Personal Freedom vs. Public Welfare

[7djengo7]

Oh, well I guess the feeling's mutual then. :freak:

lain:

Come on. That's just downright mean, man. ":freak:" and "lain:" are Arthur Brain's most powerful debate tools; you take away the edge he has in those, and he's left with nothing.

 

[chair]

LOL

So, you "know" that he harmed someone by not wearing a mask, but you cannot say whom it was you "know" that he harmed. Produce the corpse, or shut up, you Nazi leftard. Of course you don't know that anyone has harmed anyone by not wearing a mask.



You'll, of course, suddenly "have an idea" whom he has supposedly "harmed by not wearing a mask", when your Nazi leftard programmers, whom you let do your thinking for you, hand it down to you that he has "harmed" so-and-so "by not wearing a mask", right? That's right, you Nazi leftard lapdog: you'll take their lying, baseless word for it, and eagerly, at their cue, you'll irrationally, self-righteously clamor--with the rest of your zombie comrades in your Nazi leftard hivemind crowd--for your Nazi leftard leaders to take further Nazi leftard aggressive actions against him.

MAGA (Masking All Gullible Apes)

.

 

[Idolater]

I'm still waiting for Chair to tell me who was harmed by my refusal to wear a mask in March, April, May, June and July

I don't suppose we'll ever hear eider explain who has been harmed by my decision to own a "fast-fire" rifle

Harm doesn't have anything to do with how our rights should be treated anyway. Just because it's less harmful to arrest and force everybody to live in prison camps, doesn't mean we should treat our universal right against being falsely imprisoned any differently. People need to snap out of it.

 

[Idolater]

Come on. That's just downright mean, man. ":freak:" and "lain:" are Arthur Brain's most powerful debate tools; you take away the edge he has in those, and he's left with nothing.

I don't even have nothing anymore. My original user account, September 2001, was deactivated, because I "used it to avoid a ban" of a different user account, established almost 12 years later. lain:

 

[chair]

How do I explain this more simply?

The minute you have a government, it limits your freedom. You were not completely free, ever.

The government takes away your freedom, and forces you to stop at a stop sign and traffic lights.
The government takes away your freedom, and forces you to pay taxes.

Because you live in a liberal democracy, there are limits to what the government can do, and you remain free within limits:

The government isn't putting anybody in prison or camps (like they did with the Japanese Americans during WW2).
The government isn't taking away your political rights.
The government isn't forcing you to convert to Catholicism or Islam.
The government isn't taking away your freedom of speech.
The government isn't selling your children into slavery.
You are not being tortured by the police.

The government is forcing you to wear a mask. Why? Because there is an epidemic.

Now if you think that the epidemic isn't real- then you're in denial, but hey- you have the right to believe in ridiculous things. But you still need to wear a mask, even if you think it's stupid. Just like you stop at a red light even if there are no other cars in sight.

 

[Idolater]

How do I explain this more simply?

The minute you have a government, it limits your freedom. You were not completely free, ever.

The government takes away your freedom, and forces you to stop at a stop sign and traffic lights.
The government takes away your freedom, and forces you to pay taxes.

Because you live in a liberal democracy, there are limits to what the government can do, and you remain free within limits:

The government isn't putting anybody in prison or camps (like they did with the Japanese Americans during WW2).
The government isn't taking away your political rights.
The government isn't forcing you to convert to Catholicism or Islam.
The government isn't taking away your freedom of speech.
The government isn't selling your children into slavery.
You are not being tortured by the police.

The government is forcing you to wear a mask. Why? Because there is an epidemic.

Now if you think that the epidemic isn't real- then you're in denial, but hey- you have the right to believe in ridiculous things. But you still need to wear a mask, even if you think it's stupid. Just like you stop at a red light even if there are no other cars in sight.

I still think my first post itt is relevant:

You're talking about rights. The political philosophy concerned with rights is liberalism. The idea that liberalism and the regard for rights is "freedom" or "liberty" is an interpretation of rights, an interpretation of liberalism. We must be careful to not run too far with an interpretation when it goes far beyond its foundation, which are rights.

The conflicts we see especially in America but also wherever the people recognize rights is imo because we have not formed a canonical enumeration of almost any of our rights. Some exceptions to this are the rights against being murdered and raped and kidnapped or falsely arrested, and the rights to remain silent and to not be coerced into incriminating ourselves, and the rights to a trial by jury and to due process of law, and the rights against having your possessions stolen and being falsely testified against and being slandered or libeled or defamed. There are many other examples where rights have been precisely defined and enumerated, but for the most part rights are not so carefully explicated.

