over reach or tyranny?

Author: TheDredPriateRoberts

Posts

Total: 64
Topic's author
#1
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
I'm not sure where the line is but isn't this concerning?
NYC closes school w/o any cdc or science recommendations (remember believe the science/scientist?)
the various group limits (even though they violate their own orders)
asking neighbors to report other neighbors
closing bars at 5pm (11-25-20)

where's the scientific basis for all these "orders"?  What happened to listen to the scientist?
who and how are these orders made?
why?
feel free to add to the list, I'm sure there's a lot more examples.

#2
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Could you provide a source for information about the order?
Topic's author
#3
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
there's several in that one

even in the u.k. I guess

I'm in a bit of a rush so hopefully that helps.
#4
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
where's the scientific basis for all these "orders"?  What happened to listen to the scientist?
The scientific basis is rather clear. Less contact less spread. You hardly need a scientist to tell you this. The better question is whether it's justified.
Topic's author
#5
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
do governors have the ability to make medical edicts under penalty of law?  Afaik they can't create laws for starters.  
Less contact means what?  no more than 6 in hour private home?  but going to any store doesn't apply?  stop serving alcohol at 5pm but you can buy it at a store?

the hypocrisy imo invalidates and justification they attempt to use, but again I thought we were listening to the scientist?  are governors now scientist too? 
#6
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@dustryder
So, the science that says Nevada can have gatherings in casinos but not in churches is what? The so-called science that says you can pay money to clean the clouds?
#7
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Less contact means what?  no more than 6 in hour private home?  but going to any store doesn't apply?
In a store, they are, theoretically, enforcing social distancing and the wearing of masks. In a private home over dinner, odds are no one is doing that. 

stop serving alcohol at 5pm but you can buy it at a store?
because if you buy it and bring it to your home, you are drinking it without other people nearby. If you drink it in a bar or restaurant, you are much more likely to be in close proximity to others and spread the virus. Especially since as people drink more, they are less likely to follow the rules. 

the hypocrisy imo invalidates and justification they attempt to use, but again I thought we were listening to the scientist?  are governors now scientist too? 
doing these things have been recommended by scientists and doctors. Whether doctors believe that New York needs to implement those procedures right now, i don't know. But that they are good ideas during a spike in infection, absolutely. There is no question of that. 

#8
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@fauxlaw
So, the science that says Nevada can have gatherings in casinos but not in churches is what? The so-called science that says you can pay money to clean the clouds?
That would not be science. That would be policy.  You'll have to ask the lawmakers why they enacted such a thing.
#9
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@dustryder
I need not ask anyone anything, and I object to your insistence that it is my obligation. I'm merely saying that such decisions are clearly not made on the basis of a scientific principle, not to mention that no legislation can successfully limit human behavior. It can try, but it will, by percentage, fail. I'll further advise that, as Madison, said, if men we angels, we'd need no government, because we would already have learned that by conduct of correct principles, we can govern ourselves without need of the institution.
#10
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
I need not ask anyone anything, and I object to your insistence that it is my obligation. I'm merely saying that such decisions are clearly not made on the basis of a scientific principle,
New York is implementing policy to restrict public gatherings to save lives. this is backed up by doctors and science. Nevada has decided that protecting casinos is more important than the people who may die because of it. And if the casinos are able to properly implement safety precautions, such as mandatory masks and social distancing, they may be right that the benefits outweigh the cost. 

 not to mention that no legislation can successfully limit human behavior.
lol that is just obviously not true. If that were true, then there would be no point in laws because no one would listen to them anyway. You fine sometime a large enough sum of money for not wearing a mask, he will learn to put it on. 

as Madison, said, if men we angels, we'd need no government, because we would already have learned that by conduct of correct principles, we can govern ourselves without need of the institution.
this is well said. If people could be trusted to take proper safety precautions like wearing masks and social distancing, then the more restrictive measures wouldn't be needed. If people weren't idiots or assholes about this, we wouldn't need to close most businesses. But unfortunately, alot of people cannot be trusted to act responsibly. So we need government to step in. 

#11
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
Given just how hard NYC got turbo fucked during the first wave of Covid-19, I can kind of understand them being super, if not overly-cautious, when it comes to moving schools to online learning if it there are worries of another spike..... The population density in NYC alone would make a 3% spread rate there close to a 15% spread rate anywhere else. 

