Jump to content

Anti...maskers? Are real?? How?


Eva Blue

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Phoenix the II said:

With the wildfires and smoke inhalation... 

 

Will people not cover their face too now?

I don't think that is quite how that works. could be wrong, but I think a large issue with smoke is it displacing oxygen, so there is less oxygen to breathe, which a mask won't help with. might help with keeping larger particles out of your lungs, which is good but depending on how bad the area it is probably isn't that helpful

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2020 at 2:40 AM, Skycaptain said:

@Tsareena, I find that interesting, given that in Germany its illegal to drive whilst wearing a face covering. In areas of Britain buses have notices saying "the driver doesn't wear a mask for health and safety reasons. I've experienced (not whilst driving) that one breath can cause instant fogging of glasses. 

Well as an update here.

They charged five homeless people here $1000 for not wearing a mask.

 

People who just blatantly are like "Oh it's selfish" don't seem to think that government and authorities CAN use masks to abuse power and that a lot of times mask rules are for the middle class and not the rich like recently you can't be in your car without a mask but police allowed rich people to go to the beach and have pool parties here while gatherings of 5 aren't allowed. it's insane.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
6 hours ago, Phoenix the II said:

BBC just reported that in England people are called to report the police your neighbours for grouping >6 people.....

 

...

 

...

 

For a up to 3200 pound fine (on repeats). 

Ah yes, good old vigilantism.

 

I wouldn't grass on my neighbours if they paid me because a. I'm not a grass, b. I think the whole thing is BS and tyrannical and c. I don't fancy a brick through the window.

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

Orwell again comes to mind. And as usual, the stuff we have seen before with people being encouraged to inform on their neighbors

Yeah, it's been extremely surreal to live through this insanity, see these sort of things suggested or implemented and know it's not a fiction book I read in high school; oh no, people decided these were actually good ideas. I still can't believe it most of the time.

 

I've been empathizing more and more with people who lived under the controlling, imposing, and screwed up governments of Russia and old Germany. It's a personal experience I could have lived without.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thing in Britain is a total joke. An example. I can't visit my stepbrother, because with his wife and kidlets they are a household of seven. But if I had a Transit-style eight seater taxi, we can all sit in it together for as long as we want. 😋😋

 

What is interesting is the total split in current infection rates in England. You can basically draw a line across the country from the Dee Estuary to the Humber, and infection rates north of there are 2-5 times higher than south of there, (with a few localised exceptions). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Arodash said:

Orwell again comes to mind. And as usual, the stuff we have seen before with people being encouraged to inform on their neighbors

Or... WW2, ...for hiding jews...

 

🤢

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that everyone who goes out in public should wear a mask.

 

If you cannot for a medical reason, ask your neighbors to get groceries for you. If you need to go somewhere, make sure the people you are going to be around know that you cannot wear a mask, and don't get upset if they are no longer willing to participate.

 

I think one big thing that causes most people to not wear masks is that they don't know why they have to do it. If they were to look at the science, they would see that wearing a mask is for other people, so it has to be a mutual exchange. If I wear a mask and you don't, I am protecting you, but in danger myself. You are then endangering my family. However, some people seem to think that wearing a mask protects oneself, so they don't have to do it so long as other people are. This, in America at least, comes from ignorance, misleading and conflicting information from the government, and so many conspiracy theories.

 

The people who decide to not wear a mask because they don't want to, the best explanation I can give is that they were a little too trusting of current leadership. But he has since publicly reversed his position on masks, as well as admitted that he was trying to downplay the threat. That should have allowed them to change their minds. So the second, less generous, reason that people aren't wearing masks is because they have a flippant disregard for human lives that are not their own.

 

To be fair, I am iffy on making it a law, but if public health guidance and science isn't enough to get people to do it, then it is better to make it a law than let another 200,000 people die.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mackenzie Holiday
5 minutes ago, Arodash said:

It starts somewhere. The comparison is decent because it starts with fines, then jail, and it goes up from there. 

It really isn’t. The gatherings that people are being encouraged to report are public health risks. The people aren’t being targeted based on their race, class, political affiliation or anything else that the governments being compared to would want to target. They’re trying to control a viral outbreak, not political dissidents. I think it’s a great idea to check governments’ uses of power to make sure they’re not taking steps toward a more authoritarian structure, such as acquiring more power during times of emergency that they have no intention of giving up once the emergency is over, but let’s not lose our heads. Maintaining this rule of having no more than six people gathering at a time would not be in the government’s best interest to hold onto after COVID. Encouraging people to report activities that pose a risk to public health is nothing new. What’s new is what activity is posing a public health risk, and it’s new because there’s a new virus going around that governments are adapting to.

 

Comparing hiding Jews to activities that are likely to spread a virus that can cause real lasting damage or death to people who catch it is either making light of the risks of spreading COVID or it assumes that there’s real danger to hiding Jews, which I trust no one here believes. The two are not comparable, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mackenzie Holiday
1 minute ago, Arodash said:

Liberty over security imo, so, I disagree. And still, my point stands, it starts somewhere

Are you worried when people are encouraged to report people they see driving dangerously?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark
3 minutes ago, Arodash said:

Liberty over security imo, so, I disagree. And still, my point stands, it starts somewhere

This is why I've always been firmly against rules that doctors are required to wash their hands. This is a slippery slope that leads to concentration camps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mackenzie Holiday
1 minute ago, Arodash said:

Im worried when people are encouraged to inform on their neighbors during a time that is a serious intrusion upon civil liberties.

