|
Post by GiftOfFlavor on Apr 18, 2020 20:53:35 GMT -5
If people wanna go to a basement dentist, or basement tattoo parlor, or whatever, they will reap the consequences of that all on their own. I think marijuana legalization is a great thing in my state. I’m not a user of the substance but I don’t really have any issue with it whatsoever, other than it makes people lazy, but If wine is legal so too should weed. I think the government should take care of roads, provide for education of young people and have an army/military, and some well trained, honest policemen. Otherwise I think Government is (in general) bloated, corrupt, inefficient and incapable. 🤷♀️ Most things the government is in charge of are a giant bureaucratic clusterfuck... But most libertarians believe that, I’m not the only one. I’m frustrated like everyone else. I’m also as entitled to my opinion as everyone else. 🤷♀️ And no one here has claimed otherwise (that it's okay to be all three). Or that you aren't entitled to your opinion. That's an asinine strawman. In my opinion. So is comparing a nose job to an obesity epidemic - asinine strawmen seem to be super popular in this thread - wouldn’t you say?
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Apr 18, 2020 21:34:25 GMT -5
🤷🏼♀️ Is this the new FU smiley? 🤷♀️ 🤷♂️
|
|
|
Post by Peachy on Apr 18, 2020 21:54:45 GMT -5
🤷🏼♀️ Is this the new FU smiley? 🤷♀️ 🤷♂️ 😦
|
|
|
Post by villanelle on Apr 19, 2020 13:39:48 GMT -5
And no one here has claimed otherwise (that it's okay to be all three). Or that you aren't entitled to your opinion. That's an asinine strawman. In my opinion. So is comparing a nose job to an obesity epidemic - asinine strawmen seem to be super popular in this thread - wouldn’t you say? No. I was pointing out that there are many, many behaviors that risk one's health. And since government can make laws about more than one thing, in a universe where we are outlawing those behaviors, adding many others to the list makes sense. And since those other behaviors are actually easier to control--it is generally easier to not get a nose job than it is to lose weight and keep it off--it seems that at a minimum, the same priciples would apply. So I'm not seeing a strawman at all. A strawman is where one refutes are argument that was never made. Like you did when you implied people had somehow argued that one couldn't be all three things in your venn diagram. Where is the strawman that I made? What did I argue against that you hadn't actually said?
|
|
|
Post by maurinsky on Apr 19, 2020 13:53:14 GMT -5
I fit into that Venn diagram, too. I just recognize that without widespread testing and contact tracing, we can't just change course and say "okay, everyone, back to work!" Which we need a functional government to manage, but we don't have one right now.
|
|
|
Post by GiftOfFlavor on Apr 19, 2020 14:51:20 GMT -5
So is comparing a nose job to an obesity epidemic - asinine strawmen seem to be super popular in this thread - wouldn’t you say? No. I was pointing out that there are many, many behaviors that risk one's health. And since government can make laws about more than one thing, in a universe where we are outlawing those behaviors, adding many others to the list makes sense. And since those other behaviors are actually easier to control--it is generally easier to not get a nose job than it is to lose weight and keep it off--it seems that at a minimum, the same priciples would apply. So I'm not seeing a strawman at all. A strawman is where one refutes are argument that was never made. Like you did when you implied people had somehow argued that one couldn't be all three things in your venn diagram. Where is the strawman that I made? What did I argue against that you hadn't actually said? Can you clarify exactly which personal liberties the government should be allowed to revoke for the good of public health and which they can’t? Because it seems like you feel property rights are totally illegitimate but Twinkie rights are completely hands off. I’d just like to know where you think the line should be drawn.
|
|
|
Post by justthinking on Apr 19, 2020 14:58:25 GMT -5
If someone's "right" endangers another person's life, the government should be able to regulate it. Some examples: smoking in public buildings/restaurants/etc., drunk driving, and playing around with friends during a pandemic.
|
|
|
Post by GiftOfFlavor on Apr 19, 2020 15:49:00 GMT -5
If someone's "right" endangers another person's life, the government should be able to regulate it. Some examples: smoking in public buildings/restaurants/etc., drunk driving, and playing around with friends during a pandemic. So, one spending time inside ones own cabin following appropriate social distancing rules on their own property endangers others? More so than at their primary residence?