If some place like Virginia or Oregon pulled something like this then it would be quite the overreaction sure, but NYC? They NEED to be super cautious after how bad it got there the first time around.  
#12
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
New York is implementing
As if churches cannot prepare the same exact precautions? 

lol that is just obviously not true. 
It is not true that legislation cannot impose behavior? None so blind... they say. The prisons are full of people who are not deterred by the risk of capture, indictment, trial and conviction for criminal behavior. Therefore, legislation is not ever 100% effective in prevention. Laugh all you like. You laugh at yourself, which is why I maintaqin that lol = frightened little girl. They laugh, just like that.

If people weren't idiots or assholes about this
Thank yo making my point
#13
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
As if churches cannot prepare the same exact precautions? 
That depends. All the churches i have been to are designed to pack people close together on pews to pray. So you would have to limit capacity to like 20% in order to socially distance. If churches can show that they will do that and enforce strict mask requirements, then sure. 

It is not true that legislation cannot impose behavior? None so blind... they say. The prisons are full of people who are not deterred by the risk of capture, indictment, trial and conviction for criminal behavior. Therefore, legislation is not ever 100% effective in prevention.
ahh, but you've moved the goal posts. your statement was " no legislation can successfully limit human behavior." Now your statement is "legislation is not ever 100% effective in prevention." Those are not the same thing. One means that legislation cannot limit human behavior. The other is that legislation is not 100% effective at limiting human behavior. 

No legislation will ever be 100% effective. People are dumb and selfish. They will break the rules if they want to. But we know that if we don't put the rules in place, alot more people will do dumb and selfish things, like packing into a crowded space with no masks, thus spreading a deadly disease.

If people weren't idiots or assholes about this
Thank yo making my point
your point was that we need government legislation because otherwise stupid people will spread a disease? That seems to be the opposite of what you were intending, but seems to be the argument you made. 
#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You sound like one of those 2A nutjobs.

Don't you know tyranny can't exist in a racist country like America?

The government is just trying to save people. Trust them. They know exactly what to do. They listen to the science.

They don't care about their jobs, they care about the people.
#15
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@Greyparrot
@TheDredPriateRoberts
^
@pirate

When your parents or grandparents get COVID-19 your attitude about this mask stuff is going to change. I used to merely dislike the anti-mask folk, now I fucking hate them and I hope they die.
#16
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Death23
My parents had a good life. One of them is in a retirement home run by a conservative mayor, so I don't think she is in any real danger.

The other doesn't give a fuck and drinks and smokes and flips the bird at your Karen concerns.

Have you ever stayed at a retirement home for any extended length of time? It's fucking depressing. Everyone is just waiting around to die. Mostly alone and in a lot of pain. Covid is just one of a long list of concerns for them. But it's nice to know you can give a fuck about them for a year thinking Covid is what they really care about. 

Well done Karen. Well done. Have a lollipop.
#17
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Those are not the same thing. One means that legislation cannot limit human behavior. The other is that legislation is not 100% effective at limiting human behavior. 
One statement says, "...legislation cannot limit human behavior. "  If it's less than 100% effective in limiting behavior, which the second phrase stipulates regarding the first, then human behavior cannot be 100% controlled, which is the aim of legislation. However, creation of a penal system says that one branch of the government [the executive, via the justice department] does not believe the legislative branch is totally successful, or it would not have a penal system in place.  
#18
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@Greyparrot
TBH the sarcasm in your initial post was lost on me. Karen concerns? https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/8B3FC1F4-599C-4946-B43846E35E965CFF_source.png
#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Death23
Yeah, it's a fucking shame you can't manufacture a political policy to increase cancer deaths for a week so people can pretend to give a fuck about cancer for a while.

All Karens, when in doubt, trust authority to determine what to give a fuck about since they are incapable of manufacturing their own outrage.

Too much work for a Karen to actually spend any significant amount of time at a retirement home to see what the fuck is really going on since trusting authority is a full-time job for a Karen.
#20
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@Greyparrot
I heard China did it
#21
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Death23
I heard New Yorkers trusted authority.
#22
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
One statement says, "...legislation cannot limit human behavior. "  If it's less than 100% effective in limiting behavior, which the second phrase stipulates regarding the first, then human behavior cannot be 100% controlled, which is the aim of legislation.
No, if legislation is even 1% effective, then you have limited behavior. If it is less than 100% effective, then you have not limited all behavior. It would be nice if legislation could be 100% effective. But humans don't work that way. Virtually no legislation is 100% effective. 

