If I don't wear a face mask and get fined, is the govt telling me I am directly responsible for and obligated to prevent Acts of God and nature? I live in Florida, my house could be destroyed by a hurricane and thousands of people could be killed, what personal responsibility does each and every person in America have to prevent this. I see no difference in being told I have to do something to prevent a virus from spreading. I didn't create the virus, I cant control a virus, I have no obligations what so ever to even care about the virus or if you get it. By what authority can you make me give a shit or do anything about an act of god or nature?
I am responsible..............
Posts
Total:
210
-->
@sadolite
I didn't create the virus, I cant control a virus,
you didn't create it, but you absolutely can help to control it. By doing things like social distancing and wearing a mask.
I have no obligations what so ever to even care about the virus or if you get it
yes, yes you do. By not wearing a mask you are endangering the lives of everyone around you. You are making a choice to endanger people in the same way that you would be endangering their lives if you decided to drive drunk.
By what authority can you make me give a shit or do anything about an act of god or nature?
by the authority of the US government. It isn't that complicated.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I have no obligation to care if you live or die. I can not control a virus, I do not have access to anything to control it's spread, the only thing that control the spread of a virus is a self contained hazmat suit. Saying the govt has the authority is like saying I have the authority to take all your shit. You just accept that it does and comply
-->
@sadolite
I have no obligation to care if you live or die.
So we should let people drive around drunk? I mean they don't have to care if you live or die. So should they have the choice to endanger other people's lives just because they feel like it? Or should we as a society have the right to decide that some behavior is required for the good and safety of everyone?
I can not control a virus, I do not have access to anything to control it's spread,
you have access to a mask, then also state you have nothing that can control the spread of the virus. Those 2 things are completely contrary. You have access to tools to help control the virus. You just don't want to use them.
Saying the govt has the authority is like saying I have the authority to take all your shit. You just accept that it does and comply
no, the government has the authority to do that because as a society, we have decided that the government should have that power. If you can get the majority of americans to decide that you should have the power to take people's shit, then you absolutely could.
Any mask that does not filter corna virus does not control its spread, absolute scientific fact. No mask manufacturer that makes masks that are not designed to do so will never say they do. They will be sued out of existence. Show in legal terms the governor or any county official has the authority TO WRITE NEW LAWS unilaterally during a state of emergency. If I am going to be accused of spreading a virus by not wearing a mask you must prove that I am. You cant make accusations based on maybes and might be. The law is clear. If I am to be forced to wear a mask, I want it proved by science and a court of law that I am in fact a carrier and a threat. I have constitutional rights and the law must show probable cause to charge me with a crime. First and foremost I lose none of my constitutional rights during a state of emergency. If I am to be accused of spreading a virus by not wearing a mask, I want all the rights provided to me under the constitution that say the law must show probable cause and bears 100% of the burden of proof. Also if my business or house is going to be commandeered or shut down the govt must reimburse me for all my losses as I did not consent to such action. All businesses that have been shut down under the law are to reimbursed for their losses "IF" the govt does not prove that your business is in fact infected with corna virus and is actively spreading it. If they prove it then they can shut it down and you are entitled to nothing All of these laws are being completely ignored. Again you do not lose your constitutional rights under a state of emergency. But then again when did rights and the rule of law ever matter.
-->
@sadolite
I actually agree with the right-wing on this only insofar as to blackmail every citizen when just going for a stroll down a street with noone nearby, to wear a mask is simply ridiculous. However, on public transport or at work when dealing with customers (and as the customer themselves) it does make sense. Basically, what I'm saying is if you're on the beach or in an alleyway or wherever at a time when barely anyone is around you, there's no reason to force you to wear a mask. In fact, shops shouldn't require masks they should just require tests to be quite honest. If you're infected then they should not let you in the shop and if you're untested but not showing symptoms then you must wear a mask.
I support a dynamic policy and flexible approach that combines safety with freedom.
