shoshin Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You're a fool. You NEVER get the rights back you give up willingly. Ever. We are already getting the right to assemble back, and that's just with the current example we are all living through. I've given other examples when you bring this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 34 minutes ago, daz28 said: Does this make much sense? The measures are being done to reduce cases, so how could they be also simultaneously be working to make it perpetual? The only thing that might do that is no testing, no tracing, no social distancing, and open everything up with no measures, which is the opposite of what they are doing. The measures appear to no longer have the goal of reducing cases, but of reducing them to zero. That’s not reasonable or even possible. The vast majority of people will either be asymptomatic to this or will recover from mostly mild symptoms. Locking down millions of people and forcing them from their jobs cannot be looked at as accomplishing a “ greater good”. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said: The measures appear to no longer have the goal of reducing cases, but of reducing them to zero. That’s not reasonable or even possible. The vast majority of people will either be asymptomatic to this or will recover from mostly mild symptoms. Locking down millions of people and forcing them from their jobs cannot be looked at as accomplishing a “ greater good”. I agree with all of that, but I think you do have to quarantine people who do have it. I also think we need some measures to remain in place, and open in phases. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reality Check Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said: The measures appear to no longer have the goal of reducing cases, but of reducing them to zero. That’s not reasonable or even possible. The vast majority of people will either be asymptomatic to this or will recover from mostly mild symptoms. Locking down millions of people and forcing them from their jobs cannot be looked at as accomplishing a “ greater good”. It is similar to the climate whatever people who agree with Bill Gates that the goal is to get CO2 emissions to zero. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 4 minutes ago, shoshin said: We are already getting the right to assemble back, and that's just with the current example we are all living through. I've given other examples when you bring this up. Look above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoshin Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 36 minutes ago, B-Man said: GA has been level and we are early into the cycle. If things look level in a few more weeks after the virus re-establishes itself with the population that had been locked down and we avoid another exponential growth starting from a bigger pool than the first go around, that will be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: We lost the fourth amendment to the Patriot Act, and still haven't gotten it back. All you need to do is look at the REAL story with ObamaGate to see how. Your fear does not give the state the right to take away my rights. Sorry. That's not how it works unless you have the spine of a jellyfish. I don't have any fear, but you didn't answer either question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 Just now, daz28 said: I don't have any fear, but you didn't answer either question. I did answer them both. The government cannot force you to give up your rights based on fear, you have to do so willingly. As they did with the Patriot Act -- which was not designed to fight terrorism or stop it, but to extend the control of the state over the people. Full stop. FEAR is how they sell bad ideas like the one you're pushing. If you're not afraid, prove it and wise up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: I did answer them both. The government cannot force you to give up your rights based on fear, you have to do so willingly. As they did with the Patriot Act -- which was not designed to fight terrorism or stop it, but to extend the control of the state over the people. Full stop. FEAR is how they sell bad ideas like the one you're pushing. If you're not afraid, prove it and wise up. No, specifically which rights do you feel you will permanently lose, because of Covid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 Just now, daz28 said: No, specifically which rights do you feel you will permanently lose, because of Covid? None so far, because people haven't given in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 12 minutes ago, daz28 said: I agree with all of that, but I think you do have to quarantine people who do have it. I also think we need some measures to remain in place, and open in phases. That is a sensible approach imo. Voluntary self quarantine, but if someone refuses after testing positive that must be dealt with. At that point intent could be established, so they are a social threat. A phased re-opening with some precautionary measures in place is probably required. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said: That is a sensible approach imo. Voluntary self quarantine, but if someone refuses after testing positive that must be dealt with. At that point intent could be established, so they are a social threat. A phased re-opening with some precautionary measures in place is probably required. Right. We have to be somewhat sensible about this. We're lucky enough to be later in the chain, so we have examples how to move forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 50 minutes ago, shoshin said: We are already getting the right to assemble back, and that's just with the current example we are all living through. I've given other examples when you bring this up. ** when the government says we can assemble in other words, if the citizenry needs approval from the government to exercise their rights under the constitution, then are they really unalienable or conditional? Edited May 13, 2020 by dubs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoshin Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 32 minutes ago, dubs said: ** when the government says we can assemble in other words, if the citizenry needs approval from the government to exercise their rights under the constitution, then are they really unalienable or conditional? When rights conflict with other rights, sometimes one loses. This topic has been beaten to death--not a shot at you--I just don't feel like listing all the examples again. Sufficed to say, not all the rights under the Constitution always peaceably coexist in normal times (can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater despite your right to free speech) and in war/pandemic times, there can be even more conflicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 4 minutes ago, shoshin said: When rights conflict with other rights, sometimes one loses. This topic has been beaten to death--not a shot at you--I just don't feel like listing all the examples again. Sufficed to say, not all the rights under the Constitution always peaceably coexist in normal times (can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater despite your right to free speech) and in war/pandemic times, there can be even more conflicts. Our rights don't exist because the state says so. They exist independent of the state itself. Thus, they cannot take them based on fear or current events. They must be given to them willingly. And that is done by manipulating the public into being too afraid to think beyond the moment. It's the oldest trick in the book, and it's on full display in our present crisis. Gotta be more brave than that. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 9 minutes ago, shoshin said: When rights conflict with other rights, sometimes one loses. This topic has been beaten to death--not a shot at you--I just don't feel like listing all the examples again. Sufficed to say, not all the rights under the Constitution always peaceably coexist in normal times (can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater despite your right to free speech) and in war/pandemic times, there can be even more conflicts. It's been beaten to death because people don't understand what unalienable means. Going about our lives does not infringe on anyone's rights. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, dubs said: It's been beaten to death because people don't understand what unalienable means. Going about our lives does not infringe on anyone's rights. Yep. Tired tropes about yelling fire in a theater or regulating the privilege of driving are a distraction from the actual issue. Peacefully going about one’s business is no more a threat now than it ever was with infectious diseases, viruses in the past. It’s being used to stoke fear so the stripping away of freedoms comes ( mostly) without argument. The topic is well worn now, but no less applicable until and if it stops. Edited May 13, 2020 by Boatdrinks 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reality Check Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 33 minutes ago, shoshin said: When rights conflict with other rights, sometimes one loses. This topic has been beaten to death--not a shot at you--I just don't feel like listing all the examples again. Sufficed to say, not all the rights under the Constitution always peaceably coexist in normal times (can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater despite your right to free speech) and in war/pandemic times, there can be even more conflicts. That is actually not true. It is perfectly legal to yell fire in a crowded movie theatre if there is a fire. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 4 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: Yep. Tired tropes about yelling fire in a theater or regulating the privilege of driving are a distraction from the actual issue. Peacefully going about one’s business is no more a threat now than it ever was with infectious diseases, viruses in the past. It’s being used to stoke fear so the stripping away of freedoms comes ( mostly) without argument. The topic is well worn now, but no less applicable until and if it stops. Exactly. People are so frightened into paralysis that there is actually a group of citizens advocating for this state of lockdown until there is a vaccine. It's mind blowing. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reality Check Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, dubs said: Exactly. People are so frightened into paralysis that there is actually a group of citizens advocating for this state of lockdown until there is a vaccine. It's mind blowing. People are unfortunately thinking the same way their own pets do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts