Pipe-Dream Legislation

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
@Greg the Grouper I am tired of dealing with strawman arguments from you as you aren't even addressing the premise and the conditions of the premise reading your responses.

Also I am tired of the children in this forum throwing insults and not actually adding creatively to the conversation this is entirely pointless.

For a forum labeled "League of Reason" it sure doesn't add up tot the name.

What a crock of self-serving shite.

Your clownery has failed abjectly here precisely because you have no ability to engage in, or comprehension of, reasoned discourse.
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
Just the flu guys - what's all the fuss about?


Life expectancy in the United States declined by a year-and-a-half during 2020, according to health officials.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data showed the average US lifespan dropped from 78.8 years in 2019 to 77.3 years in 2020.
 

n0b0dy 0f n0te

Well-Known Member
I think that's about to plummet. Biggest demographic for deaths at the moment is unvaccinated. In the US, a significant proportion of that is antivaxxers. ICUs are almost entirely populated by the young atm, and yesterday we hit saturation on paediatric ICU beds in the UK.

This is about to get a whole lot worse in ways people haven't prepared themselves for, because they've entirely overlooked that no statistic about a virus is static. δ is smashing young people, and the children are almost entirely unvaccinated in a partially partially immune population.

Welcome to Petridish One.
 

Greg the Grouper

Active Member
@hackenslash

Is there some study or article you're getting this from? If so, would you mind pointing me to it?

I've got an 11 year old nephew, and I imagine this is something his father would be interested in knowing.
 

n0b0dy 0f n0te

Well-Known Member
I'm getting most of it from following the medsci peeps on twitter. There was one news piece, which I'll trawl for again. I've asked around about studies, but this is all from on the ground in hospitals in a very much rapidly evolving situation.

This isn't stuff I'm bookmarking yet until there's white literature available to update the blog piece with. BRB
 

Dragan Glas

Well-Known Member
Greetings,

That isn't true. Nothing is going to happen to you if you play loud music during the day. Look up statutes and tell me where the law says you are not allowed to do this. The exception obviously being hours of the night when you should be able to get decent sleep without being woken up by loud music or things that are presumably preventable and optional.
This doesn't make sense.

If there're no laws limiting noise, how can you then prevent noise during night-time?

Either laws exist or they don't.

There are three possibilities:
1) No laws regarding noise - anything goes;
2) Laws limiting noise during the night - say from 8pm-8am;
£) Laws limiting noise throughout - 365/7/24.

In Texas, there are laws at various levels, from ordinances in cities, etc., up to a state law regarding disorderly conduct, which covers noise. [1]

Anyone breaching noise levels - specified decibel levels depending on the area in which you live - will result in a warning from LEA and/or a judge, followed by legal consequences if the warning is ignored.

Ok so if there is a religion in existence that say codifies the religious right to carry weapons into court that conflicts between religious protections, the second amendment and regular law. You cannot carry firearms being involved in a trial. They are in direct conflict with the 2nd and the 1st and established statute.
If the government prohibits you from carrying firearms into government buildings, then you can't claim exemptions under religious grounds - otherwise you're violating the 1A.

Not really you would have to be continually dangerous in order to have your driver's license pulled. Normally the police don't even radar for speeds anymore. Vehicular fatalities outpace so called the epidemic of gun violence yet the individual is still highly protected in revoking a PRIVILEGE to drive. So even in the standards of privileges compared to rights the individual is still allowed to be dangerous at the expense of others.
Your analogy is flawed.

Comparing driving a vehicle with infecting others with a disease is not the same thing, as has been pointed out to you.

I'm not vaccinated and I still don't care. The odds of Corona virus killing me is about the same as the flu considering other conditions of how the illness generally attacks people. I am relatively young NOT among the age group at risk generally. I don't have any preexisting condition that would make the effects of Corona virus grant more odds in killing me. The government allows this because you can freely choose to associate and forcing vaccinations against will would be considered tyrannical and is technically illegal in the states.
Your attitude doesn't surprise me. [2]

If someone with HIV spits on you, they can be arrested and charged for attempted murder.

Why would you think someone with a contagious disease that can kill you is exempt?

In a recent report, the vast majority of those who've died from CoViD in the US - over 99% - were unvaccinated.

The primary purpose of government is public health and safety - the only tool governments have against outbreaks is public vaccination programs. If they are unable to do this, then you're going to have lots of needless deaths.

What about the much-touted "personal responsibility"? Do you not think you have a duty of care to your community to get vaccinated to protect both yourself and your neighbours?

I never argued this. I literally argued about likelihoods young = less old = more probable to be killed involving Corona.
So you're arguing that the young are more likely to be killed by CoViD? That the elderly and other immuno-compromised people are not more likely to die?

Again, you're not making sense.

Yes because American law protects that ability. If we didn't have such protections then mandatory vaccinations would likely be seen.
And you don't think there's a limit to personal freedom?

That one person can endanger, not just one person, but many with impunity?

That there's no point where the community says - or even can say - "enough is enough"?

China did it and they have no protections for the individual or very few. They literally welded people into their homes. Not the case in the U.S..
This is based on a tabloid report of a instance where a local government welded a door closed. It was realised that it was a over-reaction, and the welding was removed. [3]

In China, communities police their neighbours to ensure that infected people don't wander round the place except to buy food and medicines. [4]

Ok? Still shows that you can legally do this in the U.S. because it is protected to have your will considered as being part of American ideals where the individual is important over the group generally.

that isn't the case in the U.S.. Maskers argue this and yet in most places other than tyrannical nanny states like say CA or NY you can't force people to wear masks it is literally unconstitutional and goes against the paradigm of the group over the individual even if you assume that Corona is massive problem which I don't think it is given young people demographics and who generally falls to Corona virus.
There are limits to individual freedom - particularly where the individual's actions endanger the community.

Do you think you would be allowed to release a deadly disease in your neighbourhood? What if it weren't deadly? Do you think there's a point at which the level of threat to the public would be considered too great, at which point you'd be prevented from doing so?

Ultimately. the group takes precedence over the individual.

Sure that is not in contention here. A majority of a Minority is basically what a Republic is. Most people don't vote and likely wouldn't vote even if pure democracy.
Quite possibly.

I often wonder if voting were changed so that, if you want change, you have to vote for it, otherwise the status quo remains.

That way, if only a minority vote for something, it doesn't become law - you must have over 50% of eligible voters to vote for it, which means even more people would have to come out and vote.

That way you'd get more engagement from citizens.

Kindest regards,

James

Kindest regards,

James
 

BoganUSAFFLClerk

Active Member
If there're no laws limiting noise, how can you then prevent noise during night-time?
Yes I already covered an example when the law prohibits loud noises. Its by time if in residential or by decibel in say commercial areas.
If the government prohibits you from carrying firearms into government buildings, then you can't claim exemptions under religious grounds - otherwise you're violating the 1A.
There are specific sects of codified Christianity where firearms are part of religious rights. If you cannot carry into a federal building then it is a violation of the 1st and the 2nd amendment.
Comparing driving a vehicle with infecting others with a disease is not the same thing, as has been pointed out to you.
Sure but operating a vehicle in under the conditions listed is MORE dangerous than Corona virus related to the conversation.
If someone with HIV spits on you, they can be arrested and charged for attempted murder. Why would you think someone with a contagious disease that can kill you is exempt?
That is deliberately trying to communicate a disease that shuts down your immune system and is far more dangerous to an average person across the board regardless of age. Not getting vaccinated is nowhere near a deliberate attempted to infect someone else. That is a ridiculous example.

Also being able to be charged for something doesn't equate to them being commonly charged for something. If I don't know the person and I catch that from said person then what are the odds that person actually faces charges?
In a recent report, the vast majority of those who've died from CoViD in the US - over 99% - were unvaccinated.
Vast majority of those cases were the elderly and/or those with preexisting conditions. I have no such other status that would make it likely for me to contract Covid even if someone did spit on me. It is a far greater likelihood I contract HIV if spit on compared to Corona the risks are significantly higher.

HIV goes into full blown AIDS and there is no cure. Corona you will eventually get over it in the majority of cases that involve Corona assuming you are otherwise healthy.
The primary purpose of government is public health and safety - the only tool governments have against outbreaks is public vaccination programs.

If they are unable to do this, then you're going to have lots of needless deaths.
We do have vaccination programs and people can get vaccines supposing they choose to. You cannot require through job or governmental requirements to get vaccination.
What about the much-touted "personal responsibility"? Do you not think you have a duty of care to your community to get vaccinated to protect both yourself and your neighbours?
Personal responsibility refers to my deliberate actions or specific negligence not the behavior of a virus. It isn't like I am going out to seek the virus get infected purely to transmit to others. It is entirely different considering personal responsibility and referencing your direct intent or lack of competency relative to your intent.
So you're arguing that the young are more likely to be killed by CoViD? That the elderly and other immuno-compromised people are not more likely to die?
No the quote says young = less Old = more.
And you don't think there's a limit to personal freedom?
There is but obviously the disagreement is where the line is.
That one person can endanger, not just one person, but many with impunity?

That there's no point where the community says - or even can say - "enough is enough"?
You are aware of the state of affairs in regards to firearms here right? Obviously we allow the carriage of firearms. People direct will and their intents relating to negligence is serious but until you violate safety rules or actually are involved in sustaining legal damages you cannot be prosecuted under misguided laws on public safety.

We do have our own points where the community says enough is enough. More and more people agree with the concept of capital punishment against repeat violent offenders. They see the pattern of people committing violent crimes being released and them committing basically the same crimes repeatedly. People show more and more agreement with outright killing such offenders under public safety.
This is based on a tabloid report of a instance where a local government welded a door closed. It was realised that it was a over-reaction, and the welding was removed.
Yet the law allowed for this to happen which is clearly tyrannical. If you were to attempt such a thing in the U.S. you'd likely be shot even if you are a uniformed police officers attempting to do this. U.S. law allows for this even.
In China, communities police their neighbours to ensure that infected people don't wander round the place except to buy food and medicines.
I would argue that is tyrannical. Here we do have the right to freedom of movement. You cannot restrict the rights of citizens and tell them that they may not travel locally within the U.S..
Do you think you would be allowed to release a deadly disease in your neighbourhood? What if it weren't deadly? Do you think there's a point at which the level of threat to the public would be considered too great, at which point you'd be prevented from doing so?
Do you honestly believe that me for example walking around purposefully shaking hands and drinking out of other people's drinks and/or finding ways to purposefully infect other people is the same as being unvaccinated or not wearing a mask? If you seriously think this then I can't help you that is where the argument ends.
Ultimately. the group takes precedence over the individual.
Totally disagree. The very fact that the U.S. government cannot act to implement so called public safety measures against Corona virus disproves this. It is ILLEGAL to mandate vaccinations it was ILLEGAL to even compel wearing masks or banning of public gatherings. That is not the case here the individual is over the group.
I often wonder if voting were changed so that, if you want change, you have to vote for it, otherwise the status quo remains.