-->
@sadolite
Any mask that does not filter corna virus does not control its spread, absolute scientific fact.
you clearly don't understand the point. If you have corona virus the tiny particles of spit that come out of you when you speak, or cough or even breathe heavily will carry the virus. You are aerosolizing it. The point of the mask is to prevent that from happening. And it will do that.
If I am going to be accused of spreading a virus by not wearing a mask you must prove that I am. You cant make accusations based on maybes and might be. The law is clear.
We can't prove a drunk driver is going to hit anyone. He might make it home safely 100 times in a row. But that doesn't mean we can't enforce laws against drunk driving.
If I am to be forced to wear a mask, I want it proved by science and a court of law that I am in fact a carrier and a threat.
At that point it is already too late. That's like saying you only accept that you shouldn't drive drunk after you fail a police breathalyzer. But that will only happen after you have already put other people in danger. If we need to prove you have the virus before you have to take basic precautions, then those precautions become useless.
I actually agree with the right-wing on this only insofar as to blackmail every citizen when just going for a stroll down a street with noone nearby, to wear a mask is simply ridiculous.
ok, but how many people can truly stay that way? People are going to walk by you on the sidewalk. And how would you be able to tell that people are taking the proper precautions when they are near people? You've seen what people sadolite think. They think that they don't have to take any precautions under any circumstances. They believe their comfort is more important than other peoples lives. If you tell them it's fine to walk around without a mask, they will do it. And they will jeopardize lives and get people killed.
I agree that a nuanced plan would be a good idea if you could trust people to actually follow it. But people like sadolite make that impossible. You need an ironclad rule to get it through their head. If you don't they will ignore it and kill people. This way the rule is simple. If you are in public, wear a mask. It makes enforcement much easier than trusting people to use the mask when they need to.
-->
@sadolite
If I am to be accused of spreading a virus by not wearing a mask, I want all the rights provided to me under the constitution that say the law must show probable cause and bears 100% of the burden of proof.
Good luck with that..the science changes month to month on it.
-->
@sadolite
I would suggest that your primary obligations should be to yourself and to those that closely concern you.
Wearing a mask and social distancing is as beneficial to you as it is to anyone else.
If you don't give "a shit" about others then that is just downright anti-social and therefore why should others give "a shit" about you.
Maybe you are working on a somewhat deluded assumption of invincibility.
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes, the moral superiority argument, I can take my constitutional rights and due process under the law and shove them up my ass
-->
@sadolite
police are under no legal obligation to protect anyone
Gonzales, the supreme court has ruled that police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens. In other words, police are well within their rights to pick and choose when to intervene to protect the lives and property of others — even when a threat is apparent.
don't hold citizens to a higher standard.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I am aware of this ruling. No where in the constitution does it say I am responsible for the health and well being of others. If am going to be forced at gun point to do so I want to be compensated for my losses. Nor does it say anywhere in any powers granted under state of emergency that I am responsible for anyone's health and well being. But these are just laws and it has been demonstrated that laws are nothing more than subjective suggestions to be followed if you want to based on your level of emotion, hysteria and sense of moral superiority over others.
-->
@sadolite
I am aware of this ruling. No where in the constitution does it say I am responsible for the health and well being of others. If am going to be forced at gun point to do so I want to be compensated for my losses.
Why would you think that? There are lots of laws that do that already. For example, you cannot exceed the maximum posted speed limit. This is done because if people speed it puts other people's lives in danger. But obeying that law could cost you money. However, no one is going to compensate you for it. You must obey that law or suffer the consequences for the good of society.
The idea that you should be allowed to endanger other people's lives and that it is somehow immoral to create laws to protect people is silly.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Sadolite lacks access to his empathy centers of his brain aka lack of access to moral integrity. I'll bet he does not yawn, 50% of the time, when he sees others yawning.
It is well documented that mask prevent the spread of the viri. Nobody likes to wear the mask all day at work, but health care workers do, and they have the least incidence of infection.
