Personal Freedom vs. Public Welfare

[User Name]

Three months ago, the Republican governor of Missouri chose not to wear a mask in a shop, because he said he wasn’t going to let the government tell him what to do. Mike Parson visited a hardware store to celebrate its reopening after he lifted Missouri’s coronavirus lockdown over the objections of health professionals and mayors of major cities.

Parson said the worst of the pandemic was past and the economic impact of the shutdown was worse than the virus. As for masks, the governor dismissively claimed “there was a lot of information on both sides” over whether to wear one so he wasn’t going to require people to do so.

Three months later, Covid-19 is surging in Missouri and in many other parts of the Midwest that imagined they had escaped the worst of the pandemic.

Read more here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-missouri-iowa

 

[way 2 go]

Three months later, Covid-19 is surging in Missouri and in many other parts of the Midwest that imagined they had escaped the worst of the pandemic.

looks to be going back down

btw Missouri in 2017 had 27,791 from heart disease and cancer

kung flu 1387 in 5 mnths ( and how many of those 1387 had heart disease or cancer )

 

[User Name]

looks to be going back down

There was very clearly a coronavirus surge in Missouri after the month of May, which is when that state's governor claimed that the worst of the pandemic was over.

 

[Idolater]

OP and the other acolytes of the idea that wearing face covering as we go about our business should be imposed upon us, haven't yet addressed the following itt, and I'm repeating the idea in the hopes that one of them might weigh in, to at least demonstrate that, how, or why, the idea of rights doesn't apply to a pandemic.

It is self-evidently true that a Muslim woman possesses the universal right to go about her business without wearing a face covering.

For a government to impose upon her an obligation to wear a face covering as she goes about her business is to flagrantly deny her this right.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Oh, yeah, I expected it. But I have also researched the issue. The charges against him all grew out of politics. He's not politically correct so he has lots of left wing enemies and as academia is run by leftists they hate him and worked to destroy him. I invite anyone to study his history and and look at the basis of the charges against him. He's an independent thinker and leftists hate independent thinkers. Also look at the orgs that have supported him.

You should also note that the leading epidemiologists in Sweden and Denmark flat out agree with him. They say there is no evidence that masks are effective. And their nations have not suffered excess deaths because they have not created mandatory mask policies. They have fewer deaths than a bunch of countries that created very serious lockdown policies. Belgium used drones to find people not following lockdown policies. And their result? They have more deaths and cases than Sweden and Denmark. Real world results speak volumes. Masks haven't proven effective at all.

Researched it where? Saying something as daft as "academia is run by leftists" is supposed to be rational? You talk about independent thought and yet you're reduced to some nonsense soundbites that can't be substantiated as if you've read them off the back of a lorry.

 

[chair]

OP and the other acolytes of the idea that wearing face covering as we go about our business should be imposed upon us, haven't yet addressed the following itt, and I'm repeating the idea in the hopes that one of them might weigh in, to at least demonstrate that, how, or why, the idea of rights doesn't apply to a pandemic.

It is self-evidently true that a Muslim woman possesses the universal right to go about her business without wearing a face covering.

For a government to impose upon her an obligation to wear a face covering as she goes about her business is to flagrantly deny her this right.

OK, so here's the basic question:
What rights do Americans have?

 

[chair]

It is self-evidently true that a Muslim woman possesses the universal right to go about her business without wearing a face covering.

For a government to impose upon her an obligation to wear a face covering as she goes about her business is to flagrantly deny her this right.

Please explain why this Muslim woman bit is relevant.

 

[Idolater]

OK, so here's the basic question:
What rights do Americans have?

Right, and I'd expand it to say what universal rights do all people everywhere have, inherently.

Is there a universal right, a basic, fundamental human right, to go about our business without wearing a face covering?

More particularly, in answer to your question, Americans have the right to remain silent, and the right to not remain silent, the right to bear arms, the right against being murdered and against being raped and against being falsely imprisoned and kidnapped and against being falsely testified against in a court of law and against being forced to testify against ourselves. We have the right against cruel and unusual punishment, and we have the political right to vote. We have a right to a jury trial if we're accused of a crime, and we have a right to a defense attorney even if we cannot or choose not to pay for our legal defense. We have a right to due process of law. We have the right to believe and practice our religion, and we have the right to not remain silent about it. We have the right to peaceful assembly and to petition our government. We have the right against having someone impose their religion upon us. We have the right against having our stuff stolen.

There are also a number of rights that are not explicitly Constitutional, they exist because judges have held rulings in jurisprudential cases that enumerate rights that persuaded those judges to hold those rulings. The right to abortion is one example of the result of one of these jurisprudential decisions.

 

[Idolater]

Please explain why this Muslim woman bit is relevant.

Because there exists a right to go about her business without a face covering, or there does not, and if not, then it is not immoral to impose this obligation upon her by force of law. But if it does exist /is real, then it is immoral to impose this obligation upon her, by force of law or otherwise. It's very much in the ballpark of the topic.

