Here's why Trump wants us all to go back to work

[chair]

I'm leaving the stupid to the likes of you and Ffreeloader. The pair of you are simply flat out nuts. There isn't a ban, that's all in his (and apparently your) head. You can't stop involuntary bodily movements. You can't put the whole population in strait jackets to ensure that nobody subconsciously touches their face. If anything really needs to be explained further as to the why's then the lunacy gets worse. Advising people to reduce hand to face contact is sensible. It's not some form of insidious attempt at government thought control as per Ffreeloader's insane posit.

7d7 is playing his infantile semantics game again. From a purely physical viewpoint, you could put everybody in straitjackets. That of course was not what you were referring to when you said " you can't". 7d7 is either about 14 years old, or simply not well., Or maybe both.

 

[Rusha]

No. Such measures could never be enforced and for obvious reasons. I'll leave you not to figure that out.

Well ... there is the prospect of handcuffing every American’s hands behind their backs ...

 

[Arthur Brain]

7d7 is playing his infantile semantics game again. From a purely physical viewpoint, you could put everybody in straitjackets. That of course was not what you were referring to when you said " you can't". 7d7 is either about 14 years old, or simply not well., Or maybe both.

I know, it's ridiculous and loony all ends up. As he'll most likely venture in with some more bonkers posts in due course I might as well address how it couldn't be enforced here. There isn't the manpower for a start. The police aren't in a position to devote all of their time to going around people's homes one by one and doing this, they've got enough on as it is already. So it would have to be diverted manpower from the military and that wouldn't be anywhere near enough either. Just to run with this bat crazy stuff, supposing it is enforced and all people are put into straitjackets. Who's going to feed, clothe and wash everybody when they can't do it themselves? Are the enforcers going to become home care workers as well? That's before the fact that practically every sane person in the police and military would just balk at the notion of doing this to citizens to start with...

Sometimes I can still be surprised at the sheer whacko stuff that people come up with on here.

 

[User Name]

7d7 is playing his infantile semantics game again.

It's what he's best at.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well ... there is the prospect of handcuffing every American’s hands behind their backs ...

There's a few here who seem to have their brain in lockdown..

 

[7djengo7]

There's probably any number of ways a face-touching ban could be enforced: manacles, straight-jackets, amputation, execution....

​

Yes, because that could realistically be enforced upon hundreds of millions of people. The bat crazy continues...​

​

Where'd you get your indefinite, "hundreds of millions of people" figure?

​

<NO ANSWER>

​

​

​

How many "hundreds of millions of people" are you talking about?

​

<NO ANSWER>

​

​

​

Please try to say what (if anything) you mean by "realistically", here, and then tell me the maximum number (to the nearest ten) of persons you think it "could be realistically enforced upon", and why you think so.

​

<NO ANSWER>

​

LOL​

 

[Arthur Brain]

LOL​

​

​

You were answered and predictably, this is the sort of "response" that you can only come up with. Chair is probably right with regards to you in the above. Post #368 details any further answers to your insanity but if you're just gonna "lol" and stupidly edit someone's actual quotes then save yourself the time of bothering.

:rain:​

​

 

[7djengo7]

I know, it's ridiculous and loony all ends up. As he'll most likely venture in with some more bonkers posts in due course I might as well address how it couldn't be enforced here. There isn't the manpower for a start.

How much manpower would you say is needed? To the nearest ten, how many men?

The police aren't in a position to devote all of their time to going around people's homes one by one and doing this, they've got enough on as it is already.

Oh. So, just a matter of prioritization then? In other words: "Inhibiting people from touching their hands to their faces: PRIORITY LOW."

So it would have to be diverted manpower from the military and that wouldn't be anywhere near enough either.

Again, as you've obviously put lots of scholarly thought into questions of the logistics of face-touching bans , just how much manpower would you say is needed? How many men?

Just to run with this bat crazy stuff, supposing it is enforced and all people are put into straitjackets. Who's going to feed, clothe and wash everybody when they can't do it themselves?