That way, if only a minority vote for something, it doesn't become law - you must have over 50% of eligible voters to vote for it, which means even more people would have to come out and vote.

That way you'd get more engagement from citizens.
I would have to wonder the competency of those voting.

People voting on societal grandstanding such as the overbearing nature of the LBGT crowed group think is ridiculous.

At least as it stands now I believe the minority of Americans that vote are more competent than the majority of Americans that would vote. The minority requires you to be less lazy and actually have personal incentive to vote.

Some processes actually involve attending hearings on the topic before you can even cast your vote let alone ignoring the information and voting regardless such as voting for commissioners that literally run unopposed and win by default.

People ignorant on the topic and voting purely for the sake of more voting does not make a good Democracy.
 

Dragan Glas

Well-Known Member
Greetings,

Yes I already covered an example when the law prohibits loud noises. Its by time if in residential or by decibel in say commercial areas.
You are being quite disingenuous here.

When I said "try driving up and down the street where you live playing loud music", you said "nothing would happen", and challenged me to show statutes relating to noise. You also claimed - in the same part of your reply - "The exception obviously being hours of the night when you should be able to get decent sleep without being woken up by loud music or things that are presumably preventable and optional", clearly contradicting yourself: either "nothing would happen" or *something* would, which would necessitate laws relating to noise.

When I pointed this out, and cited statutes that clearly show a 24/7/365 legislation against noise, you now try and claim that that was what you claimed/meant all along; that something would happen despite explicitly stating that "nothing would happen".

Others have already noted, and pointed out to you, your tendency to reinterpret what you say as you go along. This is yet another instance of this tendency of yours.

There are specific sects of codified Christianity where firearms are part of religious rights. If you cannot carry into a federal building then it is a violation of the 1st and the 2nd amendment.
Which do you think takes precedence?

Sure but operating a vehicle in under the conditions listed is MORE dangerous than Corona virus related to the conversation.
You still seem to be continuing in your attempts to qualify claims rather than acknowledge that maybe - just maybe - you might have indulged in yet another "lazy argument".

That is deliberately trying to communicate a disease that shuts down your immune system and is far more dangerous to an average person across the board regardless of age. Not getting vaccinated is nowhere near a deliberate attempted to infect someone else. That is a ridiculous example.
Yes, I agree, that would be a deliberate attempt to infect someone with a dangerous disease.

However, at what point does a "I don't care" attitude to a contagious, and potentially fatal, disease become similarly deliberate?

Also being able to be charged for something doesn't equate to them being commonly charged for something. If I don't know the person and I catch that from said person then what are the odds that person actually faces charges?
Perhaps not - it depends on whether the person knows they are infected yet goes about the place possibly with the express intention of infecting as many people as they can.

Take a mental step back and consider this for a moment:

You take precautions against others who might randomly assault you by wearing body armour and concealed-carrying a gun (and possibly a knife) - yet you don't take any precautions against others who might "randomly assault" you with a contagious/lethal virus by getting vaccinated and wearing a mask.

It makes no sense.

Vast majority of those cases were the elderly and/or those with preexisting conditions. I have no such other status that would make it likely for me to contract Covid even if someone did spit on me. It is a far greater likelihood I contract HIV if spit on compared to Corona the risks are significantly higher.
Would you kindly provide a citation for that claim: that you're more likely to contract HIV rather than CoViD if spat on?

HIV goes into full blown AIDS and there is no cure. Corona you will eventually get over it in the majority of cases that involve Corona assuming you are otherwise healthy.
Even if you contract HIV, it doesn't necessarily mean that you'll become HIV+ - even if it does, it could take decades. AIDS itself can be prevented through a cocktail of medication.

With CoViD, you cannot be certain that you won't develop the severe form of it, and eventually die - regardless of whether you are otherwise healthy or not. "Healthy" people have contracted it and died. A recent study indicates that those who do recover from CoViD may suffer from "significantly reduced intelligence". [1] What if, due to neurological damage, you were unable to handle a firearm or lost trigger-control? How would that affect your enjoyment of your hobby, not to mention your livelihood? The only protection is a vaccine and wearing masks even when vaccinated, as a recent study shows with the Delta variant. [2]

We do have vaccination programs and people can get vaccines supposing they choose to. You cannot require through job or governmental requirements to get vaccination.
Although one may be allowed to make such a choice whilst uptake of vaccines is good, if there is low numbers of vaccinations, mandatory vaccinations can - and would - be implemented.

Who do you think would be blamed for needless deaths? Those who didn't get vaccinated? Or the government?

People would blame the latter for not doing enough. And, invariably, the ones who'll complain the most are those who objected to the government interfering in their rights in the first place.