 

[expos4ever]

There is a certain term that had been used to refer to those with unusually low mental capacities; this term has now been effectively banished from public discourse in North America. And rightly so, but only because it was used to debase and humiliate those who were born with such deficits, or acquired them through no fault of their own. Fair enough. But now, we have legions of people who are demonstrating rank stupidity without excuse - those who refuse to wear masks. So I think we should lure the forbidden appellation out of retirement and slap it squarely on these mask-eschewers who richly deserve it.

That term is "retard".

 

[ok doser]

There is a certain term that had been used to refer to those with unusually low mental capacities; this term has now been effectively banished from public discourse in North America. And rightly so, but only because it was used to debase and humiliate those who were born with such deficits, or acquired them through no fault of their own. Fair enough. But now, we have legions of people who are demonstrating rank stupidity without excuse - those who refuse to wear masks. So I think we should lure the forbidden appellation out of retirement and slap it squarely on these mask-eschewers who richly deserve it.

That term is "retard".

Silly sheeple.

 

[ok doser]

There is a certain term that had been used to refer to those with unusually low mental capacities; this term has now been effectively banished from public discourse in North America. And rightly so, but only because it was used to debase and humiliate those who were born with such deficits, or acquired them through no fault of their own. Fair enough. But now, we have legions of people who are demonstrating rank stupidity without excuse - those who refuse to wear masks. So I think we should lure the forbidden appellation out of retirement and slap it squarely on these mask-eschewers who richly deserve it.

That term is "retard".

If you're right they will all get the Kung Flu and die.

But it's important to you to demonstrate your moral superiority by belittling them first so have at it.

 

[way 2 go]

There was very clearly a coronavirus surge in Missouri after the month of May, which is when that state's governor claimed that the worst of the pandemic was over.

June 2 (rioting)
USA 1,812,125 cases 105,192 deaths = 5.8%

Aug 10
USA 5,058,464 cases 163,100 deaths = 3.2%

so new cases since June 2 = 3,246,339 and deaths sine June 2 = 57,908 = 1.7%

 

[User Name]

June 2 (rioting)

So you're saying that 100% of cases in Missouri since June 2 were caused by a few thousand criminals rioting, and 0% was caused by the rest of the state rushing back to near normal with few if any pandemic protocols being followed by much of the general population? Got it.

 

[chair]

Right, and I'd expand it to say what universal rights do all people everywhere have, inherently.

Is there a universal right, a basic, fundamental human right, to go about our business without wearing a face covering?

..and does that right extend to pandemic situations? I am speaking about the right itself. The argument about whether masks help is a separate one. So- assuming that mask help, Is there a universal right, a basic, fundamental human right, to go about our business without wearing a face covering? I say- yes, there is such a right, but it doesn't extend into epidemic situations. The right has limits.

More particularly, in answer to your question, Americans have the right to remain silent, and the right to not remain silent, the right to bear arms, the right against being murdered and against being raped and against being falsely imprisoned and kidnapped and against being falsely testified against in a court of law and against being forced to testify against ourselves. We have the right against cruel and unusual punishment, and we have the political right to vote. We have a right to a jury trial if we're accused of a crime, and we have a right to a defense attorney even if we cannot or choose not to pay for our legal defense. We have a right to due process of law. We have the right to believe and practice our religion, and we have the right to not remain silent about it. We have the right to peaceful assembly and to petition our government. We have the right against having someone impose their religion upon us. We have the right against having our stuff stolen.

There are also a number of rights that are not explicitly Constitutional, they exist because judges have held rulings in jurisprudential cases that enumerate rights that persuaded those judges to hold those rulings. The right to abortion is one example of the result of one of these jurisprudential decisions.

This is a specific set of rights that are in the constitution (broadly speaking). It doesn't include face masks, which you dealt with in a different way above.

 

[chair]

If you're right they will all get the Kung Flu and die.

If he's right, some of them will infect other people, and cause THEM to die.

 

[ok doser]

If he's right, some of them will infect other people, and cause THEM to die.

That's a risk we run every day, every year, for every pathogen. You might as well say if he's right some of them will infect other people who will develop antibodies and add to the creation of what we should have been working towards all along - herd immunity.

 

[chair]

That's a risk we run every day, every year, for every pathogen. You might as well say if he's right some of them will infect other people who will develop antibodies and add to the creation of what we should have been working towards all along - herd immunity.

Yes, a risk we run for the common cold and the common flu. But not a risk we, as a society, should run for a virus that spreads faster than the common cold and is far deadlier. The main point is that it is not up to the individual to decide, because his decision affects everybody else, not just himself.

 

[ok doser]

The main point is that it is not up to the individual to decide ...

It is in America.

 

[chair]

It is in America.

If it were true in American, it would be a shame. But is it true? Apparently not.