US Election 2020 - Pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

AlmightyBender

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
7,249
What fccking nonsense is that?

I am a staunch believer in individual rights. Which very much is a consistent set of rules as to what people should and shouldn't do.
Making masks compulsory during this time is equally as justifiable as making food safety standards compulsory in meat packing plants. And for the same reason. The reason is that your individual rights (to not wear mask or to not have safety standards) are balanced by society's right to not be subjected to the negative consequences of your individual behaviour.

You speak like a lunatic zealot that is entirely out of touch with the reality of living as part of society.
 
Last edited:

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,118
Masks... Yes or no?
Depends.
When I am in a crowded shopping center: Yes. As the risk for infection dramatically increases when you are inside and in a crowd.
When I am on a beach where the nearest person is 5m away and I am in a wind of fresh air: No.

And the former is easily possible under a system of individual rights. If a shop wants to discriminate against people who don't wear masks, or whatever other criteria they have, it is their right to do so because of private property. In the case of a pandemic like this, just asking people to do things is a reasonable way of getting them to do it.

If shops don't do it, then that is a risk that people can accept by going somewhere else. Since most business owners don't want their employees at least to have more sick days, they will adopt protections as they see fit.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
33,197
Depends.
When I am in a crowded shopping center: Yes. As the risk for infection dramatically increases when you are inside and in a crowd.
When I am on a beach where the nearest person is 5m away and I am in a wind of fresh air: No.

And the former is easily possible under a system of individual rights. If a shop wants to discriminate against people who don't wear masks, or whatever other criteria they have, it is their right to do so because of private property. In the case of a pandemic like this, just asking people to do things is a reasonable way of getting them to do it.

If shops don't do it, then that is a risk that people can accept by going somewhere else. Since most business owners don't want their employees at least to have more sick days, they will adopt protections as they see fit.
So you are saying No because you don't want to make it mandatory for everyone.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,118
Making masks compulsory during this time is equally as justifiable as making food safety standards compulsory in meat packing plants.
That is is an interesting piece of history if you want to look at how stupid standards can be.

Let’s look back at this meat-packing history. Did the regulations achieve their aims? Did the situation improve, and, if so, was this improvement due to the regulations or to private innovations? Or did the problem get worse, and, if so, can the worsening be traced to the regulations themselves? These are the sorts of questions we need to ask.

There is something in this little-known history that speaks to the entire basis for government management of health. The legislation required federal inspectors to be on-site at all hours in every meat-packing plant. At the time, regulators came up with a shabby method for detecting bad meat, namely poking a rod into the meat and smelling the rod. If it came out smelling clean, they would poke the same rod into the next piece of meat and smell it again. They would do this throughout the entire plant. This was the supposed fix.

But as Baylen J. Linnekin points out in “The Food-Safety Fallacy: More Regulation Doesn’t Necessarily Make Food Safer” (Northeastern University Law Journal, vol. 4, no. 1), this method was fundamentally flawed. You can’t necessarily detect pathogens in meat by smell. It takes a long time for bacteria to begin to stink. In the meantime, bacteria can spread disease through touch. The rod could pick up bacteria and transmit it from one piece of meat to another, and there was no way for inspectors to know about it. This method of testing meat almost certainly spread any pathogens from bad meat to good meat, ensuring that an entire plant became a house of pathogens rather than having them restricted to just one carcass.
https://www.aier.org/article/regulators-are-not-what-makes-food-safe/

And if you think this is some conspiracy by those evil libertarians:

In 1998, after two years of negotiation between the meat industry, consumer groups, and Congress, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) introduced a dramatically new system of meat inspection. "Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point," or HACCP (pronounced "hassip"), was the first major meat inspection overhaul in America since the early 1900s when Upton Sinclair's expose The Jungle provoked a closer look at meat-industry practices.

Under the aegis of the USDA, the "poke and sniff" method emerged as the first comprehensive American meat-inspection system employed in slaughterhouses around the country. USDA inspectors were given the authority to physically monitor all carcasses and cuts of meat as they moved down the slaughter line. Inspectors would literally touch, smell, and prod the meat to test its wholesomeness.