How's any of that relevant to the question, Professor? Didn't I offer execution as one possible way to enforce a face-touching ban? Yeah, I did:

There's probably any number of ways a face-touching ban could be enforced: manacles, straight-jackets, amputation, execution....

Your irrelevant caveat is as idiotic as it were for you to say, "Who's going to feed, clothe and wash everybody when they are all dead?"​

Are the enforcers going to become home care workers as well?

Perhaps you should make a study to try to find answers to your irrelevant side-questions that will satisfy you.

That's before the fact that practically every sane person in the police and military would just balk at the notion of doing this to citizens to start with...

In other words, enforcing a face-touching ban depends upon willingness to enforce a face-touching ban, and, according to you, not enough people are willing to do so. I guess, then--according to you--not enough sane people consider the inhibition of face-touching to be all too useful a tactical measure in the war against your bugaboo "coronavirus". Of course, such an admission as you've given is probably not the best way to try to sell the oft-parroted story about how very important it is for people to not touch their faces.:think:

Back to the drawing board for you.:doh:

 

[Arthur Brain]

How much manpower would you say is needed? To the nearest ten, how many men?

Too many. Way too many.

Oh. So, just a matter of prioritization then? In other words: "Inhibiting people from touching their hands to their faces: PRIORITY LOW."

Well in Sanityville it is as it can't be stopped. Encouraging people to be aware of the dangers and regular hand washing are priority. Putting people in strait jackets and the like is loonyville.

Again, as you've obviously put lots of scholarly thought into questions of the logistics of face-touching bans , just how much manpower would you say is needed? How many men?

Way too many. If you're going to put every single citizen in a strait jacket and the like to ensure they don't touch their face then the manpower required is tons.

How's any of that relevant to the question, Professor? Didn't I offer execution as one possible way to enforce a face-touching ban? Yeah, I did:

Hmm, execution as a means to ensure people don't at any point inadvertently touch their face. That's some solution alright...

Your irrelevant caveat is as idiotic as it were for you to say, "Who's going to feed, clothe and wash everybody when they are all dead?"

​

Perhaps you should make a study to try to find answers to your irrelevant side-questions that will satisfy you.



In other words, enforcing a face-touching ban depends upon willingness to enforce a face-touching ban, and, according to you, not enough people are willing to do so. I guess, then--according to you--not enough sane people consider the inhibition of face-touching to be all too useful a tactical measure in the war against your bugaboo "coronavirus". Of course, such an admission as you've given is probably not the best way to try to sell the oft-parroted story about how very important it is for people to not touch their faces.:think:

Back to the drawing board for you.:doh:

Yeah, not really in the mood for bat crazy tonight and after your "execution solution" even less so. If only you had a drawing board...

:freak:

 

[7djengo7]

I'm leaving the stupid to the likes of you and Ffreeloader. The pair of you are simply flat out nuts. There isn't a ban, that's all in his (and apparently your) head. You can't stop involuntary bodily movements. You can't put the whole population in strait jackets to ensure that nobody subconsciously touches their face.

Who said anything about "the whole population"? "The whole population" of what? Which "whole population"?

Also, can you put "the whole population" under lockdown in their homes to ensure that nobody goes away from them? Would you say, from the start, that there's man power to put "the whole population" under lockdown in their homes to ensure that nobody goes away from them?

There isn't the manpower for a start.

Oh, OK.

Would you say that the police are in a position to devote all of their time to going around people's homes one by one and standing sentinel at each residence, 24/7, ready to use physical restraining force, to ensure that nobody leaves their home?

The police aren't in a position to devote all of their time to going around people's homes one by one and doing this, they've got enough on as it is already.

Oh, OK.

So, according to you, not only is it impossible to enforce a face-touching ban, but it is also impossible to enforce a home-leaving ban (a.k.a., "lockdown").