I’ll take that as a no. 🙃

 

It starts somewhere. Maybe they’ll start sending people who drive dangerously to driving “re-education camps” and we all know where it’ll go from there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark
1 minute ago, Arodash said:

If a doctor doesnt wanna wash their hands they get to suffer the malpractice issues. Theres no laws stating that a doctor has to wash their hands, only their registring boards which they have agreed to.

Oh sorry for the misunderstanding, I meant when people urinate in public.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mackenzie Holiday
1 minute ago, Arodash said:

If a doctor doesnt wanna wash their hands they get to suffer the malpractice issues. Theres no laws stating that a doctor has to wash their hands, only their registring boards which they have agreed to.

If people want to gather in groups larger than six, they get to pay the resulting fines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mackenzie Holiday
1 minute ago, Arodash said:

Thats very different from someone comming to your home on your property, you have no civil right to drive a car, apples and oranges

Kind of like how engaging in activities that have a high probability of spreading a virus we’re trying to control and hiding  Jews are two completely different things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark
8 minutes ago, Arodash said:

Slippery slope slippery slope, when does it become your jailed for exercissing the right to assemble? Oh wait, thats happened.

What about these US concentration camps you're talking about? If this is really a slippery slope why don't we have them?

 

And while I'll assume you're opposed to the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2 (among other reasons, "constitutions aren't fair-weather rights") those aren't related to pandemic concerns. Or if you'd like to argue that it stems from the US government overreaching during times of crises, this hurts your slippery slope argument because the government did disband the camps after the war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mackenzie Holiday
2 minutes ago, Arodash said:

Slippery slope slippery slope, when does it become your jailed for exercissing the right to assemble? Oh wait, thats happened.

So it doesn’t matter that they’re two different things? Shall we go back to the dangerous driver analogy then? I don’t see the reasoning behind how you determine which unrelated things are comparable.

 

5 minutes ago, Arodash said:

Show me where in the first amendment a cap on how many people can gather? Sorry, constitution arent fair weather rights. All accross the US these things are beinh tossed out by courts because they are unconstintutional, and I'm hoping the same will occur in the UK

Is the problem just that it’s unconstitutional or is the problem that it leads to an Orwellian nightmare? Because I’m really trying to focus on dispelling the idea that this is the first step toward the next Nazi Germany.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark
Just now, Arodash said:

The camps during the war absolutley violated their civil rights! And the government apologized

You didn't address my question about how things like this have yet to lead to US concentration camps. Or if you'd like to argue they did, in the case of Japanese American internment, then you agree that they disbanded the camps once the crises was gone, and this sets precedent and expectation that the government will likewise lift gathering rules once the pandemic is over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark
Just now, Arodash said:

its both. And I never said first step to nazi germany? I called it a first step in the direction of extreme authoritarianism hence why I provided nations that ARENT nazi germany. 

Why is it important whether you compared it to extreme authoritarian regimes that aren't Nazi Germany? To quote Mackenzie "I don’t see the reasoning behind how you determine which unrelated things are comparable." This seems like a trivial deflection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the fascists came, they gave us fines for possibly endangering public health!

 

 

Oh wait, they didn't! They forbade people from doing non-endangering things like speaking or teaching in their mother tongue or... existing (\s)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mackenzie Holiday
1 minute ago, Arodash said:

its both

Okay, then I would really like to focus on how temporarily placing fines on and encouraging the reporting people who engage in activities which have a high likelihood of spreading a highly contagious virus which can cause lasting damage or death during a pandemic will or won’t lead to a regime of extreme authoritarianism.

 

Do you believe that if we don’t raise the alarm on these temporary restrictions on assembly now, that we won’t be able to raise the alarm later if the government places restrictions such as these on this freedom again in the future?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark
2 minutes ago, Arodash said:

I did answer it. Because we did have concentration camps over unfounded fears for American citizens who commited no crimes. And whether or not the government gets rid of them after doesnt make it okay XD rights arent fair weather.

So your concern is that the pandemic might cause a temporary restriction of civil rights, in the pursuit of public health, but you expect the restrictions to be removed once the crisis is over.

3 minutes ago, Arodash said:

Not even gonna respond to this as I think you missed my points.

I did indeed miss your point and was asking for clarification. And why would missing your points be a reason for you not to respond? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mackenzie Holiday
1 minute ago, Arodash said:

I believe that liberty comes before security, that rights are inherent and should never be placed on hold. Especially the first amendment rights of free speech, religion, press, assembly, petition

That doesn’t answer my question. How will it lead to extreme authoritarianism?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mackenzie Holiday
Just now, Arodash said:

When you start violating the most fundamental civil rights, thats authoritarian.

So you don’t think it will lead to extreme authoritarianism, you believe it already is?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark
3 minutes ago, Arodash said:

You insulted me. Again as you have before.

How so? I was careful not to insult you. Do you mean that I suggested you were deflecting? I feel like whether someone is deflecting and not really responding to other people is a valid thing to bring up in a debate.

4 minutes ago, Arodash said:

No? I have been arguing that the restrictions from the start like these violate civil rights and have been against them, so have our courts because they have also been striking them down as violating the first amendment.

You have talked about how this leads to things like Orwellian states. Or maybe you were merely pointing out "hey this kind of reminds me of Orwellian states but I don't think it will actually lead to that." Because if you did mean to say it will lead to that the internment of Japanese Americans works against that point.

 

As for whether courts have been striking these measures down, please provide a source. I did a quick search and found that courts have usually been upholding these measures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark
Just now, Arodash said:

When someone answers your question and you brush it off as deflecting, yeah, thats insulting. 

I'm not sure I agree with that, but in any case that's not what happens here. You frequently do not answer people's questions (this page alone is full of cases) so the situation you're describing is irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...