No government can stand back and let people die needlessly.

The Swedish government took this approach to reach herd immunity through trial-and-error - they've since admitted they were wrong.

Personal responsibility refers to my deliberate actions or specific negligence not the behavior of a virus. It isn't like I am going out to seek the virus get infected purely to transmit to others. It is entirely different considering personal responsibility and referencing your direct intent or lack of competency relative to your intent.
Your being aware that being unvaccinated means you are a potential stepping-stone for the virus to infect others is the first thing that should be uppermost in your mind.

Secondly, the fact that you're unvaccinated means that, should you become infected, you become a breeding-ground for new variants - quite possibly more contagious and/or lethal.

These should result in your realising that you should get vaccinated (and wear a mask as appropriate) - for your own personal safety and others with whom you come into contact.

No the quote says young = less Old = more.
So, you imply that more young people will die, as against older people.

What are you not getting with what you're saying?

Or is this yet another example of your attempting to reinterpret what you say/mean?

There is but obviously the disagreement is where the line is.
When the community decides that the individual is a threat - that's not the individual's decision.

You are aware of the state of affairs in regards to firearms here right? Obviously we allow the carriage of firearms. People direct will and their intents relating to negligence is serious but until you violate safety rules or actually are involved in sustaining legal damages you cannot be prosecuted under misguided laws on public safety.

We do have our own points where the community says enough is enough. More and more people agree with the concept of capital punishment against repeat violent offenders. They see the pattern of people committing violent crimes being released and them committing basically the same crimes repeatedly. People show more and more agreement with outright killing such offenders under public safety.
So, again, you acknowledge that the group takes precedence over the individual.

The death penalty - just like with immigrants and violent crime - has no correlation with murder rates; as such, it's pointless - the only reason it's used is because politicians are afraid of appearing "soft on crime".

Yet the law allowed for this to happen which is clearly tyrannical. If you were to attempt such a thing in the U.S. you'd likely be shot even if you are a uniformed police officers attempting to do this. U.S. law allows for this even.
No, it didn't - a local official over-reacted, and his superiors corrected the over-reach. This is no different than in America where such things happen.

I would argue that is tyrannical. Here we do have the right to freedom of movement. You cannot restrict the rights of citizens and tell them that they may not travel locally within the U.S..
It's the community that does this - neighbours, officials, etc. Chinese culture - as with the East in general - is different than in the West: the group takes precedence over the individual for historical reasons.

Do you honestly believe that me for example walking around purposefully shaking hands and drinking out of other people's drinks and/or finding ways to purposefully infect other people is the same as being unvaccinated or not wearing a mask? If you seriously think this then I can't help you that is where the argument ends.
In the context of the scenario I gave, if the threat of not getting vaccinated and wearing a mask were considered to be as great a risk to the community, then they would be on a par.

Totally disagree. The very fact that the U.S. government cannot act to implement so called public safety measures against Corona virus disproves this. It is ILLEGAL to mandate vaccinations it was ILLEGAL to even compel wearing masks or banning of public gatherings. That is not the case here the individual is over the group.
If the threat-level is sufficient, then you will see mandatory vaccination programs being implemented.

The fact that Americans are reluctant and/or belligerent enough not to get vaccinated shows a certain level of ignorance.

Not to appear to wish ill on anyone, perhaps if the unvaccinated die through ever-increasingly contagious and lethal variants, you'll see a sea-change in Americans' attitudes to mandatory vaccination programs.

I would have to wonder the competency of those voting.

People voting on societal grandstanding such as the overbearing nature of the LBGT crowed group think is ridiculous.

At least as it stands now I believe the minority of Americans that vote are more competent than the majority of Americans that would vote. The minority requires you to be less lazy and actually have personal incentive to vote.

Some processes actually involve attending hearings on the topic before you can even cast your vote let alone ignoring the information and voting regardless such as voting for commissioners that literally run unopposed and win by default.

People ignorant on the topic and voting purely for the sake of more voting does not make a good Democracy.
I'm not sure what you mean as regards the "societal grandstanding" in relation to the LGBT community.

If people want change, my idea necessitates their turning out to vote - which implies that they've informed themselves on the issue(s). One could even necessitate attending hearings, etc, to become fully informed before voting.

As to your final comment, isn't that what happens now? Where voters vote Republican or Democrat along party-affiliation lines, rather than on the merits of this or that issue?

I believe that my idea would be somewhat better in terms of civic engagement.

Kindest regards,

James
 

BoganUSAFFLClerk

Active Member
You are being quite disingenuous here.

When I said "try driving up and down the street where you live playing loud music", you said "nothing would happen", and challenged me to show statutes relating to noise. You also claimed - in the same part of your reply - "The exception obviously being hours of the night when you should be able to get decent sleep without being woken up by loud music or things that are presumably preventable and optional", clearly contradicting yourself: either "nothing would happen" or *something* would, which would necessitate laws relating to noise.

When I pointed this out, and cited statutes that clearly show a 24/7/365 legislation against noise, you now try and claim that that was what you claimed/meant all along; that something would happen despite explicitly stating that "nothing would happen".