Thank you.​

 

[Arthur Brain]

Who said anything about "the whole population"? "The whole population" of what? Which "whole population"?

Also, can you put "the whole population" under lockdown in their homes to ensure that nobody goes away from them? Would you say, from the start, that there's man power to put "the whole population" under lockdown in their homes to ensure that nobody goes away from them?

Oh, OK.

Would you say that the police are in a position to devote all of their time to going around people's homes one by one and standing sentinel at each residence, 24/7, ready to use physical restraining force, to ensure that nobody leaves their home?



Oh, OK.

So, according to you, not only is it impossible to enforce a face-touching ban, but it is also impossible to enforce a home-leaving ban (a.k.a., "lockdown").

Thank you.​

Wow, you don't even realize that lockdown measures still allow people to go out for essential purposes?

 

[7djengo7]

Wow, you don't even realize that lockdown measures still allow people to go out for essential purposes?

So, your gripe, here, is to say that there's not a ban on people leaving their homes some of the time, but that there's only a ban on those people leaving their homes the rest of the time? You're an expert, of course, on questions concerning whether or not there is "the manpower" to enforce this or that ban, so, would you say there is "the manpower" to enforce the ban on some people leaving their homes some of the time?

 

[Arthur Brain]

So, your gripe, here, is to say that there's not a ban on people leaving their homes some of the time, but that there's only a ban on those people leaving their homes the rest of the time? You're an expert, of course, on questions concerning whether or not there is "the manpower" to enforce this or that ban, so, would you say there is "the manpower" to enforce the ban on some people leaving their homes some of the time?

Um, no, not at all. You seem to be invested in a bizarre narrative of your own making that other people aren't actually saying or implying.

 

[7djengo7]

Um, no, not at all.

Are you saying that a lockdown is not a ban against people leaving their homes?

 

[chair]

Are you saying that a lockdown is not a ban against people leaving their homes?

There are some legitimate topics to discuss. You'd do better to pick one of those, rather than play these games.

 

[7djengo7]

Are you saying that a lockdown is not a ban against people leaving their homes?

<NO ANSWER. SNIDE REACTION ONLY.>

There are some legitimate topics to discuss. You'd do better to pick one of those, rather than play these games.

Ah, chair, you should actually write your own comments sometime, instead of always relying on your fart-2-text conversion device to generate your TOL content.

All the "illegitimate" questions, of course, are the ones that, by trying to answer them, you must needs bring yourself into further embarrassment, right?

Like Arthur Brain, you have so far failed to answer the question I asked him:

Is a lockdown not a ban against people leaving their homes?

Why's it so hard for y'all?

 

[ok doser]

Is a lockdown not a ban against people leaving their homes?

Can't be 'cause you'd need millions and millions of police to enforce it

 

[7djengo7]

Can't be 'cause you'd need millions and millions of police to enforce it

The question of whether or not something is a ban is a different question than the question of whether or not a ban is, or could be, enforced.

Would you need millions and millions of police to enforce a ban against the residents of a town of, say, a population of 10,000, leaving their homes?

I'm just trying to find out what (if anything) is supposed to be the difference between a lockdown and a ban against people leaving their homes.

Arthur Brain, of course, is never going to be able to speak coherently to my question.

 

[ok doser]

Arthur Brain, of course, is never going to be able to speak coherently to my question.

You are learning grasshopper

I've mixed it up with him many times, in the context of re-criminalizing homosexuality, among other subjects.

His argument? "You'd have to put a cop in every bedroom!"

My rebuttal: "That's not how we control child molestation, rape, murder ..."

His response? "You're a troll! I'm putting you on ignore!"


He is unable to move past emotion and use reason and logic. And he constantly, for fourteen years, mistakenly conflates emotional reasoning with reason.

 

[Right Divider]

He is unable to move past emotion and use reason and logic. And he constantly, for fourteen years, mistakenly conflates emotional reasoning with reason.

It's the exact same line when it comes to discussing "science" with him.