|
|
|
Post by justthinking on Apr 19, 2020 16:08:39 GMT -5
If someone's "right" endangers another person's life, the government should be able to regulate it. Some examples: smoking in public buildings/restaurants/etc., drunk driving, and playing around with friends during a pandemic. So, one spending time inside ones own cabin following appropriate social distancing rules on their own property endangers others? More so than at their primary residence? The rules are not made because people are following appropriate social distancing protocols on their own. The rules are made because a depressingly high number of people do not follow those protocols without them being rules instead of suggestions. Even when they were made in to rules here in Wisconsin, the models assumed only 50% of the people would actually follow them. We got lucky for the first few weeks and participation was more at the 75-80% rate, and our curve looked great. My guess is we are now back closer to 50%, at least in republican counties like mine where so many people think their right to go to a bar should supercede a healthcare worker's right to live.
|
|
|
Post by GiftOfFlavor on Apr 19, 2020 16:13:45 GMT -5
So, one spending time inside ones own cabin following appropriate social distancing rules on their own property endangers others? More so than at their primary residence? The rules are not made because people are following appropriate social distancing protocols on their own. The rules are made because a depressingly high number of people do not follow those protocols without them being rules instead of suggestions. Even when they were made in to rules here in Wisconsin, the models assumed only 50% of the people would actually follow them. We got lucky for the first few weeks and participation was more at the 75-80% rate, and our curve looked great. My guess is we are now back closer to 50%, at least in republican counties like mine where so many people think their right to go to a bar should supercede a healthcare worker's right to live. I’m pretty sure we are innocent until proven guilty in this country. Those who violate laws should be punished, and those who don’t should be able to access their own property safely and in accordance with the law. If a bar is open and bars are banned from opening they need to be closed, or fined, or whatever. Has nothing to do with what I do on my own land.
|
|
|
Post by villanelle on Apr 19, 2020 16:15:41 GMT -5
No. I was pointing out that there are many, many behaviors that risk one's health. And since government can make laws about more than one thing, in a universe where we are outlawing those behaviors, adding many others to the list makes sense. And since those other behaviors are actually easier to control--it is generally easier to not get a nose job than it is to lose weight and keep it off--it seems that at a minimum, the same priciples would apply. So I'm not seeing a strawman at all. A strawman is where one refutes are argument that was never made. Like you did when you implied people had somehow argued that one couldn't be all three things in your venn diagram. Where is the strawman that I made? What did I argue against that you hadn't actually said? Can you clarify exactly which personal liberties the government should be allowed to revoke for the good of public health and which they can’t? Because it seems like you feel property rights are totally illegitimate but Twinkie rights are completely hands off. I’d just like to know where you think the line should be drawn. I'm still waiting for you to explain where I implemented a strawman. ~~~~ A good place to start when drawing the line is when one's choices or behaviors present a significant danger to others. So, fat and nose job no. Pandemic yes. If you could beam yourself to that cabin, or of there was some way to allow for transportation there that didn't open up things and cause people to ignore the shut down, yes. Since we need to keep everyone in their homes and you can't use your cabin without first leaving the property to which you have rights, no. (To be fair, I'm not sure we need to remain 100% shutdown and shut in in all places, at this point. I don't disagree with you quite as much as you might think, though I'm choosing to remain civil instead of name-calling and passive aggressive "why don't we ban fat people" nonesense.) We've proven that we, as a society, can't do the half measures or "best judgement" approaches.
|
|
|
Post by GiftOfFlavor on Apr 19, 2020 16:18:26 GMT -5
Can you clarify exactly which personal liberties the government should be allowed to revoke for the good of public health and which they can’t? Because it seems like you feel property rights are totally illegitimate but Twinkie rights are completely hands off. I’d just like to know where you think the line should be drawn. I'm still waiting for you to explain where I implemented a strawman. ~~~~ A good place to start when drawing the line is when one's choices or behaviors present a significant danger to others. So, fat and nose job no. Pandemic yes. If you could beam yourself to that cabin, or of there was some way to allow for transportation there that didn't open up things and cause people to ignore the shut down, yes. Since we need to keep everyone in their homes and you can't use your cabin without first leaving the property to which you have rights, no. (To be fair, I'm not sure we need to remain 100% shutdown and shut in in all places, at this point. I don't disagree with you quite as much as you might think, though I'm choosing to remain civil instead of name-calling and passive aggressive "why don't we ban fat people" nonesense.) We've proven that we, as a society, can't do the half measures or "best judgement" approaches. I’m sure comparing cosmetic surgery and eating disorders to an obesity pandemic was totally your version of being civil. 😊 (and THAT is actually a fuck you smilie) If you want to choose to make snide, personal comments in a debate about government involvement in healthcare decision making that’s your choice. I don’t have to respond to it 🤷♀️ So you can continue waiting. I don’t really care.
