You should get out more.
So I live in NYS. I’d say it’s about 75% compliance on mask wearing. I will not wear one and so far haven’t had any pushback in public. Stores all continue to serve me.
I’ve heard that many times too, but it’s silly.
“Your right to flail your arms around stops at about 3 feet away from me"
or maybe 6 feet or maybe 10 feet away from my family, I would argue it depends on context
Well something way more restrictive than the famous saying at least
It’s not just senseless nitpicking on my part to point this out I think, it highlights a disconnect
1 Like
No, it isn’t. If you freely take action but it winds up hurting me, I should have recourse against you. You don’t disagree with that, do you?
Mostly yeah, in the context of someone flailing their arms, especially yes
You flail your arms and bust my nose, I shouldn’t have recourse against you?
That’s not what I’m saying, I meant the opposite
I’m saying that someone’s right to flail ones arms ends before someones face, in many contexts it ends quite a distance away if we were measuring in inches
Not saying that said right is boundless. The boundaries of the right to flail ones arms is greatly exaggerated in the famous saying about it ending at my face - it ends several feet away, usually, in my opinion
Gotcha, and agreed - the goal being that in some instances, prevention of a harm is better than remediation of a harm. The classic extreme example to illustrate that is restrictions on citizens owning nuclear materials.
What’s the harm if I safely just play with them? What’s the harm to my fellow citizen? Well, we’re not ok with the risk of you doing that, blowing up a city block, and then allowing the harmed folks to try and get money out of you for their injury (which you probably don’t even have to cover all the damage to people and property you caused) - so we prevent that injury in the first place at the expense of taking away your “rights” to play with nuclear materials.
Quarantining citizens, shelter-at-home, etc. operates on a similar principle.
Of course they don’t. Regular people get it.
Except it’s more like 99% of people are unarmed (healthy), but we all need to stay home because the other 1% might blow you with a corona grenade.
1 Like
Yup, speed limits and lots of stuff
I think rights need to be remembered more and that a jury is supposed to judge according to the spirit of the law moreso than the letter of the law
The letter of the law is just a broad estimation of how to best protect everybody’s rights (assuming good intentions), while individual criminal trials are dealing with specifics. The letter of the law cannot get it perfect and that’s okay
Happy birthday 
I agree somewhat, there has been a lot of overreacting. The thing is that these are matters of degrees
That’s not really the message from what I’m gathering - it’s more like ‘go out WAY WAY less’, which is reasonable but also very gray
I think in an actual criminal trial at least 1/12 will be kinder than the police we see in videos
Except that we don’t know who’s armed and who’s not, and the armament is invisible until it’s too late - and we are preventing people from becoming armed.
Btw, that could have been different - if we had scrambled to provide massive testing, we’d (better) know who’s armed and who isn’t, and we wouldn’t need to do more extreme measures.
But - we have a lazy toddler at the helm of the nation’s crisis management program, so that smart preventative move was never an option.
Of that 62%, how many lost their jobs? How many didn’t work before all of this? How many work for state, local or federal government currently being paid to sit home?
Quite a few, based in recent unemployment figures. What’s your point?
Don’t attempt to spin this as the protesters being a bunch of regular middle class types who’ve lost their jobs and finally gotten desperate and have no choice but to storm the state capitol. Far from it, it’s a highly ideological slice of people who want to protest as an ideological matter, complete with MAGA gear, AR-15s (apparently you can shoot viruses now), and coordinated, in your face tactics.
This is the same sham as much of Occupy Wall Street - a bunch of protesting highly partisan ideologues trying to pass themselves off as a bunch of regular folks - the “99%” - just fed up with the raw deal they’re getting.
That manufactured, highly staged street theater didn’t work for them, and it isn’t working for the protesters now.
2 Likes
Not spinning anything. Stop trying to get out infront of an argument I’m not making.
The point is those are valid questions when seeing a poll number like 62% yadda yadda. It’s why MOST polls are useless. You need account for your sample.
1 Like
How many of the 7% have first hand knowledge of what CV looks/feels like, and have seen it go from a couple cases to serious problem in their community rather quickly?
How many of the 7% would trust a trump tweet over an article in Science?
How many of the 7% are anti-vaxxers as well?
2 Likes
Now you’re getting it.
I don’t follow?
Inferring common traits amongst a politically aligned group of folks is nothing new. I don’t get what you’re driving at here?
Of course you were making it - the idea the 62% is discredited because they are people who haven’t lost jobs, have income right now, right?