until the test verifies it.  Yet, they pretty much know people have it and have to send them home to save space for verified COVID patients.  And they can't verify it without the test.

So, they under-report the cases, and over-report the deaths.  That means the current morbidity rate is much lower than the statistics we're getting.

I'm beginning to get very blah about everything nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Godless said:

It's a can of worms that I was reluctant to open, but seeing people swarm state houses with "My Body My Choice" signs in recent weeks has had the obvious irony ever present in my mind. The thing that fascinates me is the inconsistency with which the pro-life stance is applied to the abortion debate. Some people (including in your church leadership) believe that it is allowable in instances of rape. But aside from the circumstances of conception, what is different about the fetus of a rape victim versus the fetus of a consenting woman? There's a very emotional knee-jerk reaction to the idea of late term abortion that disregards the fact that those women want to have the child, but can't do so without considerable risk to their own lives. It's a horrible decision to have to make (and one my own mother had to make), but they deserve the right to choose what's best for them and their families. I can understand the desire to protect the interests of the unborn, even if you and I may disagree on when a fetus becomes a person with rights, but I've always found the universal disregard for women's health and choice surrounding this issue to be unsettling, and the use of government to enforce it even more so.

I can't address the reasoning for many evangelical Christians or any other faith-based opponent of abortion. One of my friends (a really gentle and very wise man) who was an evangelical said

Quote

When you deal with a pregnancy due to rape, you often don't know if the man is guilty of rape or if the woman is guilty of lying.  But one thing you do know is that abortion kills the one party that you know is innocent.

So, apparently, not everyone who is pro-life make the exception for rape.

I can try to explain what my personal interpretation of the Church's position is.

One thing to remember is that the Church has no official position on whether that body inside the mother's womb has a spirit in it or not.  The Church has consistently said that abortion in ALL cases is one of the most heinous sins of our generation.  In such specific pronouncements on abortion, the reasoning has never really been detailed.  It simply is wrong.

Others point to freedom to choose.  With rape, the mother never chose to take on the risk of pregnancy.  Her choice was taken from her.  So, the choice of abortion is given to her to restore her ability to choose.

People point to the characterization of "like unto murder" and decide that means it "is murder."  Well, that's slight difference is a wide chasm, apparently.

For me, it would be most important Latter-day Saints to find out just when the spirit enters the body.  Then we would know if it is indeed murder or not -- from a spiritual/doctrinal perspective. But since that information has not yet been revealed, we simply don't know.  But because of the "like unto" rather than the full declaration that it "is murder" simply means that with or without the spirit, the wonton wanton destruction of a human body or potential human body is to be avoided as if it were alive.

An underlying philosophy is that if we culturally lose the reverence for life of past generations where responsible motherhood was revered as the pinnacle of womanhood and responsible fatherhood was the pinnacle of manhood, then we will lose the reverence for life in general.  And this is proven out in the oft touted stories of dumpster babies.

We may not know if the fetus is a living being scientifically. But we do have some "tells'.  That is, there are biological indicators that the fetus is indeed alive by all the basic and meaningful scientific/medical definitions of life at least after a certain point.  Thus (even if I were not LDS) I would hold to the fact that the fetus be treated like a living person after those tells are present.  Killing it because of physical danger to the mother is justified as self-preservation.  But otherwise, what justification is there?  In the case of rape, it may be argued that the unborn is effectively enslaving the mother for 9 months.  Is that really justification?  If so, one must first admit that the embryo is a living being.  If you can't admit that, then there is no justification to kill it.  But if it isn't a living being, then there is no justification required.  If it is not a living being then why was a man convicted of a double murder for killing a pregnant woman?

None of this makes sense.  The fact is that if we all respected life and even the creation of life, then there would be no confusion.  But when you (generic) bring up the abortion issue, only confusion abounds because the first premise must be that an embryo or fetus is not alive.  And that can only occur when you start to disrespect the creation of life, even if you claim to respect life and freedom, there is a cognitive disconnect when you say that an embryo is "just a mass of cells".