So whenever conflict arises between "liberty" or "freedom" and whatever is posed as their opposites, I recommend pondering that dispute and framing it as a struggle to define our rights, rather than it being between the forces of good against the forces of evil. To perpetuate it as the latter is to presume that an anarchistic liberalism is the correct interpretation of our rights, and that requires additional argument to sustain (and I personally would object that anarchistic liberalism is the correct view).

And this one:

A line from a book I read goes, "...it would be wrong to punish an innocent man as a hostage even if to do so would in fact reduce crime." I think that we can all agree with this, right? This imo strikes at the heart of the matter here, it has to do with utility, which is defined basically as the most good for the most people, and when that calculus threatens our rights, such as the right against being kidnapped or falsely imprisoned.

Even if it would be more utilitarian to deny some people their rights, even if it would result in the most good for the most people, to disregard the rights of some, it is still immoral to do so. This is the heart of the matter, what are our rights, and how do we defend or protect them, especially when the utilitarian proposition, that is of the same pattern as "[punishing] an innocent man as a hostage...would in fact reduce crime (which satisfies a utilitarian calculus)," seems so correct and compelling.

And this one kind of sums it up:

. . . 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.

 

[Idolater]

Read the next-to-last paragraph of this fella's obit. Very topical for us itt.
https://twitter.com/JohnFugelsang/status/1290424259383382023

 

[ok doser]

But you still need to wear a mask

No

 

[chair]

No

That's a simple, straightforward, two year old's answer

 

[ok doser]

That's a simple, straightforward, two year old's answer

It's also a simple, straightforward, adult's answer.

Especially considering your inability to tell me who was harmed by my refusal to wear a mask in April, May, June and July.

 

[ok doser]

This is an anonymous internet discussion board.

A concept that was totally lost on those in Artie's circle at one point in the past and still today I'm sure. In a venue like this you can make any claims you like. They are of course unconfirmable.

You can claim to be a Christian or a Mooslim.

You can claim to be a doctor or a lawyer or an astronaut.

You can claim to be a husband or a wife or a father or a mother.

But ultimately all of that has to be taken on faith or rejected on bad faith.

 

[User Name]

1918 protocol for dealing with the Spanish Flu:

 

[ok doser]

Read the next-to-last paragraph of this fella's obit. Very topical for us itt.
https://twitter.com/JohnFugelsang/status/1290424259383382023

Seems like his death could have been avoided if he had worn an N95 mask and followed all the other recommendations - social distancing, frequent hand washing, don't touch your face.

 

[ok doser]

That's a simple, straightforward, two year old's answer

Actually, it's the answer from an experienced health care professional who understands the concept of herd immunity, how it's acquired and what it will gain us as a society.

 

[chair]

Actually, it's the answer from an experienced health care professional who understands the concept of herd immunity, how it's acquired and what it will gain us as a society.

"Herd immunity is great, the faster the better- as long nobody that I personally know gets killed on the way..."

England started out thinking that Fast Herd Immunity was the Holy Grail, then changed their minds when they realized what the price would be. And no- Sweden has not been a great success- nor have they been totally ignoring social distancing and the like.

 

[ok doser]

"Herd immunity is great, the faster the better- as long nobody that I personally know gets killed on the way..."

England started out thinking that Fast Herd Immunity was the Holy Grail, then changed their minds when they realized what the price would be. And no- Sweden has not been a great success- nor have they been totally ignoring social distancing and the like.

I'm a great proponent of social distancing, frequent hand washing, and avoiding face touching. Those all are valuable tools to reducing the rate of exposure. Mask wearing is not. Mask wearing's greatest value lies in reminding all of the stupid sheeple to practice social distancing, frequent hand washing and avoiding face touching.

 

[Yorzhik]

"Herd immunity is great, the faster the better- as long nobody that I personally know gets killed on the way..."

England started out thinking that Fast Herd Immunity was the Holy Grail, then changed their minds when they realized what the price would be. And no- Sweden has not been a great success- nor have they been totally ignoring social distancing and the like.

Sweden has been a great success in dealing with the current pandemic. It has not been a great success in either protecting its old age homes or protecting the death cult you push.

Otherwise, the people went on with life with almost no changes, and they are confident now that they are over with the first half of the flu season, and it will not be as bad for them during the second half, and they won't have to do anything differernt than they normally do to avoid seasonal sicknesses. Compared to locked down and muzzled peoples, they are a great success.

 

[chair]

In deaths per million, Sweden is #8, just below Italy. The US, another great success, is #10.

 

[ok doser]

In deaths per million, Sweden is #8, just below Italy. The US, another great success, is #10.

It's still early in the game. A lot of players are just getting started.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Identity? lol. This is an anonymous internet discussion board. Our stock in trade are words, ideas; not identity. Identity does not bear upon the truth or falsity of any proposition.

For you maybe. I've gotten to know several members here over the years.

Smiling and happy, yes.

I doubt Trump's feeling that right now...