Others have already noted, and pointed out to you, your tendency to reinterpret what you say as you go along. This is yet another instance of this tendency of yours.
No there isn't 24/7/365 statutes relating to noise. You are being disingenuous here there is no absolute ban on noise regardless of local or law. You are in fact allowed to be noisy. If you are after an hour range even in residential neighborhoods you can blast loud music or work on your house or mow your lawn etc without reprisal from the government.
Which do you think takes precedence?
In that particular instance none take precedence both are active if you are allowed to carry pretty much whenever on religious grounds then the 1st and the 2nd are upheld.
You still seem to be continuing in your attempts to qualify claims rather than acknowledge that maybe - just maybe - you might have indulged in yet another "lazy argument".
More people have died due to the use of vehicles compared to the existence of Corona virus. A vehicle when traveling at intended speeds kill people.
Yes, I agree, that would be a deliberate attempt to infect someone with a dangerous disease.

However, at what point does a "I don't care" attitude to a contagious, and potentially fatal, disease become similarly deliberate?
Incidentals and extraneities are not deliberate actions.
Perhaps not - it depends on whether the person knows they are infected yet goes about the place possibly with the express intention of infecting as many people as they can.

Take a mental step back and consider this for a moment:

You take precautions against others who might randomly assault you by wearing body armour and concealed-carrying a gun (and possibly a knife) - yet you don't take any precautions against others who might "randomly assault" you with a contagious/lethal virus by getting vaccinated and wearing a mask.

It makes no sense.
I have worked around people tested positive for Corona virus and haven't caught Corona virus with symptoms. I have been attacked with weapons. It is a difference in practical perception of threat. Obviously if Corona hasn't done any damage to me but people have attacked me with weapons then obviously the more credible threat is those of weapons especially considering the rate of violent crime relative to Corona virus cases in my locale. Armor GUARANTEEES not being able to be affected in that area a MASK does not. Your argument is totally false equivalence in spades.
Would you kindly provide a citation for that claim: that you're more likely to contract HIV rather than CoViD if spat on?
This is an assumption based on HIV/AIDS having no cure and Covid having cures. The general argument if I purposefully choose to help spread a disease without a cure being more dangerous than deliberately spreading a disease with cure. That is the only argument I making regarding this context.
Even if you contract HIV, it doesn't necessarily mean that you'll become HIV+ - even if it does, it could take decades. AIDS itself can be prevented through a cocktail of medication.

With CoViD, you cannot be certain that you won't develop the severe form of it, and eventually die - regardless of whether you are otherwise healthy or not. "Healthy" people have contracted it and died. A recent study indicates that those who do recover from CoViD may suffer from "significantly reduced intelligence". [1] What if, due to neurological damage, you were unable to handle a firearm or lost trigger-control? How would that affect your enjoyment of your hobby, not to mention your livelihood? The only protection is a vaccine and wearing masks even when vaccinated, as a recent study shows with the Delta variant. [2]
Vaccine treatments also have a risk of complications. What if I develop the same limitation due to the vaccine? There have been reports of people taking the vaccine and then them experiencing worse symptoms of Corona virus after taking the vaccine.

If I have a low chance of contracting and having symptoms of Corona to begin with why would I take the risk of a vaccine? Why go through taking the vaccine taking the extra risk and feeling like crap after taking? Where do you take the vaccine along with other people why would I put up with that?
Although one may be allowed to make such a choice whilst uptake of vaccines is good, if there is low numbers of vaccinations, mandatory vaccinations can - and would - be implemented.

Who do you think would be blamed for needless deaths? Those who didn't get vaccinated? Or the government?

People would blame the latter for not doing enough. And, invariably, the ones who'll complain the most are those who objected to the government interfering in their rights in the first place.

No government can stand back and let people die needlessly.

The Swedish government took this approach to reach herd immunity through trial-and-error - they've since admitted they were wrong.
People would choose to ignore those vaccines as they do now. The low numbers in certain areas is why people choose not to take the vaccine.

The general distrust after the inconsistent advertised results of Covid related measures like Covid testing is partly why people don't want to take vaccines which are largely untested compared to other medications that have been around longer and the mixed results of the vaccine.

For example going in for testing, being asked to wait another 3 hours for my brother, him saying fuck this I'm leaving and then receiving a test result of POSITIVE for Corona virus without even being swabbed is highly suspect and untrustworthy. Why would anyone not have suspicion if they are aware of similar instances of testing or other measures against Corona virus?

Elon Musk getting two completely different results of Covid after taking such a test and getting different results per nostril is ridiculous and unreliable.

Corona virus killed them correct? Supposing the information pertaining to China manufacturing this disease is accurate then you would blame the origin. You don't blame people for extraneities you judge them on their own actions.
Your being aware that being unvaccinated means you are a potential stepping-stone for the virus to infect others is the first thing that should be uppermost in your mind.

Secondly, the fact that you're unvaccinated means that, should you become infected, you become a breeding-ground for new variants - quite possibly more contagious and/or lethal.

These should result in your realising that you should get vaccinated (and wear a mask as appropriate) - for your own personal safety and others with whom you come into contact.
No not really considering the full perspective of potential threats in your own environment. It doesn't make sense to give priority to a vaccine compared to you being exposed to people constantly pan handling for money and issuing threats especially after being personally attack by a toothless meth addict at 3 am in downtown Knoxville.