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the best writeups I've seen on how the virus spreads.  Toilet flushes and choirs - who knew?

https://erinbromage.wixsite.com/covid19/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them?fbclid=IwAR2xk4zglRd6oPRKe-hQoOKq9GOznuLTY_uFAccJCuXKsSR3fmreeztE-wo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Godless said:

Some people (including in your church leadership) believe that it is allowable in instances of rape.

This is an inaccurate description of the Church's position. The Church does not claim that elective abortion is morally allowable in cases of rape; rather, it says essentially that no ecclesiastical action will be taken in the event of an elective abortion following a rape. That is an entirely different thing.

1 hour ago, Godless said:

There's a very emotional knee-jerk reaction to the idea of late term abortion that disregards the fact that those women want to have the child, but can't do so without considerable risk to their own lives. It's a horrible decision to have to make (and one my own mother had to make), but they deserve the right to choose what's best for them and their families.

I assume you are aware that it is a vocal minority of the pro-life movement that seeks to restrict abortion access when the mother's life is endangered.

1 hour ago, Godless said:

I can understand the desire to protect the interests of the unborn, even if you and I may disagree on when a fetus becomes a person with rights, but I've always found the universal disregard for women's health and choice surrounding this issue to be unsettling, and the use of government to enforce it even more so.

This is a false framing of the issue, invented by the so-called feminists and other pro-abortionists in the 1960s and brought to fruition in the disastrous 1973 Supreme Court embarrassment. No one wants to restrict a woman's right to self-determination; this is one reason why the Church does not prosecute ecclesiastical discipline in the case of elective abortion after forcible rape. But when a woman enters into a sexual union of her own free choice, we are no longer talking about her self-determination. She has made her choice. She has no more right to murder the unborn child resulting from that consensual sexual union for her own convenience, piece of mind, or financial benefit than the father has.

The fact that it is her body hosting the fetus is immaterial. Biology is what it is. She has made her choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Some bad news.  My mom just died Tuesday night.  It was a heart attack. But it is going to go down as a COVID death because she had it a few weeks back (very mildly).  She was fully recovered, but they heard she had it, so... SMH.  We can't have a funeral because of COVID.  And we're not sure about a virtual service.

I'm really sorry for your loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

This is an inaccurate description of the Church's position. The Church does not claim that elective abortion is morally allowable in cases of rape; rather, it says essentially that no ecclesiastical action will be taken in the event of an elective abortion following a rape. That is an entirely different thing.

Here's the exact cut and paste on the Church's position in case anyone wants to read it:

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/abortion?lang=eng

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Scott said:

Here's the exact cut and paste on the Church's position in case anyone wants to read it:

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/abortion?lang=eng

It uses the weasel word "may", but it also does use the word "justify". For now, I stand by the substance of what I wrote, but I admit I may be guilty of having misrepresented the Church's position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I mentioned the over-reporting of COVID deaths due to co-morbidity.  But she said it's even worse.  They under-report the number of cases because at the hospital they only have so many tests.  And they can't report a case until the test verifies it.  Yet, they pretty much know people have it and have to send them home to save space for verified COVID patients.  And they can't verify it without the test.

So, they under-report the cases, and over-report the deaths.  That means the current morbidity rate is much lower than the statistics we're getting.

I'm beginning to get very blah about everything nowadays.

They've been doing comparisons regarding the average death rates vs. the death rates in the US currently.  It is about 150% that of normal.  The average stays right about the same with a slight increase due to population increases, but the average has stayed pretty steady for the past decade.  In comparison, the past few months have shown an uptick with the only big difference being COVID-19.

This is why many who keep track of things are saying that the number of deaths are being under reported...at least until they find another factor that could be causing such a disparity of the statistics.  Without another reason, the guess is that it is due to COVID-19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vort said:

This is an inaccurate description of the Church's position. The Church does not claim that elective abortion is morally allowable in cases of rape; rather, it says essentially that no ecclesiastical action will be taken in the event of an elective abortion following a rape. That is an entirely different thing.

I assume you are aware that it is a vocal minority of the pro-life movement that seeks to restrict abortion access when the mother's life is endangered.

