billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,521
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 24, 2020 16:59:40 GMT -5
I know that this is a crazy idea but I was thinking we should make it mandatory that everyone drive on the right hand side every time they are out on public roads. I understand that it would limit every individual's freedom to choose for themselves what lanes to use. I know this is America, with a rich tradition of people making decisions for themselves. But I think it would save some lives.
And, by the way, wear a God Damn mask.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,660
|
Post by chiver78 on Jun 24, 2020 17:01:33 GMT -5
oh boy. did you just have a near miss?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,521
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 24, 2020 17:29:58 GMT -5
Washington State Governor just announced mandatory wearing of masks. I was just looking for a response to, "How dare the government tell me what I have to do." I thought the requirement of lane use was a simple example for illustrating people accepting something set up to keep them and others safer. (I am not surrounded by a sophisticated crowd.)
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,627
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 24, 2020 17:35:19 GMT -5
Get a boat horn, attach it to your vehicle, and blast it at everyone in front of you in the passing lane to get out of your way because laws don't apply to 'you'. Seems to have worked for someone on I-95 in central east coast Florida.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,058
|
Post by teen persuasion on Jun 24, 2020 18:33:57 GMT -5
I know that this is a crazy idea but I was thinking we should make it mandatory that everyone drive on the right hand side every time they are out on public roads. I understand that it would limit every individual's freedom to choose for themselves what lanes to use. I know this is America, with a rich tradition of people making decisions for themselves. But I think it would save some lives. And, by the way, wear a God Damn mask. Damn tractors straddling the yellow line! If you are too big to fit in one lane, then find a bigger road to use, or convince the town/county/state (whoever owns the road) to pave some shoulders. Sorry, rant over
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jun 24, 2020 18:53:22 GMT -5
A couple weeks ago I made a tee time outside of Seattle and asked a couple social distance questions and the guy invoked the Gestapo four times in his rant about how this was still a free country. These Trumpies are wack jobs.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,521
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 24, 2020 19:24:53 GMT -5
A couple weeks ago I made a tee time outside of Seattle and asked a couple social distance questions and the guy invoked the Gestapo four times in his rant about how this was still a free country. These Trumpies are wack jobs. Yeah, and who was so hot to send the military into Seattle.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,199
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 24, 2020 20:55:04 GMT -5
Washington State Governor just announced mandatory wearing of masks. I was just looking for a response to, "How dare the government tell me what I have to do." I thought the requirement of lane use was a simple example for illustrating people accepting something set up to keep them and others safer. (I am not surrounded by a sophisticated crowd.) I knew exactly what it was. I almost thought it could have been in response to my post against forced mask use, but was sure you would have done that directly rather than in a different thread. It is not directly analogous, by the way, since requiring specified lane travel also greatly promotes efficiency in travel and prevents chaos, creating great tangible benefit for all who travel. It is not strictly to limit one's rights to act as they wish. The mandated wearing of face shields, on the other hand, may create a benefit for a very small number, but even that is arguable. And while many if not most people seemingly have no problem with what they see as a minor limitation of their rights, it is undeniable that it is still a limitation. I would further suggest that they do not have the right to choose for me or anyone else what an acceptable limitation should be. I have every right to object.
|
|
irishpad
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 14, 2012 20:42:01 GMT -5
Posts: 1,175
|
Post by irishpad on Jun 24, 2020 21:03:23 GMT -5
I know that this is a crazy idea but I was thinking we should make it mandatory that everyone drive on the right hand side every time they are out on public roads. I understand that it would limit every individual's freedom to choose for themselves what lanes to use. I know this is America, with a rich tradition of people making decisions for themselves. But I think it would save some lives. And, by the way, wear a God Damn mask. Bills, I believe in your analogy is referring to a two lane road, right? Thus it would be crazy to drive on the wrong side, dangerous just because you had the freedom to do it. If people are thinking of a multi-lane road, then the analogy just refers to the inconvenience of slow drivers in the middle or outer lanes.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,521
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 24, 2020 22:00:10 GMT -5
... Bills, I believe in your analogy is referring to a two lane road, right? Thus it would be crazy to drive on the wrong side, dangerous just because you had the freedom to do it. ... Who are you to tell other people which side of the road is "wrong".
