Can we STOP exploiting our small towns for politics?

[Twilight Hue]

Sooo....wear two masks. Problem solved.

They make two way masks. Or even better still.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If someone doesn't wear a mask, it makes me question their hygienic and sanitary practices in general.

Be glad your living in the modern era. You would never survive back in the day.

 

[Heyo]

They make two way masks. Or even better still.

They have missed to add a pick-a-nick basket to the suit.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Good for you. You do know though, that psychopathic people tend to also be pathological liars, though, right?

Then I guess I should just ignore your number too.

So like, there's this interesting feature. You can put your mouse over a link, and don't even have to read it. It shows the link name. The link name for which could kill them goes to an article named
Gates Admits 700,000 People May Die from his Vaccine
But yeah, you say there's no proof, despite admission of guilt often being accepted as proof in a court of law.

There's also this funny thing called "accepting something at face value with no facts whatsoever to support it".

A headline does not a factual statement make. Case in point, when you actually see what he said, you realize that the article is outright lying. What he actually said was this:

“…The efficacy of vaccines in older people is always a huge challenge. It turns out the flu vaccine isn’t that effective in elderly people. Most of the benefit comes from younger people not spreading it because they’re vaccinated, and that benefits, on a community basis, the elderly.
“Here, we clearly need a vaccine that works in the upper age range because they’re most at risk of that. And doing that so you amp it up so it works in older people, and yet you don’t have side effects. If we have one in 10,000 side effects, that’s way more, 700,000 people who will suffer from that.
“So, really understanding the safety at gigantic scales across all age ranges – you know pregnant, male, female, undernourished, existing comorbidities – it’s very, very hard, and that actual decision of ‘okay, let’s go and give this vaccine to the entire world,’ governments will have to be involved because there will be some risk and indemnification needed before that can be decided on.”
SOURCE: https://archive.fo/L6rto​

So, not only did he not say that anybody would die, but the 700,000 number (which relates to any negative side-effects of a given vaccine, NOT mortality) was a purely hypothetical number he pulled out of the air to ILLUSTRATE the impact vaccines MAY have.

So, you uncritically accepted a headline of an article without bothering to even see if the very thing it claimed somebody said was actually said by them.

This took me about fifteen seconds to do.

​

When the creator of a "medicine" admits a drug/vaccine may kill 700k people, it's possibly even a low estimate. But one thing it definitely is, is proof the cure cannot be trusted.

Nope. This is just proof your source is a liar.

1/10 is an arbitrary number. Even 1/1000 of the world's population refusing to wear a mask/get a shot and starving would be unacceptable.

I would agree, but what's the alternative? We cannot allow that 1/1000 people to infect hundreds of thousands more just because of their own stubbornness. Why should other people be harmed just because they don't want to wear a mask or have an irrational fear of vaccines?

That this is not "it would be better in an ideal world for people to have their shots and wear masks" but rather "you will wear a mask/get a shot, or be denied service" is the worst type of tyranny.

The fact that you think that is "the worst type of tyranny" just shows how incredibly warped your view is.

It's called basic decency and hygiene. Putting in an basic level of effort to show that you care about the well-being of others is not tyranny. Businesses not wanting people in their stores who can infect their other customers with a potentially deadly disease is not tyranny. Asking you to make a very mild adjustment to your daily life for the sake of protecting the vulnerable is not tyranny.

And when the service is necessary such as food or water, they are really saying, "you will wear a mask/get a shot, or you will die." Join or die. Where have I heard that? Oh wait...

You still have access to essential services. You've even admitted that.

Suppose someone (as South Park famously parodied) told you that you had to vote, or you would be killed. Would the deprivation of your ability to choose whether or not to do something ever cause an objection? Would there be a line in the sand where someone cannot declare you do something?

Nobody is threatening you with death. You are threatening others with it. You are saying "I don't care if you die, as long as I don't have to wear a mask or have an injection". You are the one threatening.

This and that are two different things.

They're actually almost identical. If I went into a shop with a loaded weapon, chances are staff would turn me away because I would pose a very real threat to people in that store. When you show up to a store without a mask - barring some kind of medical exemption - you are being turned away for the exact same reason.

In Texas or Switzerland, you could probably be allowed in, but this is not relevant.

Are you seriously suggesting that I could walk into a bank in Texas or Switzerland with an assault weapon and not be met with resistance?

What is, is that there is a difference between not having what is prohibited and is a weapon... and being told you need something which is not clothes in order to patronize.

Not really. Businesses can decide not to serve you or not allow you entrance on any basis that is legal, including a justified belief that you represent a potential threat to their customers or staff.

If you were required to wear... a beanie for instance

or be denied service, would this be the same as being told not to bring a dangerous weapon into a store? Not in the least.

Because beanies don't protect people from potentially deadly diseases (as far as so am aware).

Did you forget that there is a pandemic?

By the way, as I said, there are laws against the wearing of masks. Laws which were broken by the very politicians forcing this.

Section (b) was added by the governor. This in fact makes the entire law meaningless.

No, it just provides an exemption to the law in the interest of public safety. Laws are generally made to be amendable and malleable like that. That's the whole point of them.

If I wrote a law which said "Everybody should drink at least one glass of milk a day", and then later I discovered that this lead to a lot of illness in the lactose intolerant community, so I added an exemption in the case of lactose intolerant people to the law, would you complain about the fact that lactose intolerant people are "getting away with breaking the law"?

Hopefully not, because you would realize that the change was done for the public good and wellbeing of the populace. That's the whole point of laws. If wearing face masks is proven to help prevent the spread of a deadly pandemic, I would expect any competent and remotely rational country to amends it's anti-mask laws to accommodate that because it's in th public interest. If, instead, they refused to do that and put the law above the lives and wellbeing of its citizens, that would be ACTUAL tyranny.

A required good requires you go and get it. What happens if they are become scarce yet you still must wear one? Musical chairs, that's what. Someone is left "without a chair" and is "out." Yet out in this case is dead, arrested, or harrassed.

Sure, availability could be a potential problem, which is why I support charities that ensure that poor, homeless or other vulnerable groups receive proper PPE and aid. It's not a perfect solution that everybody will instantly be able to access, but we are currently not in a perfect situation. We are in the middle of a pandemic which has killed 200,000 of your fellow citizens SO FAR.

With that fact in mind, your whining about masks just comes across less as a principled stand and more of just an entitled obstinateness.

 

[Father Heathen]

Be glad your living in the modern era. You would never survive back in the day.

How does me questioning your ability to wipe your own *** reflect my survivability in the past?

 

[Twilight Hue]

How does me questioning your ability to wipe your own *** reflect my survivability in the past?

I figured hygiene might have been a bit of a problem before the mask. Since you associated the two.

If someone doesn't wear a mask, it makes me question their hygienic and sanitary practices in general.

 

[Father Heathen]

I figured hygiene might have been a bit of a problem before the mask. Since you associated the two.

How are they not? Did your mom not teach you to wash your hands or cover your mouth when you cough or sneeze?

 

[Heyo]

This. Except I would say that no it doesn't depend on who owns it. That statue deserves to have all of its juicy bits showing. Unless the actual person decided to put a dress on thar Greek statue (doubtful as this looks like 20th century fashion), it's vandalism to change the way it looks.

I do think it depends on who owns it. Vandalism is defined as senseless destruction of others properties. But it is still barbarism to deface a cultural heritage and it can be argued that it is a common good independent from who owns the object.

And a non permanent change can create a piece of art in itself, like Christo wrapping things up. Or it can be used, by the creator or the owner, to make a PSA, like adding masks to objects. That's not vandalism (though it can be bad taste or barbarism).