This is a false framing of the issue, invented by the so-called feminists and other pro-abortionists in the 1960s and brought to fruition in the disastrous 1973 Supreme Court embarrassment. No one wants to restrict a woman's right to self-determination; this is one reason why the Church does not prosecute ecclesiastical discipline in the case of elective abortion after forcible rape. But when a woman enters into a sexual union of her own free choice, we are no longer talking about her self-determination. She has made her choice. She has no more right to murder the unborn child resulting from that consensual sexual union for her own convenience, piece of mind, or financial benefit than the father has.

The fact that it is her body hosting the fetus is immaterial. Biology is what it is. She has made her choice.

Are you certain it's the 1973 decision...as that's the decision the Church currently agrees with overall.

It may be that you are mistaking how people interpreted it and then later court decisions (up until the 90s where it really was determined to be a woman's right to choose rather than the original reasoning of 1973, specifically referring to the case in 1992) regarding abortion.

In 1973, in summary, it was more of a decision to allow doctors the ability to choose an elective abortion for the health of their patients.  It was more about allowing doctors to be able to make decisions regarding the health and care of a patient without state interference than it was necessarily about a woman's right to choose.  In this instance, abortions in Texas were outlawed even in cases of rape or incest.  IF a woman's life was in danger, it MIGHT be legal (technically legal), depending on how a judge would rule.  In essence, Texas overruled the Doctor's decisions.  Ultimately, the question was whether Texas law was too restrictive, or not.  IN this, it found that the Law was too restrictive and in the process of determining this, the Supreme Court also invented the idea of a Right to privacy.  In this right, a woman and her doctor had confidentiality beyond what the state could impose, and limits on this imposition were set.  Thus, the state could not bind a doctor's decisions up until certain limitations were decided upon (first, second, third, trimester).

This is seen as giving the woman the right to choose, but it deals more with the right to privacy and the rights of the attending doctor to determine whether to be able to practice medicine at the behest of their patient in order to perform an abortion or not.

It was more about the right to privacy and the attending doctor's right or freedom to practice medicine as the doctor feels is best without state oversight, than how it was interpreted by many later to be purely about a woman's right to choose.

The idea of this became more and more lax as time progressed until Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in 1992 where the floodgates and doors were spread wide open.  By this point, many had already been utilizing Roe vs. Wade as the place which allowed woman to choose freely, and though it was interpreted this way in many cases, it wasn't until this decision that opened it up to truly be that way in that manner.  It overturned the trimester framework and other aspects of Roe vs. Wade that has made abortion viewed more as a common place replacement for birth control these days than it was previously.

IMO of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Godless said:

And if every scientist and medical expert says it's a good idea?

Look, I don’t deny that this disease exists. But we all are going to get it over the next 18 months. There’s no stopping it, no mask is going to protect anyone, unless it is a health care worker, wearing a n- 95, that wears it once and disposes of it, like intended. The only way to get through this is for everyone to eventually get it. Yes, some people will die and that’s tragic, but  i’m not gonna sit on my couch hiding in my house waiting for Bill Gates to save me. I’m a free human being and I will not wear a stupid mask. Also, gloves won’t help if you are touching one person after another without changing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1- Masks are primarily to help prevent sick people spreading it to others.  Consider a very simple analogy - you want to spit in someone's mouth.  If they're not wearing a mask, mission accomplished.  If they are wearing a mask, you can still spit on the mask and mission partially accomplished.  If you're wearing a mask, it's pretty darn hard to spit on someone's mouth. 

2- My wife and I are both in high-risk categories, and there are three things that'll help us not get it.  First is the distancing/sanitation/washing/masks/etc done by us and others around us.  Second is the eventual vaccine.  Third is herd immunity, probably due somewhere around 2021.  We're both in our '40's - if we can keep from getting thing, we're both looking at another 40 years of happy life.  If we get it, we're at increased odds of dying or having lifelong lung issues than all the other 40 year olds.

3- "i’m not gonna sit on my couch hiding in my house waiting for Bill Gates to save me".  Strawman, plus false dichotomy.  If you don't know what either of those are, or aren't willing to see why they apply to your statement, there's no hope of you understanding why everyone except you knows that's a silly thing to say.