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,521
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 24, 2020 22:02:55 GMT -5
Washington State Governor just announced mandatory wearing of masks. I was just looking for a response to, "How dare the government tell me what I have to do." I thought the requirement of lane use was a simple example for illustrating people accepting something set up to keep them and others safer. (I am not surrounded by a sophisticated crowd.) I knew exactly what it was. I almost thought it could have been in response to my post against forced mask use, but was sure you would have done that directly rather than in a different thread. It is not directly analogous, by the way, since requiring specified lane travel also greatly promotes efficiency in travel and prevents chaos, creating great tangible benefit for all who travel. It is not strictly to limit one's rights to act as they wish. The mandated wearing of face shields, on the other hand, may create a benefit for a very small number, but even that is arguable. And while many if not most people seemingly have no problem with what they see as a minor limitation of their rights, it is undeniable that it is still a limitation. I would further suggest that they do not have the right to choose for me or anyone else what an acceptable limitation should be. I have every right to object. Nope, not about you.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,944
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 26, 2020 13:11:07 GMT -5
Washington State Governor just announced mandatory wearing of masks. I was just looking for a response to, "How dare the government tell me what I have to do." I thought the requirement of lane use was a simple example for illustrating people accepting something set up to keep them and others safer. (I am not surrounded by a sophisticated crowd.) I knew exactly what it was. I almost thought it could have been in response to my post against forced mask use, but was sure you would have done that directly rather than in a different thread. It is not directly analogous, by the way, since requiring specified lane travel also greatly promotes efficiency in travel and prevents chaos, creating great tangible benefit for all who travel. It is not strictly to limit one's rights to act as they wish. The mandated wearing of face shields, on the other hand, may create a benefit for a very small number, but even that is arguable. And while many if not most people seemingly have no problem with what they see as a minor limitation of their rights, it is undeniable that it is still a limitation. I would further suggest that they do not have the right to choose for me or anyone else what an acceptable limitation should be. I have every right to object. No this is closer to someone who tested positive for TB refusing to stay home and socially distance himself from the rest of us because it’s an assault on his liberty to have to stay home. We have a treatment for TB and only the elderly or already sick might die from it so why can’t I do exactly what I want? By the way where most people wear masks Covid transmitting drops by 80 percent, if its a hot and humid outdoor area it drops to almost zero transmission even in crowds. Doesn’t seem too much to ask people to do to curtail the spread of this thing
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,199
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 26, 2020 13:44:36 GMT -5
I knew exactly what it was. I almost thought it could have been in response to my post against forced mask use, but was sure you would have done that directly rather than in a different thread. It is not directly analogous, by the way, since requiring specified lane travel also greatly promotes efficiency in travel and prevents chaos, creating great tangible benefit for all who travel. It is not strictly to limit one's rights to act as they wish. The mandated wearing of face shields, on the other hand, may create a benefit for a very small number, but even that is arguable. And while many if not most people seemingly have no problem with what they see as a minor limitation of their rights, it is undeniable that it is still a limitation. I would further suggest that they do not have the right to choose for me or anyone else what an acceptable limitation should be. I have every right to object. No this is closer to someone who tested positive for TB refusing to stay home and socially distance himself from the rest of us because it’s an assault on his liberty to have to stay home. We have a treatment for TB and only the elderly or already sick might die from it so why can’t I do exactly what I want? By the way where most people wear masks Covid transmitting drops by 80 percent, if its a hot and humid outdoor area it drops to almost zero transmission even in crowds. Doesn’t seem too much to ask people to do to curtail the spread of this thing False. You are assuming facts not in evidence. Why did you state that it was about someone who had already tested positive? Is that the only way you can make your "logic" work? This applies to all, regardless of their status. It would thus be more analogous to prior restraint, where something is prevented merely because someone thinks it may be harmful or injurious to someone's interests. A lot of latitude is granted in matters of public health. That does not however indicate that such restrictions are not an infringement of rights, particularly for those who are not putting others at risk. We as a society generally accept such restrictions, and maybe that is a good thing overall, but it is still an unfair or unjust restriction on some.
|
|
Artemis Windsong
Senior Associate
The love in me salutes the love in you. M. Williamson
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:32:12 GMT -5
Posts: 12,329
Today's Mood: Twinkling
Location: Wishing Star
Favorite Drink: Fresh, clean cold bottled water.
