Coronavirus 2019-nCoV

[Stickboy46]

There are no rights associated with wearing a mask or not wearing a mask. Rights precede masks. There is no right to drive. How can one be more or less a right, when none of them have anything to do with rights? Your statement was nonsensical. If you would like to clarify, I will reconsider.

You State that there are no rights granted to not wearing a mask. That's what I'm saying.

For driving there are clearly defined rules governing the right, but if you meet those, you have that right. They can be taken away if you no longer meet those.

Yet again, no where are you granted a right to not wear a mask explicitly.

Part of where we may be apart here is exactly how you define a "right". I'm using the dictionary.com definition of "Have a just or legal claim on something or on some action".

You have a legal claim to drive if you meet the conditions set forth. No where do you have a legal claim to not wear a mask. Now that could change as laws evolve from this but as of right now that isn't granted anywhere as far as I know. Please correct me with a link if I missed where that is.

[Stickboy46]

Have you been paying attention to mainstream media lately?

Name your reliable ones.

Or continue to deflect.

I've already stated that most aren't reliable.

My point was being that trying to prove that one set of data is unreliable by posting a piece from another biased unreliable site is dumb.

[wufan]

You State that there are no rights granted to not wearing a mask. That's what I'm saying.

For driving there are clearly defined rules governing the right, but if you meet those, you have that right. They can be taken away if you no longer meet those.

Yet again, no where are you granted a right to not wear a mask explicitly.

Part of where we may be apart here is exactly how you define a "right". I'm using the dictionary.com definition of "Have a just or legal claim on something or on some action".

You have a legal claim to drive if you meet the conditions set forth. No where do you have a legal claim to not wear a mask. Now that could change as laws evolve from this but as of right now that isn't granted anywhere as far as I know. Please correct me with a link if I missed where that is.

Rights don’t have anything to do with masks. You’re looking at this backwards. You are granted the right to free and open travel, and freedom of expression. Anything that would restrict that due to a mask is an ordinance or law. There are no and will be no “mask rights”. There will be free expression or travel, or regulations there in.

It’s the same with driving. There will be ordinances and laws that restrict or allow how you travel. Now, if you want to define those as rights, okay. How can you have more rights for one than the other? How would you even define that?

[Stickboy46]

Rights don’t have anything to do with masks. You’re looking at this backwards. You are granted the right to free and open travel, and freedom of expression. Anything that would restrict that due to a mask is an ordinance or law. There are no and will be no “mask rights”. There will be free expression or travel, or regulations there in.

It’s the same with driving. There will be ordinances and laws that restrict or allow how you travel. Now, if you want to define those as rights, okay. How can you have more rights for one than the other? How would you even define that?

Wearing a mask does not impede your ability to travel or expression. So that's not a valid argument. Unless you are also stating that it's a violation of rights to require people to wear clothes because places will not let them in unless they are wearing pants.

[C0|dB|00ded]

At this point I'm worried that the Fever-Stickboy fight is going to hide my attack on Doc.

These are perilous times folks!


T


...

[wufan]

Wearing a mask does not impede your ability to travel or expression.

It does if there are laws that require it. If there aren’t any laws, then again, it has nothing to do with rights, even in the way you defined it.

[Stickboy46]

It does if there are laws that require it. If there aren’t any laws, then again, it has nothing to do with rights, even in the way you defined it.

Yet again.. We define what a right is differently. I'm using the dictionary definition.

I'm not going to convince you otherwise of your stance so there is no point to this conversation.

[revenge_of_shocka_khan]

It does if there are laws that require it. If there aren’t any laws, then again, it has nothing to do with rights, even in the way you defined it.

You are sure inconsistent. On the one hand, you would seem to support law and order and a strong community (since you are definitely against the BLM protests). On the other hand, you seem to be somewhat supportive of anarchy, particularly when it fits your world view (when it comes, say, to wearing a mask in order to keep yourself and others safe).

To me, that's an interesting paradox. At what point is it OK to go against the wishes of the majority to make a socially defiant point? And what is the difference between that point and the people who are making a point against the leader of this country?

[ShockTalk]

There really aren't... That's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm trying to say that if you are trying to discredit one set of data by calling it unreliable by using a random unreliable website you just look dumb.

I think that's the point. Are you just accepting the data and it source at face value? You say there aren't really any news sources you use to say they are true or false. That's seems rather unreliable. Especially when you see someone like Fauci discredit cloth masks, then turnaround and say everyone should wear masks (his usually look like the "homemade" types). Even in the most visible news sources, they have waffled on stats and made corrections.