However, creation of a penal system says that one branch of the government [the executive, via the justice department] does not believe the legislative branch is totally successful, or it would not have a penal system in place.  
everyone understands that legislation is not 100% effective. 

But all of this doesn't seem to support an argument. If there is no legislation, then even more people will do the thing you are trying to stop (in this case spreading a deadly disease). So even if you can't achieve 100% success, even if you got 60% success, you could save 10's, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives.

#23
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
even if you got 60% success, you could save 10's, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives.
Yes, but in the case of gun control via modification of the 2A, your achievement is at the cost of limiting people from exercising their 2A who have no intention of, and will not break the law. The problem with limited freedom is that a few are benefited by the control of fewer still.
#24
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes, but in the case of gun control via modification of the 2A, your achievement is at the cost of limiting people from exercising their 2A who have no intention of, and will not break the law. The problem with limited freedom is that a few are benefited by the control of fewer still.
ok. but thats a bit like saying that making a law enforcing the wearing of seatbelts is mandatory limits people's freedom by forcing them to drive a specific way. Those people have no intention of getting into a car accident. They may never get into a car accident. But car accidents do happen. So we force people to wear the proper safety equipment to save lives.

Most gun owners never intend to commit a crime with their gun. Some of them will end of up doing so (maybe road rage, maybe they get angry and kill their spouse etc). Some of them will lend their guns or have them stolen and then used to commit a crime. Some of them will have their guns used in accidents that will kill or maim people.

Just like seatbelts, society has the authority to limit people's rights to do certain things to protect lives and society as a whole. That could include banning certain weapons from being owned, requiring a background check so that people with a proclivity for violence can't access firearms, or requiring that every person must complete mandatory safety training courses so that they can prove their are able to safely utilize their firearm. 
#25
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
So we force people to wear the proper safety equipment to save lives.
It is still a matter of choice, isn't it? Just as the choice is there to use a weapon properly, or by our own whim. What's the difference? Our choice is the difference.
#26
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
So we force people to wear the proper safety equipment to save lives.
It is still a matter of choice, isn't it? Just as the choice is there to use a weapon properly, or by our own whim. What's the difference? Our choice is the difference.
no, it isn't. We make laws saying you must wear a seatbelt. You must operate a vehicle sober. You must do extensive training to ensure you can use your vehicle properly, etc. 

That isn't optional. If you fail to do any of these things you can be fined or arrested. It is not your choice whether you feel like getting a driver's license or not. If you want to drive a car, you will get a license. 

Guns should receive similar treatment. If you want to own a gun you should have to pass a background check. You should need to take a training course on how to safely use, store, clean etc, your weapons. To me that is really obvious stuff. If you can't pass a gun safety course, then you shouldn't have a gun. 

You should have the freedom to own a gun. But that right is not limitless. You should need to show you are responsible to use and store it safely. 



#27
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
What is it about this that you do not get? Yes, there is a choice. One will comply with the law established, or one does not. I never said that consequences are not also included with choice, but there is definitively a choice. We are not compelled to obey the law. As such, being a matter of choice, the law does not overwhelm human behavior. So, any gun law you produce thinking you have just solved a simple problem with control of behavior will not necessarily control human behavior to break the law at all. I have never said anything different than that.
#28
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
We are not compelled to obey the law.
that is what laws are for. You are compelled to follow them or you will be punished.

 So, any gun law you produce thinking you have just solved a simple problem with control of behavior will not necessarily control human behavior to break the law at all. I have never said anything different than that.
so your entire point is that some assholes wont follow the law? That is true of literally every single law. Why do you feel that pointing that out is at all useful? That goes without saying. It has little to no bearing on this conversation. 

#29
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
 It has little to no bearing on this conversation. 
I mention it because you totally discount that there is a choice to break the law. IT IS AS A CHOICE. You may discount it as a assholes's choice, but even assholes have choices. Get it? You choose to ignore my argument. Proved my point.
#30
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
I mention it because you totally discount that there is a choice to break the law. IT IS AS A CHOICE. You may discount it as a assholes's choice, but even assholes have choices. Get it? You choose to ignore my argument. Proved my point.

you don't seem to have made a point as far as I can tell. Some people will break the law. That is true of every law that has ever been passed. So what?

Are you arguing that unless we can get 100% compliance that we shouldn't bother with laws? That would mean the end of organized society. If you are just pointing out that some people will break the law, then sure, understood. And they will be fined or go to prison. At which point they will obey gun laws since they can't get a gun in prison.