|
Post by Artemis Windsong on Jun 26, 2020 14:04:08 GMT -5
I knew exactly what it was. I almost thought it could have been in response to my post against forced mask use, but was sure you would have done that directly rather than in a different thread. It is not directly analogous, by the way, since requiring specified lane travel also greatly promotes efficiency in travel and prevents chaos, creating great tangible benefit for all who travel. It is not strictly to limit one's rights to act as they wish. The mandated wearing of face shields, on the other hand, may create a benefit for a very small number, but even that is arguable. And while many if not most people seemingly have no problem with what they see as a minor limitation of their rights, it is undeniable that it is still a limitation. I would further suggest that they do not have the right to choose for me or anyone else what an acceptable limitation should be. I have every right to object. No this is closer to someone who tested positive for TB refusing to stay home and socially distance himself from the rest of us because it’s an assault on his liberty to have to stay home. We have a treatment for TB and only the elderly or already sick might die from it so why can’t I do exactly what I want? By the way where most people wear masks Covid transmitting drops by 80 percent, if its a hot and humid outdoor area it drops to almost zero transmission even in crowds. Doesn’t seem too much to ask people to do to curtail the spread of this thing See AZ. Hot does not necessarily mean it kills Covid. When restrictions were reduced and places opened, whosh a big uptick in cases.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Jun 26, 2020 14:30:00 GMT -5
No this is closer to someone who tested positive for TB refusing to stay home and socially distance himself from the rest of us because it’s an assault on his liberty to have to stay home. We have a treatment for TB and only the elderly or already sick might die from it so why can’t I do exactly what I want? By the way where most people wear masks Covid transmitting drops by 80 percent, if its a hot and humid outdoor area it drops to almost zero transmission even in crowds. Doesn’t seem too much to ask people to do to curtail the spread of this thing False. You are assuming facts not in evidence. Why did you state that it was about someone who had already tested positive? Is that the only way you can make your "logic" work? This applies to all, regardless of their status. It would thus be more analogous to prior restraint, where something is prevented merely because someone thinks it may be harmful or injurious to someone's interests. A lot of latitude is granted in matters of public health. That does not however indicate that such restrictions are not an infringement of rights, particularly for those who are not putting others at risk. We as a society generally accept such restrictions, and maybe that is a good thing overall, but it is still an unfair or unjust restriction on some. So how do you know you are not a carrier? Have you been tested? You assume you have not been exposed, and you have no symptoms but that means squat. I have been home for the last 3+ months. Only visits were to the grocery store or Costco....fast trips, always with a mask on. I still would never assume that I am not harboring the virus. That would be incredibly arrogant of me in that (1) I have not been tested and (2) I have absolutely no idea whether I picked anything up in the grocery store last Tuesday. In essence, you are doing what all those who are against vaccination for childhood diseases are doing. You are demanding YOUR liberties at the expense of those who are giving their’s up in order to protect the whole public. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. What exactly is the difficulty of wearing a mask? JMHO
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,421
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jun 26, 2020 18:06:33 GMT -5
No this is closer to someone who tested positive for TB refusing to stay home and socially distance himself from the rest of us because it’s an assault on his liberty to have to stay home. We have a treatment for TB and only the elderly or already sick might die from it so why can’t I do exactly what I want? By the way where most people wear masks Covid transmitting drops by 80 percent, if its a hot and humid outdoor area it drops to almost zero transmission even in crowds. Doesn’t seem too much to ask people to do to curtail the spread of this thing False. You are assuming facts not in evidence. Why did you state that it was about someone who had already tested positive? Is that the only way you can make your "logic" work? This applies to all, regardless of their status. It would thus be more analogous to prior restraint, where something is prevented merely because someone thinks it may be harmful or injurious to someone's interests. A lot of latitude is granted in matters of public health. That does not however indicate that such restrictions are not an infringement of rights, particularly for those who are not putting others at risk. We as a society generally accept such restrictions, and maybe that is a good thing overall, but it is still an unfair or unjust restriction on some. So, what happened to sacrificing for the common good. There are times when there are threats to society that are so grave, that some infringement on liberties is warranted. Now, I do not make that statement without trepid, but we need to consider the downside to the freedom we are asserting
|
|
apple 2
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 5, 2017 14:49:20 GMT -5
Posts: 212
|
Post by apple 2 on Jun 26, 2020 18:24:48 GMT -5
False. You are assuming facts not in evidence. Why did you state that it was about someone who had already tested positive? Is that the only way you can make your "logic" work? This applies to all, regardless of their status. It would thus be more analogous to prior restraint, where something is prevented merely because someone thinks it may be harmful or injurious to someone's interests. A lot of latitude is granted in matters of public health. That does not however indicate that such restrictions are not an infringement of rights, particularly for those who are not putting others at risk. We as a society generally accept such restrictions, and maybe that is a good thing overall, but it is still an unfair or unjust restriction on some. So, what happened to sacrificing for the common good. There are times when there are threats to society that are so grave, that some infringement on liberties is warranted. Now, I do not make that statement without trepid, but we need to consider the downside to the freedom we are asserting Seems a lot of Americans are just selfish and somewhat...delusional? its the only thing I can think of.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,521
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 26, 2020 19:02:18 GMT -5
False. You are assuming facts not in evidence. Why did you state that it was about someone who had already tested positive? Is that the only way you can make your "logic" work? This applies to all, regardless of their status. It would thus be more analogous to prior restraint, where something is prevented merely because someone thinks it may be harmful or injurious to someone's interests. A lot of latitude is granted in matters of public health. That does not however indicate that such restrictions are not an infringement of rights, particularly for those who are not putting others at risk. We as a society generally accept such restrictions, and maybe that is a good thing overall, but it is still an unfair or unjust restriction on some. So, what happened to sacrificing for the common good. There are times when there are threats to society that are so grave, that some infringement on liberties is warranted. Now, I do not make that statement without trepid, but we need to consider the downside to the freedom we are asserting A lot of us won the time and place birth lottery. We don't have to do sacrifice.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,944
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 26, 2020 22:07:53 GMT -5
No this is closer to someone who tested positive for TB refusing to stay home and socially distance himself from the rest of us because it’s an assault on his liberty to have to stay home. We have a treatment for TB and only the elderly or already sick might die from it so why can’t I do exactly what I want? By the way where most people wear masks Covid transmitting drops by 80 percent, if its a hot and humid outdoor area it drops to almost zero transmission even in crowds. Doesn’t seem too much to ask people to do to curtail the spread of this thing False. You are assuming facts not in evidence. Why did you state that it was about someone who had already tested positive? Is that the only way you can make your "logic" work? This applies to all, regardless of their status. It would thus be more analogous to prior restraint, where something is prevented merely because someone thinks it may be harmful or injurious to someone's interests. A lot of latitude is granted in matters of public health. That does not however indicate that such restrictions are not an infringement of rights, particularly for those who are not putting others at risk. We as a society generally accept such restrictions, and maybe that is a good thing overall, but it is still an unfair or unjust restriction on some. I’m assuming worst case scenario. I go to works some days, work at home some days, plus go to the grocery once a week. I also live in one of the coronavirus hot spots. Five of my coworkers have had the virus, and many more are quarantined at home because they’ve been around someone who since tested positive for it. So there is always a possibility I have it and am asymptomatic. Or I’m incubating it with showing symptoms yet. So I always where a mask when I leave home, just in case. And why I haven’t seen my mother in law since February even though she lives 30! minutes away. Because I don’t want to kill her, or any one else, and it’s no skin off my nose to wear a stupid mask.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Jun 27, 2020 11:10:51 GMT -5
it’s no skin off my nose to wear a stupid mask. Those of you that belong to the 'no one can tell me what to do' .......... I have a request. Please keep away from those of us who want to stay well Thank you .......
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,375
|
Post by Tiny on Jun 30, 2020 11:12:03 GMT -5
I'm guilty of not knowing how to drive on 4 lane highways once I'm out of the Land of Concrete and into the Land of Cornfields. I do most of my driving in urban areas - where there's lots of 4 lane streets (sometimes with speed limits of 55 AND stoplights). My "auto pilot" says use whatever lane you want there is no "passing lane". So, when I do venture into the land of Trees, Cornfields, Cows! I tend to sometimes get in the left lane and forget to get back in the right lane. I'm sorry. I know I'm a BAD non-urban driver. Last summer when I had to drive thru the Land of Trees, Cornfields, and Cows! to get to another Land of Concrete I tried to keep a "Stay to the Right" mantra going in my head... but there were times when I slipped up. I did try. I really did. I didn't do it intentional. The rural customs are just so different than what I'm use to.
