5 ms·

They are not free to violate my right to life by being unwilling to follow basic public health measures.

fjabre 6y ago
Yes they are. You didn't lock people up for giving your Grandma the flu even though it may have killed her. That you think you can enforce or shame people into giving up freedom of movement (what's more fundamental then being able to leave your house?) is beyond reasonable or rational. You could extend this reasoning to all viruses that are deadly to some population of people, including the flu and the regular old cold virus. Where do you draw the line? Even government officials can't keep to their own policies. Look at Newsom dining out. "Do as I say. Not as I do" that's the message. You are free to shut yourself in your basement for the next two years but you can never hope to force other humans inside and shame them into doing so. It won't work. It's absolutely impractical in a democracy. And if you try to make it work you will do so at great costs. Fear. What a great motivator.
twblalock 6y ago
Clearly they are. Maybe they shouldn't have that freedom, but they do. In the United States, a lot of law enforcement agencies have announced that they will not enforce stay-at-home orders, curfews, or mandatory mask wearing. Businesses can call the police to kick people out if they don't wear masks, but not because of some new mask-related law -- businesses already had the legal right to kick people out if they refuse to leave. If you're seen on the street without a mask, the police might ask you to put one on, or they might say nothing at all, but they are very unlikely to fine you. All of those things are true in California, which is considered to have some of the strictest restrictions in the country. Most other states are less strict.
Khaine 6y ago
Some states have abolished laws that made it a crime to knowingly give people AIDS because it is 'stigmatising'. Yet those same people harp on about people not wearing masks are 'murders'. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Yes they are. You didn't lock people up for giving your Grandma the flu even though it may have killed her. That you think you can enforce or shame people into giving up freedom of movement (what's more fundamental then being able to leave your house?) is beyond reasonable or rational. You could extend this reasoning to all viruses that are deadly to some population of people, including the flu and the regular old cold virus. Where do you draw the line? Even government officials can't keep to their own policies. Look at Newsom dining out. "Do as I say. Not as I do" that's the message. You are free to shut yourself in your basement for the next two years but you can never hope to force other humans inside and shame them into doing so. It won't work. It's absolutely impractical in a democracy. And if you try to make it work you will do so at great costs. Fear. What a great motivator.

twblalock 6y ago

Clearly they are. Maybe they shouldn't have that freedom, but they do. In the United States, a lot of law enforcement agencies have announced that they will not enforce stay-at-home orders, curfews, or mandatory mask wearing. Businesses can call the police to kick people out if they don't wear masks, but not because of some new mask-related law -- businesses already had the legal right to kick people out if they refuse to leave. If you're seen on the street without a mask, the police might ask you to put one on, or they might say nothing at all, but they are very unlikely to fine you. All of those things are true in California, which is considered to have some of the strictest restrictions in the country. Most other states are less strict.

Khaine 6y ago

Some states have abolished laws that made it a crime to knowingly give people AIDS because it is 'stigmatising'. Yet those same people harp on about people not wearing masks are 'murders'. The hypocrisy is staggering.