|
|
|
Post by GiftOfFlavor on Apr 19, 2020 16:28:36 GMT -5
I fit into that Venn diagram, too. I just recognize that without widespread testing and contact tracing, we can't just change course and say "okay, everyone, back to work!" Which we need a functional government to manage, but we don't have one right now. Have we ever, really?🤷♀️😂
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Apr 19, 2020 16:29:01 GMT -5
You are becoming increasingly hostile GoF. WtH?
|
|
|
Post by GiftOfFlavor on Apr 19, 2020 16:32:49 GMT -5
You are becoming increasingly hostile GoF. WtH? These are difficult times. If someone disagrees with me or my choices or my politics they’re welcome to do that. But I would never make snide comments about someone’s personal struggles and try to pass it off as a debate. That’s not really a “civil” thing to do. And if someone wants to do that they can deal with a hostile reaction to it. I really am caring less and less lately what anyone thinks about me or what I do. I’ve also had no less than SEVEN colleagues commit suicide in the last month due to losing their businesses. So. Maybe I’m slightly biased about how many people need to die to keep people from dying.
|
|
|
Post by justthinking on Apr 19, 2020 16:33:50 GMT -5
You are becoming increasingly hostile GoF. WtH? Yes, and I think you are forgetting who you are supposed to be mad at. You are attacking vill today for the things you said emmjay did yesterday which neither of them did either day.
|
|
|
Post by GiftOfFlavor on Apr 19, 2020 16:35:07 GMT -5
You are becoming increasingly hostile GoF. WtH? Yes, and I think you are forgetting who you are supposed to be mad at. You are attacking vill today for the things you said emmjay did yesterday which neither of them did either day. I told emmjay to mind her own business when I went to Boise. 🤷♀️ She can be little miss judgey all she wants to, I don’t give a fuck.
|
|
|
Post by villanelle on Apr 19, 2020 16:37:42 GMT -5
So it wasn't a strawman and you were talking out of your ass. Got it. (Again, being uncivil is not a strawman.) Apr 19, 2020 17:13:45 GMT -4 GiftOfFlavor said: justthinking Avatar Apr 19, 2020 17:08:39 GMT -4 justthinking said: The rules are not made because people are following appropriate social distancing protocols on their own. The rules are made because a depressingly high number of people do not follow those protocols without them being rules instead of suggestions. Even when they were made in to rules here in Wisconsin, the models assumed only 50% of the people would actually follow them. We got lucky for the first few weeks and participation was more at the 75-80% rate, and our curve looked great. My guess is we are now back closer to 50%, at least in republican counties like mine where so many people think their right to go to a bar should supercede a healthcare worker's right to live. I’m pretty sure we are innocent until proven guilty in this country. Those who violate laws should be punished, and those who don’t should be able to access their own property safely and in accordance with the law. If a bar is open and bars are banned from opening they need to be closed, or fined, or whatever. Has nothing to do with what I do on my own land. We have all sorts of rules and laws that are based on preventing things that probably 90% of people could negotiate on their own. What on earth does that have to do with innocent until proven guilty? You are innocent in the eyes of the law of having broken the law until it is proved that you are guilty of having broken the law. That you disagree with the law, or that the law is structured in such a way that people are prevented from doing things they could safely do if only it were legal has nothing to do with "innocent until proven guilty". You aren't even making sense anymore.
|
|
|
Post by GiftOfFlavor on Apr 19, 2020 16:38:49 GMT -5
People act like a virus is the only thing hurting people right now. People who’ve worked their whole life to build a small business cant even open their doors. And then they kill themself coz they’ve put their entire existence into their work and they have nothing to show for it.
And then maybe they just want to go to their cabin to get away, but nooooo all the corona Karen’s say you’re a horrible person for wanting to get away from it for 2 days. Fuck them. I don’t even give a shit any more.
Maybe if Alan was allowed to go to his fucking lake house to get away he wouldn’t have shot himself in the head last week In front of his wife and kid. But I guess we’ll never know. Will we.
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Apr 19, 2020 16:41:58 GMT -5
Yes, we are all living through this difficult time. I have had 2 friends parents die of Covid and one of my good friend's daughter was just diagnosed. Over 30k people have died. It's a horrific time. My husband has essentially lost his business and my pay has been cut. I'm being forced to take "vacation" next week.
I'm sad, scared & frustrated too. We all are. Maybe take a breath . Or smoke a bong 😄
|
|