The "poke and sniff" system was designed to prevent rotten, blemished, or damaged meat from entering the food supply. Cuts of meat with lesions, growths and abrasions were routed out by inspectors, who used their sense of smell and touch to distinguish contaminated meat from clean cuts. But the "poke and sniff" system had its drawbacks, most troubling of which was the inability of the system to detect invisible pathogens and microbes.

After the 1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak, in which four children died and 700 people fell ill, both consumers and politicians lobbied for a revised system that would pay greater attention to microbiology. The common consensus in food safety was that invisible germs posed as great a danger to consumer health as visible contamination such as legions and diseased parts, and that the "poke and sniff" system was neither stringent nor scientific enough to ensure the safety of American meat.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/evaluating/haccp.html

So from 1900 to the 1990s, the regulators, the people who you used as a good example of regulation were spreading bacteria between meat products, and falsely claiming that they could ensure food standards.
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
28,863
Depends.
When I am in a crowded shopping center: Yes. As the risk for infection dramatically increases when you are inside and in a crowd.
When I am on a beach where the nearest person is 5m away and I am in a wind of fresh air: No.

And the former is easily possible under a system of individual rights. If a shop wants to discriminate against people who don't wear masks, or whatever other criteria they have, it is their right to do so because of private property. In the case of a pandemic like this, just asking people to do things is a reasonable way of getting them to do it.

If shops don't do it, then that is a risk that people can accept by going somewhere else. Since most business owners don't want their employees at least to have more sick days, they will adopt protections as they see fit.

So, simultaneously for masks AND against masks.

They're simultaneously discrimination AND protections.

They're simultaneously possible under a system of individual rights AND any system that dictates behaviour undermines individual rights.

It's simultaneously okay to ask folk to wear them during a pandemic AND wrong to tell folk to wear them during a pandemic.




The jokes about the last two libertarians left alive on a scorched earth, celebrating their victory, are prescient.
 
Last edited:

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,118
So, simultaneously for masks AND against masks.
Different tools for different purposes based on the risk and voluntary consent of adults.


It's simultaneously okay to ask folk to wear them during a pandemic AND wrong to tell folk to wear them during a pandemic.

Difference between consent and force. Is this difficult for you to understand?
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
28,863
Yes.

Do you need the government to force you to wear it, or do you wear it because you don't feel like being peeled off your windscreen if you have an accident.

Drive past some metros while not wearing yours, then come back and tell me about "force". Mkay?
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,118
Drive past some metros while not wearing yours, then come back and tell me about "force". Mkay?
Just answer the question.

Do you wear your seatbelt because you care about your survival in an accident or do you wear it because Fikile Mbalula's regulations say you have to wear it?
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,118
So you are saying you support killing old people?
Only if they are white. That will result in a complete cleansing of whiteness and finally the progressive utopia, free of white people will be realized.
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
28,863
Just answer the question.

Do you wear your seatbelt because you care about your survival in an accident or do you wear it because Fikile Mbalula's regulations say you have to wear it?

I'm old enough to remember when it became law... Up to then, asking folk to wear them meant nothing. Nothing at all. Making it law moved the needle. Force, as you put it, was required.

Remember driving around on your sell phone? How do you feel when you see someone on the phone now?

The law, and enforcing the law did that.

Masks are smart. Folk won't wear them just 'cos they're asked nicely... They will if it's compulsory.

Having to enforce seatbelt and cell phone laws prove this.


Also, your 'care about your survival' spin has now power here. Wear your goddamn mask.
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
28,863
Only if they are white. That will result in a complete cleansing of whiteness and finally the progressive utopia, free of white people will be realized.

Adorable deflection, but you gave the game away with this:

Yes. As the risk for infection dramatically increases when you are inside and in a crowd.

Now you just need to be honest about folk being contrary, and needing a push rather than a rah-rah.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top