|
|
tractor
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 15:19:30 GMT -5
Posts: 3,458
|
Post by tractor on Jul 3, 2020 12:41:41 GMT -5
I'm guilty of not knowing how to drive on 4 lane highways once I'm out of the Land of Concrete and into the Land of Cornfields. I do most of my driving in urban areas - where there's lots of 4 lane streets (sometimes with speed limits of 55 AND stoplights). My "auto pilot" says use whatever lane you want there is no "passing lane". So, when I do venture into the land of Trees, Cornfields, Cows! I tend to sometimes get in the left lane and forget to get back in the right lane. I'm sorry. I know I'm a BAD non-urban driver. Last summer when I had to drive thru the Land of Trees, Cornfields, and Cows! to get to another Land of Concrete I tried to keep a "Stay to the Right" mantra going in my head... but there were times when I slipped up. I did try. I really did. I didn't do it intentional. The rural customs are just so different than what I'm use to. You can drive in the left lane, just drive like a bat out of hell like the rest of us and you’ll fit right in 🙂
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,243
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 4, 2020 0:26:59 GMT -5
Washington State Governor just announced mandatory wearing of masks. I was just looking for a response to, "How dare the government tell me what I have to do." I thought the requirement of lane use was a simple example for illustrating people accepting something set up to keep them and others safer. (I am not surrounded by a sophisticated crowd.) I knew exactly what it was. I almost thought it could have been in response to my post against forced mask use, but was sure you would have done that directly rather than in a different thread. It is not directly analogous, by the way, since requiring specified lane travel also greatly promotes efficiency in travel and prevents chaos, creating great tangible benefit for all who travel. It is not strictly to limit one's rights to act as they wish. The mandated wearing of face shields, on the other hand, may create a benefit for a very small number, but even that is arguable. And while many if not most people seemingly have no problem with what they see as a minor limitation of their rights, it is undeniable that it is still a limitation. I would further suggest that they do not have the right to choose for me or anyone else what an acceptable limitation should be. I have every right to object. seatbelts are a better analogy, except they protect you more than me.
condoms are better still, but there are "other reasons" for wearing them.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,199
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 4, 2020 1:07:17 GMT -5
I knew exactly what it was. I almost thought it could have been in response to my post against forced mask use, but was sure you would have done that directly rather than in a different thread. It is not directly analogous, by the way, since requiring specified lane travel also greatly promotes efficiency in travel and prevents chaos, creating great tangible benefit for all who travel. It is not strictly to limit one's rights to act as they wish. The mandated wearing of face shields, on the other hand, may create a benefit for a very small number, but even that is arguable. And while many if not most people seemingly have no problem with what they see as a minor limitation of their rights, it is undeniable that it is still a limitation. I would further suggest that they do not have the right to choose for me or anyone else what an acceptable limitation should be. I have every right to object. seatbelts are a better analogy, except they protect you more than me.
condoms are better still, but there are "other reasons" for wearing them.
Neither of those are legitimately made mandatory by state action either. It IS a legitimate function of government to protect against outside threat. That does not exist with seatbelt laws. It is not a legitimate function of government to attempt to protect me from myself. It may be beneficial for me to protect myself by wearing a seatbelt, but that choice rightfully belongs to me. Government should not be able to compel an action that affects no one other than the individual. Condom use is also not a matter for government. I will of course stipulate that either (or any) individual party in any proposed interaction absolutely has the right to require use as a condition of participation, but there is no role for the state in mandating use.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,421
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 4, 2020 6:10:13 GMT -5
seatbelts are a better analogy, except they protect you more than me.
condoms are better still, but there are "other reasons" for wearing them.
Neither of those are legitimately made mandatory by state action either. It IS a legitimate function of government to protect against outside threat. That does not exist with seatbelt laws. It is not a legitimate function of government to attempt to protect me from myself. It may be beneficial for me to protect myself by wearing a seatbelt, but that choice rightfully belongs to me. Government should not be able to compel an action that affects no one other than the individual. Condom use is also not a matter for government. I will of course stipulate that either (or any) individual party in any proposed interaction absolutely has the right to require use as a condition of participation, but there is no role for the state in mandating use. Except, if your injuries are severe enough, society may wind up footing the bill to the tune of millions of dollars. Money which could be spent elsewhere. Now, if you can afford that care yourself, or decline to accept the care or the help, your argument is stronger
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,521
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 4, 2020 7:47:18 GMT -5
I knew exactly what it was. I almost thought it could have been in response to my post against forced mask use, but was sure you would have done that directly rather than in a different thread. It is not directly analogous, by the way, since requiring specified lane travel also greatly promotes efficiency in travel and prevents chaos, creating great tangible benefit for all who travel. It is not strictly to limit one's rights to act as they wish. The mandated wearing of face shields, on the other hand, may create a benefit for a very small number, but even that is arguable. And while many if not most people seemingly have no problem with what they see as a minor limitation of their rights, it is undeniable that it is still a limitation. I would further suggest that they do not have the right to choose for me or anyone else what an acceptable limitation should be. I have every right to object. seatbelts are a better analogy, except they protect you more than me.