A dude with a knife threatening you or any such similar person is a far greater priority than a disease I most likely won't get or even show symptoms for.

Other people as a majority in my locale do NOT wear masks. They don't deem Covid as a threat and if they do the general consensus is tat they have preexisting conditions and otherwise NOT healthy. There is no requirement to do so and even when the mandate was in effect it was illegal and not law and people decided not to wear masks regardless.

Even with private businesses having posted mask mandates routinely the situation is the vast majority of people do not wear them the customers nor the employees.

Seems like people have chosen to take on the extra risk and the rights of the individual to choose have been upheld.
So, you imply that more young people will die, as against older people.

What are you not getting with what you're saying?

Or is this yet another example of your attempting to reinterpret what you say/mean?
Literally the opposite of what was said. Young = Less. Old = More. All I did was add periods, spacing and capitalization.
When the community decides that the individual is a threat - that's not the individual's decision.
Ambiguous. I mean society is made up of individuals and communities are made up of individuals. I don't need counsel to determine who is a threat so long as I stay within the confines of the definition. In the moment no I don't need the community to decide I decide. The community isn't even there and wasn't there when I was attacked.
So, again, you acknowledge that the group takes precedence over the individual.
The community has upheld lethal force against individual and groups of individuals. I don't know why this is important or unique. If I shoot multiple people presenting a threat against myself would that be individual over the group? If I can smoke in a public place is that the individual over the group? I don't see the importance of this as it is getting more and more subtle or closer to semantics.
The death penalty - just like with immigrants and violent crime - has no correlation with murder rates; as such, it's pointless - the only reason it's used is because politicians are afraid of appearing "soft on crime".
You don't mention the logistics of the death penalty and why it is ineffective. Remember my proposal and how it is completely different to reality?
No, it didn't - a local official over-reacted, and his superiors corrected the over-reach. This is no different than in America where such things happen.
The Chinese issue a passport to be able to leave their homes once every two days. It was legal to weld those people in there for two days. The rest of the time it is illegal to leave your home any more frequently than that.
It's the community that does this - neighbours, officials, etc. Chinese culture - as with the East in general - is different than in the West: the group takes precedence over the individual for historical reasons.
So this an example of the individual over the group. In the U.S. this is literal opposite but I don't really remember why we are arguing about this. I fail to see the importance of the argument.
In the context of the scenario I gave, if the threat of not getting vaccinated and wearing a mask were considered to be as great a risk to the community, then they would be on a par.
But they are not. Most people here don't even wear masks.
If the threat-level is sufficient, then you will see mandatory vaccination programs being implemented.

The fact that Americans are reluctant and/or belligerent enough not to get vaccinated shows a certain level of ignorance.

Not to appear to wish ill on anyone, perhaps if the unvaccinated die through ever-increasingly contagious and lethal variants, you'll see a sea-change in Americans' attitudes to mandatory vaccination programs.
Given the numbers concerning firearms obviously the group recognizes the rights of individuals over the community. It stands to reason they will uphold the same ideals in my locale if not in more parts of the U.S.. These are American ideals.
I'm not sure what you mean as regards the "societal grandstanding" in relation to the LGBT community.

If people want change, my idea necessitates their turning out to vote - which implies that they've informed themselves on the issue(s). One could even necessitate attending hearings, etc, to become fully informed before voting.

As to your final comment, isn't that what happens now? Where voters vote Republican or Democrat along party-affiliation lines, rather than on the merits of this or that issue?

I believe that my idea would be somewhat better in terms of civic engagement.
The "Victim Olympics" is high in the leftist community. The LGBT crowd is no different. Sometimes I even think that such people are purely trendies and don't actually believe any of it, Grant me extra power over someone else because of feelings. Suggest that dissenting opinion on the topic shouldn't be allowed.

Do you honestly believe most people are going to educate themselves on the topic? People who wish to take on the extra effort will make the extra effort to get educated on it.

Yes and No. I already argued on the topic of Omnibus bills and frankly people get confused and lazy and just want to vote for people or politicians they know in order to lead them and they sometimes think they ultimately know what is best for them. Highly depends.

I think it would be far more likely that you see less change politically as 50% of eligible vote would make it harder to pass new laws not easier.
 

he_who_is_nobody

Well-Known Member
More and more people agree with the concept of capital punishment against repeat violent offenders. They see the pattern of people committing violent crimes being released and them committing basically the same crimes repeatedly. People show more and more agreement with outright killing such offenders under public safety.

Citation needed.

I have worked around people tested positive for Corona virus and haven't caught Corona virus with symptoms.

Sure pal.

Vaccine treatments also have a risk of complications. What if I develop the same limitation due to the vaccine? There have been reports of people taking the vaccine and then them experiencing worse symptoms of Corona virus after taking the vaccine.

Citation needed.

For example going in for testing, being asked to wait another 3 hours for my brother, him saying fuck this I'm leaving and then receiving a test result of POSITIVE for Corona virus without even being swabbed is highly suspect and untrustworthy.

No one believes your lie about this.

Elon Musk getting two completely different results of Covid after taking such a test and getting different results per nostril is ridiculous and unreliable.

You were already corrected on this mistake. So why try spreading it again?

The "Victim Olympics" is high in the leftist community.