[ShockTalk]

You are sure inconsistent. On the one hand, you would seem to support law and order and a strong community (since you are definitely against the BLM protests). On the other hand, you seem to be somewhat supportive of anarchy, particularly when it fits your world view (when it comes, say, to wearing a mask in order to keep yourself and others safe).

To me, that's an interesting paradox. At what point is it OK to go against the wishes of the majority to make a socially defiant point? And what is the difference between that point and the people who are making a point against the leader of this country?

Who on here said they were against BLM protests? Peaceful, no problem. Not peaceful, it's a bad look on the protest and yes, I'm against rioting. Everyone (not really) wearing masks and protesting in large groups is fine by me. I may not think it is very responsible for community health reasons, but that's their choice. At the same time, not calling out large protest gatherings, but calling out non-protesting gatherings for health reasons is not right either.

[WuDrWu]

He has more of a right to drive (assuming he passes his tests and maintains that) than people have a right to not wear a mask. One is laid out in the laws of our lands with rules that if you meet them.. You are allowed to do it. No where are you granted the right to go into a business/event/indoor location without a mask on.

You cannot be that stupid. Again, nobody has a right to drive. But let's just say you meant to say he has more of a privilege to drive than I do to not wear a mask. Do you want to think about that again? Say it out loud and digest that for a minute. You absolutely CANNOT assume that I (for instance) am a threat to transmit the virus, therefore I must do everything to prevent that (ie wear a mask). That's a guilty until proven innocent. That's simply not how our country works.

Then read the Constitution. This nonsense is heading rapidly down the slippery slope of big brother making all the calls.

And by the way, nowhere did I say that businesses or homes don't have the choice to make masks mandatory within their property. If Walmart wants to make all their customers wear masks, GREAT. No problem. I have a problem with the government telling everyone they have to wear a mask. I have a problem with the government trying to police and punish the non-wearing of masks.

[wufan]

Yet again.. We define what a right is differently. I'm using the dictionary definition.

I'm not going to convince you otherwise of your stance so there is no point to this conversation.

I’m using your definition.

[WuDrWu]

At this point I'm worried that the Fever-Stickboy fight is going to hide my attack on Doc.

These are perilous times folks!


T


...

I'm getting to you in a minute, Smartass.

[C0|dB|00ded]

I'm getting to you in a minute, Smartass.

T


...

[C0|dB|00ded]

You cannot be that stupid. Again, nobody has a right to drive. But let's just say you meant to say he has more of a privilege to drive than I do to not wear a mask. Do you want to think about that again? Say it out loud and digest that for a minute. You absolutely CANNOT assume that I (for instance) am a threat to transmit the virus, therefore I must do everything to prevent that (ie wear a mask). That's a guilty until proven innocent. That's simply not how our country works.

Then read the Constitution. This nonsense is heading rapidly down the slippery slope of big brother making all the calls.

And by the way, nowhere did I say that businesses or homes don't have the choice to make masks mandatory within their property. If Walmart wants to make all their customers wear masks, GREAT. No problem. I have a problem with the government telling everyone they have to wear a mask. I have a problem with the government trying to police and punish the non-wearing of masks.

You're cool then if China attacks Hawaii and the government asks the states to ask their citizenry if they'd perhaps like to go defend Hawaii?

We are currently being attacked by Covid-19 (a case could be made that it's China attacking by proxy due to incompetence or worse). The government isn't forcing us to sign up for anti-viral experimentation. They just want us to wear a ******* mask. Yes, it's Big Brother, but these are not standard social/political issues. This is a temporary resignment of our liberty to be mask free so that we may keep our loved ones and those at risk (like yourself) ALIVE.

It is also to keep from disrupting the economy any further. Let me tell you one thing: if this virus comes back with a NYC vengeance in other parts of this country, you are going to see a depression like never before. People will NOT leave their homes. And if we keep ****ing around and dragging this out, we are risking a potentially dangerous mutation. This ****er could could go full retard in a moment's notice. It is absolutely biologically possible. It would then bring a swift end to the pandemic as people would die en masse, but it would be a chilling final chapter to this **** saga.

Please wear your mask and do so with a smile on your face while encouraging others. Many people are very self-conscious about wearing them. I know my father was.


T


...