condoms are better still, but there are "other reasons" for wearing them.
Driving in the right hand lanes is the better analogy when looking at the issue of acceptance of government's power to restrict individual freedom. A man walks up to a woman and asks, "Will you sleep with me for a million dollars?" She responds, "Yes." He then asks, "Then will you sleep with me for a dollar?" Her response, "What kind of a woman do you think I am?" He says, "We have established that. Now we are just negotiating price." "Yes, the government can limit your individual freedom. Now we are just negotiating a specific." Since we have no way to determine who is acting responibly to stay virus free, I think it is more efficient to mandate mask wearing by all.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,243
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 7, 2020 11:29:06 GMT -5
seatbelts are a better analogy, except they protect you more than me.
condoms are better still, but there are "other reasons" for wearing them.
Driving in the right hand lanes is the better analogy when looking at the issue of acceptance of government's power to restrict individual freedom. A man walks up to a woman and asks, "Will you sleep with me for a million dollars?" She responds, "Yes." He then asks, "Then will you sleep with me for a dollar?" Her response, "What kind of a woman do you think I am?" He says, "We have established that. Now we are just negotiating price." "Yes, the government can limit your individual freedom. Now we are just negotiating a specific." Since we have no way to determine who is acting responibly to stay virus free, I think it is more efficient to mandate mask wearing by all. masks are a measure of how much you care for others.
people who refuse to wear them are showing their selfishness.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 13:12:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 11:53:10 GMT -5
seatbelts are a better analogy, except they protect you more than me.
condoms are better still, but there are "other reasons" for wearing them.
Neither of those are legitimately made mandatory by state action either. It IS a legitimate function of government to protect against outside threat. That does not exist with seatbelt laws. It is not a legitimate function of government to attempt to protect me from myself. It may be beneficial for me to protect myself by wearing a seatbelt, but that choice rightfully belongs to me. Government should not be able to compel an action that affects no one other than the individual. Condom use is also not a matter for government. I will of course stipulate that either (or any) individual party in any proposed interaction absolutely has the right to require use as a condition of participation, but there is no role for the state in mandating use. I read all your posts on this thread. Expect a claim of socialized medical expense, over a claim of more self responsibility, after this most recent post. That slow creep to socialism, exuding the normality of control. Astute observations on blurring the lines.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,421
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 13, 2020 12:04:33 GMT -5
Neither of those are legitimately made mandatory by state action either. It IS a legitimate function of government to protect against outside threat. That does not exist with seatbelt laws. It is not a legitimate function of government to attempt to protect me from myself. It may be beneficial for me to protect myself by wearing a seatbelt, but that choice rightfully belongs to me. Government should not be able to compel an action that affects no one other than the individual. Condom use is also not a matter for government. I will of course stipulate that either (or any) individual party in any proposed interaction absolutely has the right to require use as a condition of participation, but there is no role for the state in mandating use. I read all your posts on this thread. Expect a claim of socialized medical expense, over a claim of more self responsibility, after this most recent post. That slow creep to socialism, exuding the normality of control. If you can insure yourself against any catastrophe, do what you want. Once you start to expect others to cover some of your expenses, then they hava a say in your behaviour. Seems fair, doesn't it?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,521
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 13, 2020 12:19:06 GMT -5
I read all your posts on this thread. Expect a claim of socialized medical expense, over a claim of more self responsibility, after this most recent post. That slow creep to socialism, exuding the normality of control. If you can insure yourself against any catastrophe, do what you want. Once you start to expect others to cover some of your expenses, then they hava a say in your behaviour. Seems fair, doesn't it? The other part of it is that people need to understand that there is absolutely no requirement that you wear a seat belt. None. Zero. Stay off of public funded roads and be free.
|
|