Citation needed.
 

he_who_is_nobody

Well-Known Member
Anecdotal. Gun range/gun dealer shop.

So, nothing. And since this anecdote is the only thing you offered up for any of the citations I actually asked for, I will take it that you actually have nothing for any of my requests.

Unreliability of Corona tests. Yes different tests have different accuracy rates none of them are 100%.

You do realize that no test is 100%. Why you think this amounts to a rebuttal is beyond me.
 

Dragan Glas

Well-Known Member
Greetings,

No there isn't 24/7/365 statutes relating to noise. You are being disingenuous here there is no absolute ban on noise regardless of local or law. You are in fact allowed to be noisy. If you are after an hour range even in residential neighborhoods you can blast loud music or work on your house or mow your lawn etc without reprisal from the government.
Yes there is - as the cited source indicates.

I'm not being disingenuous - I'm arguing that there are laws regarding noise throughout the day and night. In contrast, you claimed that "nothing would happen" - clearly not the case if you exceed the noise levels at any time of day or night.

Acceptable noise levels may vary by day or night and/or area but they are applicable throughout the 24-hour cycle.

If the noise you make - whether through loud music, working on your house, or mowing your lawn - exceeds the acceptable level for that time period and/or area then you'll be in breach of the ordinances, and be warned for doing so.

In that particular instance none take precedence both are active if you are allowed to carry pretty much whenever on religious grounds then the 1st and the 2nd are upheld.
Then where's the conflict?

More people have died due to the use of vehicles compared to the existence of Corona virus. A vehicle when traveling at intended speeds kill people.
Does this mean you'll wait until the number of people killed by CoViD exceeds those killed by vehicles?

Number of Americans killed by vehicles per year: 32,850 (90 per day) [1]
Number of Americans killed by CoViD-19 - and counting (just over 1 year): over 900,000. [2]

And the latter figure doesn't include those who've suffered permanent effects - neurological damage, blood cell damage, etc. If the blood cell damage is passed on, this could become a health problem similar to sickle-cell with anaemia side-effects.

Is this yet another "lazy argument"?

Incidentals and extraneities are not deliberate actions.
The effects may be stochastic but the actions that cause them are not.

I have worked around people tested positive for Corona virus and haven't caught Corona virus with symptoms. I have been attacked with weapons. It is a difference in practical perception of threat. Obviously if Corona hasn't done any damage to me but people have attacked me with weapons then obviously the more credible threat is those of weapons especially considering the rate of violent crime relative to Corona virus cases in my locale. Armor GUARANTEEES not being able to be affected in that area a MASK does not. Your argument is totally false equivalence in spades.
How do you know you're not infected? You could be asymptomatic.

You only accept what you can see, even though it's all around you. And armour doesn't give you total protection - if somebody shoots you anywhere else, you're going to be injured, if not killed. Vaccination gives you full-body protection.

And I'd like to see a citation for you're implied claim that the violent crime rate exceeds CoViD-19 cases in your area.

This is an assumption based on HIV/AIDS having no cure and Covid having cures. The general argument if I purposefully choose to help spread a disease without a cure being more dangerous than deliberately spreading a disease with cure. That is the only argument I making regarding this context.
So, yet another lazy argument.

And CoViD-19 doesn't have a cure - all we have are vaccines (prevention).

People can still die from it despite being vaccinated - and there are now what are being referred to as "breakthrough" cases: where people are catching Delta after being vaccinated. Although vaccines don't prevent you getting it, the concern is that if they develop full CoViD-19 then the vaccines won't create a "fire-break", and will have to be reworked.

Vaccine treatments also have a risk of complications. What if I develop the same limitation due to the vaccine? There have been reports of people taking the vaccine and then them experiencing worse symptoms of Corona virus after taking the vaccine.
Could you provide a citation for this claim about "worse symptoms of Corona virus after taking the vaccine" without citing a conspiracy website?

If I have a low chance of contracting and having symptoms of Corona to begin with why would I take the risk of a vaccine? Why go through taking the vaccine taking the extra risk and feeling like crap after taking? Where do you take the vaccine along with other people why would I put up with that?
Because CoViD-19 can kill you - the vaccine won't.

People would choose to ignore those vaccines as they do now. The low numbers in certain areas is why people choose not to take the vaccine.

The general distrust after the inconsistent advertised results of Covid related measures like Covid testing is partly why people don't want to take vaccines which are largely untested compared to other medications that have been around longer and the mixed results of the vaccine.

For example going in for testing, being asked to wait another 3 hours for my brother, him saying fuck this I'm leaving and then receiving a test result of POSITIVE for Corona virus without even being swabbed is highly suspect and untrustworthy. Why would anyone not have suspicion if they are aware of similar instances of testing or other measures against Corona virus?

Elon Musk getting two completely different results of Covid after taking such a test and getting different results per nostril is ridiculous and unreliable.

Corona virus killed them correct? Supposing the information pertaining to China manufacturing this disease is accurate then you would blame the origin. You don't blame people for extraneities you judge them on their own actions.
HWIN has noted your inability to support your claims with evidence, and here you've made some more unsupported/unsupportable claims. Your anecdote about your brother, the already explained Elon Musk story, and now raising the accusation that China deliberately engineered the disease.