Nursing homes, meat packing plants have the worse record. We all live on a one-island world called Space-ship Earth. We have some 200 nations and each has their captains attempting to run the Space-ship Earth show.
Unless all of the captains put aside their personal needs, and look at the needs of all of humanity and the ecological systems that sustain them, humanity is doomed to extinction within 1000 years. My best guess. Yes some may survive, but depending on the circumstances after the die-off, their lives may be fairly miserable. I dunno.
Humanity needs to begin curtailing its population growth by huge amount. 1, 2, 3 generations or more? And they need to change the modus operandi. This can only happen if all of humanity is on board with collective effort to choose life over death of humanity.
Hydrogen bomb war can start with one, two, or three people that have a key to a button{s}.
...."In 2017 President Trump vowed to rain down “fire and fury” on the North and later taunted Mr. Kim on Twitter that “I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!”
......That could be interpreted as a threat to launch a nuclear strike.
Unsettling as it may be, Mr. Trump has the absolute authority to start a nuclear war. Within minutes, the president could unleash the equivalent of more than 10,000 Hiroshima bombs.
Unsettling as it may be, Mr. Trump has the absolute authority to start a nuclear war. Within minutes, the president could unleash the equivalent of more than 10,000 Hiroshima bombs.
.....He does not need a second opinion. The defense secretary has no say. Congress has no role. Yet it would mean the end of civilization as we know it."...
-->
@HistoryBuff
I do not have a constitutional right to drive a car. When I got my drivers license I consented to obey all driving laws. I do not consent to being forced to wear a mask and never signed anything agreeing to. Also prove I am endangering anyone's life. Your claims of "I might be" are as worthless as two tits on a hog. You care nothing about your constitutional rights, And you are free to let govt trample all over them and deny you due process under the law. I how ever do care about my constitutional rights and if I am going to be accused of being a danger to the public I have a right to due process and the the state must prove that I am. It also must show probable cause to test me. Bottom line is you claim moral superiority and because you do my constitutional rights mean nothing to you. So don't you ever lecture anyone about how you have constitutional rights in the future for any reason.
-->
@sadolite
Negligent transmission of diseases has long been actionable. I see no reason why it should be any different with COVID-19.
-->
@sadolite
Also prove I am endangering anyone's life. Your claims of "I might be" are as worthless as two tits on a hog.
I don't even know what you are asking for. If you got covid, you can spread it without being aware you have it. So if you caught it and spoke to someone without a mask, you could infect them. Therefore by not wearing a mask you are endangering everyone around you. There is no way for you to know you are spreading it until it is too late.
Bottom line is you claim moral superiority and because you do my constitutional rights mean nothing to you. So don't you ever lecture anyone about how you have constitutional rights in the future for any reason.
this is just sad. It is a mask. It is not some horrible, obtrusive thing. you aren't being asked to give up a single thing. You are being asked to do the most basic preventative measures possible and you are whining about how it violates your rights. You think your right to be comfortable is more important than literally millions of lives. It is disturbing.
-->
@Death23
Negligent transmission of diseases has long been actionable. I see no reason why it should be any different with COVID-19.
because you can't prove it unless it's intentional, they either did or wanted to decriminalize not telling someone you have HIV before sex so.... The people who have intentionally coughed at someone or similar have been arrested because that's a threat even if they aren't infected.
if someone isn't infected how could they be arrested? right to privacy, HIPAA laws etc how would anyone know?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
if someone isn't infected how could they be arrested? right to privacy, HIPAA laws etc how would anyone know?
but this is exactly the point. The person cannot be certain whether they have covid or not. If we are only allowed to insist on masks for people who have been confirmed to have covid, then containment becomes impossible because lots of people can spread it without knowing they have it.
Wearing a mask is a reasonable requirement to save hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives. Especially since there is no way we could identify sick people and get a mask onto them before they infect others.
-->
@HistoryBuff
It could be an American thing. All European nations, despite being the hardest hit in the original outbreak in Italy and Spain, have far exceeded US in how they handled it despite almost 0 of them forcing mask-wearing in the 100% of the time manner that US now is. They're only making it mandatory when you're close to someone, on public transportation etc. Many shops in Europe are beginning to have screening for body temperature and there is proof of testing on some nationally-updated apps in Italy, France and Spain I believe (but they're not fully used yet even by the tested).
-->
@HistoryBuff
Then what is stopping the government from outlawing sex without condoms?
There is definitely a cultural aspect to it. If you can put rules in place that people will follow, you can have a nuanced response that is effective. However people like trump have turned what should be a very simple and easy preventative measure (wearing a mask) into a political issue. They see being asked to take even the tiniest of preventative measures as an all out attack on their rights. To them, hundreds of thousands of dead people is a small price to pay for "freedom".
Sorry this isn't directed at you as you still have me blocked.
-->
@Greyparrot
Then what is stopping the government from outlawing sex without condoms?
That is a consensual act by both parties. If you are choosing to have sex without a condom, you are knowingly taking the risk. But if you choose not to wear a mask, you are endangering everyone around you. Those people are not consenting to take that risk.
Additionally, STDs spread slowly. They require sexual contact in order to spread. The risk of a pandemic of STDs is pretty low. Covid on the other hand spreads very easily and quickly. Even if you did have consent from everyone around you to not wear a mask, those people in turn would endanger everyone around them, and so on and so on. It is a threat that can get out of control and cause massive damage in a short amount of time. So the threat to society is much higher than with STDs.
Those people are not consenting to take that risk.
How do you know that with 100% accuracy? Especially when 2 maskless people cross by on a public street.
Do the constitutional liberties of 99% of the population end where the fears of the 1% begin?
-->
@HistoryBuff
Sorry this isn't directed at you as you still have me blocked.
That's surprising since you are one of the most civil leftists on this site with very few ad-hom attacks at members.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Negligent transmission of diseases has long been actionable. I see no reason why it should be any different with COVID-19.because you can't prove it unless it's intentional, they either did or wanted to decriminalize not telling someone you have HIV before sex so.... The people who have intentionally coughed at someone or similar have been arrested because that's a threat even if they aren't infected.if someone isn't infected how could they be arrested? right to privacy, HIPAA laws etc how would anyone know?
Negligence is generally not intentional and can be proven in some cases. It would be difficult to prove negligent transmission of COVID-19 because it is difficult to prove when, where, and how someone caught the disease. What is very easy to prove is whether or not someone is wearing a mask.
Arresting people is simple. You have a policeman (or a citizen performing a citizen's arrest, as the case may be) who does that. Make it illegal not to wear a mask in certain situations and failure to obey that law is the actionable offense.
I think what this really boils down to is balancing the interest of preventing the spread of COVID-19 against the personal freedom of people to not wear masks. I don't see wearing masks as overly burdensome when weighed against the potential harm. They are inexpensive, take little time, don't cause any significant injuries that I'm wear of, and are easy to use.
-->
@HistoryBuff
But sex without condoms affects me. I have to either pay for their children if they can’t afford them or I have to pay for them to murder their baby via abortion. So I SHOULD have a say in what they are doing since it adversely affects me.
Plus the whole STD spreading thing....
-->
@Greyparrot
How do you know that with 100% accuracy? Especially when 2 maskless people cross by on a public street.
it seems like the opposite is the better question. How could you possibly know that everyone around you consents to being infected with covid?
Do the constitutional liberties of 99% of the population end where the fears of the 1% begin?
two things
1) it is much, much, much more than the fears of the 1%. This desease affects everyone and could easily kill alot of people.
2) It depends on what those liberties are and what you are beings asked to give up. If you are being asked to sacrifice your life, then that is a serious request. If you are being asked to take the most basic safety precautions imaginable, then that is not an issue at all in my opinion.
-->
@HistoryBuff
It's not reasonable to force people and violate their rights, healthy until proven ill.