4- Yes, you're a free human being.  Society is always juggling public safety vs individual rights, and COVID has opened up an entire new playing field.  Depending on where you live, you might end up a cited, charged, even jailed free human being for going against things that may or may not be just laws.  

5- You're in the ballpark about the gloves.  Gloves in public are pretty much useless.  Effective glove wearing: 1- wash hands.  2- don gloves.  3- enter infected area and do whatever it is you came in to do.  Touch twenty infected people if you want.  4- gloves touch nothing on you or anything outside of the infected area.  5- exit area, remove gloves safely, dispose of safely.  6- wash hands.    Maybe applicable at Walmart, but the average person just doesn't have the discipline to not touch a bunch of face and surfaces with their infected gloves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Godless said:

After giving it some thought, you're right. I was looking at it wrong. Mass shootings are the cost of uninfringed gun rights, and risk of infecting strangers is the cost of an unregulated face. Both freedoms can result in unnecessary death, but THAT'S the cost of freedom. So you're right, anti-government conservatives are, in fact, intellectually consistent on these issues. It's good to know that conservatives will always protect personal liberty from government overreach that would seek to take away a person's right to choose.

I would like to think that most conservatives are a little more nuanced.

Yes, for libertarian reasons I would tend to oppose “prior restraints” (or “constraints”) on both gun ownership and mask-wearing; especially when enforced by criminal penalty.

At the same time, a core government function is to deal with the “externalities” that hurt third parties when individuals abuse their liberty (“your right to swing your arm ends at the beginning of my nose”, that sort of thing).  If someone’s failure to take reasonable prudence hurts me—and there’s a strong evidentiary basis to prove the nexus between their actions and my harm—well, that’s what tort law is for; particularly when the harmful behavior is not only negligent but cavalierly and unapologetically reckless.

I absolutely wouldn’t want @Emmanuel Goldstein jailed for his refusal to wear a mask.  But if my kid gets seriously sick or dies of COVID, and I can trace my kid’s COVID strain back to Emmanuel—and if I know that this wasn’t the result of a momentary lapse (“It was a quick trip for the grocer for a loaf of bread and I forgot that I didn’t have the mask in my car, and I was already in the parking lot and so I just ran in and tried not to touch anything and washed my hands right afterwards”), but I actually have recorded statements from him saying he wasn’t ever going to wear a mask and the consequences be darned—

—I would hold him to be morally culpable for my loss; and I would seek to have him held civilly liable as well. 

Incidentally, in the last week Utah County apparently had a mini-outbreak because two different businesses compelled sick employees to come to work anyways.  The county health department is still refusing to publicly name the businesses, which frankly leaves me aghast.  It’s hard for me to avoid concluding that those particular businesses need to be sued into oblivion.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

1- Masks are primarily to help prevent sick people spreading it to others.  Consider a very simple analogy - you want to spit in someone's mouth.  If they're not wearing a mask, mission accomplished.  If they are wearing a mask, you can still spit on the mask and mission partially accomplished.  If you're wearing a mask, it's pretty darn hard to spit on someone's mouth. 

2- My wife and I are both in high-risk categories, and there are three things that'll help us not get it.  First is the distancing/sanitation/washing/masks/etc done by us and others around us.  Second is the eventual vaccine.  Third is herd immunity, probably due somewhere around 2021.  We're both in our '40's - if we can keep from getting thing, we're both looking at another 40 years of happy life.  If we get it, we're at increased odds of dying or having lifelong lung issues than all the other 40 year olds.

3- "i’m not gonna sit on my couch hiding in my house waiting for Bill Gates to save me".  Strawman, plus false dichotomy.  If you don't know what either of those are, or aren't willing to see why they apply to your statement, there's no hope of you understanding why everyone except you knows that's a silly thing to say.

4- Yes, you're a free human being.  Society is always juggling public safety vs individual rights, and COVID has opened up an entire new playing field.  Depending on where you live, you might end up a cited, charged, even jailed free human being for going against things that may or may not be just laws.  