No not really considering the full perspective of potential threats in your own environment. It doesn't make sense to give priority to a vaccine compared to you being exposed to people constantly pan handling for money and issuing threats especially after being personally attack by a toothless meth addict at 3 am in downtown Knoxville.

A dude with a knife threatening you or any such similar person is a far greater priority than a disease I most likely won't get or even show symptoms for.

Other people as a majority in my locale do NOT wear masks. They don't deem Covid as a threat and if they do the general consensus is tat they have preexisting conditions and otherwise NOT healthy. There is no requirement to do so and even when the mandate was in effect it was illegal and not law and people decided not to wear masks regardless.

Even with private businesses having posted mask mandates routinely the situation is the vast majority of people do not wear them the customers nor the employees.

Seems like people have chosen to take on the extra risk and the rights of the individual to choose have been upheld.
Well, all I can say is that the vast majority of those who've died in America are the unvaccinated. If that doesn't convince you to get vaccinated then so be it.

Literally the opposite of what was said. Young = Less. Old = More. All I did was add periods, spacing and capitalization.
Remember what I said several posts back about the onus being on the speaker to be clear about what they say/mean to avoid confusion otherwise they're failing to communicate?

This has been a perfect example of that.

Because you didn't use punctuation, it led to my misunderstanding what you said/meant.

Ambiguous. I mean society is made up of individuals and communities are made up of individuals. I don't need counsel to determine who is a threat so long as I stay within the confines of the definition. In the moment no I don't need the community to decide I decide. The community isn't even there and wasn't there when I was attacked.
It's not ambiguous.

You're talking about circumstances where you have some say in the matter.

If you're sent to prison or committed to a psychiatric institute, it's because you're deemed to be a threat to the community/public/society - you have no control over that.

The community has upheld lethal force against individual and groups of individuals. I don't know why this is important or unique. If I shoot multiple people presenting a threat against myself would that be individual over the group? If I can smoke in a public place is that the individual over the group? I don't see the importance of this as it is getting more and more subtle or closer to semantics.
The basic point is that the group takes precedence over the individual - just because the individual is allowed to do certain things doesn't change this basic fact.

When all's said and done, the it's the group that counts.

You don't mention the logistics of the death penalty and why it is ineffective. Remember my proposal and how it is completely different to reality?
The costs of death penalty cases also are higher than non-death penalty ones, as well as the long process of appeals, etc. All of this makes the death penalty a waste of time, effort, and money.

Your argument merely proves my point - if the individual can be executed without recourse to appeals, etc., this shows that the group takes precedence over the individual.

The Chinese issue a passport to be able to leave their homes once every two days. It was legal to weld those people in there for two days. The rest of the time it is illegal to leave your home any more frequently than that.
They aren't being welded into their homes, The community polices itself: members of the community are assigned to ensure that people don't congregate or travel unnecessarily.

So this an example of the individual over the group. In the U.S. this is literal opposite but I don't really remember why we are arguing about this. I fail to see the importance of the argument.
No it isn't - they are no different than citizens who've been "deputised" to enforce the law. They are acting on behalf of the community - the group.

The argument centres around whether the group or the individual takes precedence.

But they are not. Most people here don't even wear masks.

Given the numbers concerning firearms obviously the group recognizes the rights of individuals over the community. It stands to reason they will uphold the same ideals in my locale if not in more parts of the U.S.. These are American ideals.
Ideals take a back seat to reality - when one individuals rights endanger everyone else's, the latter's rights take precedence.

The "Victim Olympics" is high in the leftist community. The LGBT crowd is no different. Sometimes I even think that such people are purely trendies and don't actually believe any of it, Grant me extra power over someone else because of feelings. Suggest that dissenting opinion on the topic shouldn't be allowed.
The social media "mob" are more a danger to those in the public eye - J K Rowling ("transphobic!"), Liam Neeson ("racist!"), etc. - rather than the average member of the public. I would agree that the "virtue signalling" of many who declare themselves to be "outraged" is more likely to be to protect/enhance their public image. Similarly with the "Defund the police!" calls that followed the killing of African Americans by the police - now, the realities of increased (violent) crime has resulted in such calls disappearing, judging from mayoral races in the US.

Do you honestly believe most people are going to educate themselves on the topic? People who wish to take on the extra effort will make the extra effort to get educated on it.
If they were required to do so in order to vote, I believe they would.

If you had to get out to vote to effect change, then - again - I believe they would.

Those who don't care what happens or expect the status quo to remain won't bother.

Yes and No. I already argued on the topic of Omnibus bills and frankly people get confused and lazy and just want to vote for people or politicians they know in order to lead them and they sometimes think they ultimately know what is best for them. Highly depends.
For myself, I don't bother voting for parties or individuals - I only vote on issues, like marriage equality or abortion.

This is the only way I can exercise my democratic vote directly - and, yes, I do educate myself on issues, although I'd claim to already well informed about the issues not to need much, if any, study into them.

I think it would be far more likely that you see less change politically as 50% of eligible vote would make it harder to pass new laws not easier.
I'd have thought that would be a good thing from a conservative standpoint.

IF progressives want change, they have to vote for it - which necessitates being informed of the pros and cons regarding the consequences.

My suggestion would help mitigate against one of the problems of democracy - populism.

Kindest regards,

James
 
Top