5- You're in the ballpark about the gloves.  Gloves in public are pretty much useless.  Effective glove wearing: 1- wash hands.  2- don gloves.  3- enter infected area and do whatever it is you came in to do.  Touch twenty infected people if you want.  4- gloves touch nothing on you or anything outside of the infected area.  5- exit area, remove gloves safely, dispose of safely.  6- wash hands.    Maybe applicable at Walmart, but the average person just doesn't have the discipline to not touch a bunch of face and surfaces with their infected gloves.

1. Honestly, who thinks up these analogies? Gross. If I am sick I know that I should stay home. Also, for the a-symptomatic argument, I am avoiding crowds an close contact. Also, I am definitely not going around spitting in people's mouths. lol

2. Perhaps it is best for you to avoid contact with other then. I am not wishing this illness on anyone, but is quarantining the entire global population the answer? I don't think that is wise at all.

3. The media has been going on and on how Bill Gates is the man with a plan that will save us all by creating a vaccine for a Corona Virus, something that has never been done before. Give me a break, he is rich, well read and has a medical company that has shown that they are willing to paralyze thousands of children in India and Africa to push new vaccines. Um, no thanks mister Gates.

4. Covid is not new and Carona virus' have been around for decades. This is just the first time everyone has freaked out about it. 

5. Also, the gloves are being left on the ground all over. Come on people, clean up after yourselves, don't be gross. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I would like to think that most conservatives are a little more nuanced.

Yes, for libertarian reasons I would tend to oppose “prior restraints” (or “constraints”) on both gun ownership and mask-wearing; especially when enforced by criminal penalty.

At the same time, a core government function is to deal with the “externalities” that hurt third parties when individuals abuse their liberty (“your right to swing your arm ends at the beginning of my nose”, that sort of thing).  If someone’s failure to take reasonable prudence hurts me—and there’s a strong evidentiary basis to prove the nexus between their actions and my harm—well, that’s what tort law is for.

I absolutely wouldn’t want @Emmanuel Goldstein jailed for his refusal to wear a mask.  But if my kid gets seriously sick or dies of COVID, and I can trace my kid’s COVID strain back to Emmanuel and I have recorded statements from him saying he wasn’t going to wear a mask and the consequences be darned—I would hold him to be morally culpable for my loss; and I would seek to have him held civilly liable as well. 

Ok, then the next time I get a cold or flu then people should start suing their neighbors? That is just asinine. Litigation does nothing and cannot be proved, give me a freaking break. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Ok, then the next time I get a cold or flu then people should start suing their neighbors? That is just asinine. Litigation does nothing and cannot be proved, give me a freaking break. 

There were a lot of “if” statements in my post, which you seem not to have considered.

Obviously, if a plaintiff can’t prove by the appropriate evidentiary standard that the defendant was actually the source of the infection, then the plaintiff should lose (and be sanctioned with attorney’s fees, to boot).

But if the defendant *did* infect the plaintiff due to their refusal to take ordinary care, and also is on-record saying they don’t care who gets hurt as a result of their conduct:  

The defendant is either a petulant child, or a sociopath.

Then again, if we put all the anarchist gun-toters in a room with all the anarchist mask-deniers, I suppose the problem would solve itself in relatively short order; and government wouldn’t need to dirty its hands at all?  :D 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

There were a lot of “if” statements in my post, which you seem not to have considered.

Obviously, if a plaintiff can’t prove by the appropriate evidentiary standard that the defendant was actually the source of the infection, then the plaintiff should lose (and be sanctioned with attorney’s fees, to boot).

But if the defendant *did* infect the plaintiff due to their refusal to take ordinary care, and also is on-record saying they don’t care who gets hurt as a result of their conduct:  

The defendant is either a petulant child, or a sociopath.  

The problem with your argument is the if's. If you are worried as a parent that your child could be infected, then you should keep them home, in a bubble with filtered or canned air. Honestly, did you learn nothing from the story of David Vetter? Also, the name calling is really beneath the dignity of any normal person. To quote Elder Bednar, "Stop it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now