Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is a fair statement Bosox 15. hopefully these rules don't last in some form in perpetuity. The biggest thing is individual responsibility. As with the poster above I believe in individual responsibility. But that means those people have to understand the importance of protection, but still maintain the freedom to choose.
Many say your freedom stops where my health begins, that's why mask rules are necessary, but I argue on the flip end of the end coin. That our combined freedom allows you to choose to only hang out with people who wear masks. Enforcing rules on others for your comfort or health takes away from that individualism.
Yes. the chief focus of this thread is analyzing rules made by politicians. As such it will inevitably end up getting political. I hope to be active in this thread, to help moderate that a bit.
thank you for your input.
That gets complicated but it's not necessarily true. I work in retail. I would prefer to only associate with people wearing masks but many of my customers choose not to wear one. Using your argument I should quit my job so that I don't have to 'hang out' with people not wearing masks. Does your right to not wear a mask supersede my right to keep my job and support my family?
Masks are not mandatory here, choosing to only hang out with people who wear masks means not only would I not be able to work I would also not be able to enter any store, get my car repaired, visit my doctors office, or many of the other things necessary to daily life. Telling others they need to isolate might sound great in theory, but it's much too simplified to actually work on any kind of scale.
I think the masks may go away at some point, but I think social distancing will stick around in some form or another. It's pretty easy to estimate 6 feet and I've personally gotten used to it. I've always been a bit stand-offish anyway and I actually like bumping elbows.
Who would benefit, and what would the benefit be, from a requirement to wear masks when there is no longer a threat to the public at large? From the large amount of negative response to maks I don't think this would ever be a case of 'oops, we forgot to take that law off the books'.
Many say your freedom stops where my health begins, that's why mask rules are necessary, but I argue on the flip end of the end coin. That our combined freedom allows you to choose to only hang out with people who wear masks. Enforcing rules on others for your comfort or health takes away from that individualism.
Unfortunately people need to be told how to behave when it comes to the safety of society as a whole. Again walking the political line, to date we have had zero leadership at the federal level and people being coddled that this is not a big deal and there is no reason to wear a mask if you don't want to. The fact that the President, who has access to literally the best and most brilliant scientists, doctors, etc. said that we would be "open by Easter" should have been a huge red flag that something is amiss. We are no closer to opening today than we were on Easter.
And now we're on the "blocked" list to travel to the EU. Think about that - the wealthiest, most sophisticated, most advanced country with the best healthcare facilities in the world is on the block list for the European Union. Let that set in for just one minute.
Yeah, I'm in NYC so if I have to pick between public measures that result in more people wearing masks and exercising better individual hygiene vs. having to watch people cough on me, or hack and spit on the subway tracks I'm picking masks. It's common sense in a lot of places on earth which are far poorer and have fewer resources than the US of A.
Individual liberty is a curse on civilized society when wielded like a weapon by those with no intelligence or common sense.
That's not bad personal policy Jade408. The backlash people are having is the fact that it is apparently misdemeanor law in many states and, apparently the governors can enact new misdemeanor laws whenever they please.
What you said about the sniffles is the single most brilliant and eloquent definition of personal freedom and personal responsibility. Something that the United States should hold dear. But it doesn't anymore. Draconian control is apparently the right thing to do these days.
Well, that's because people see it as their "personal freedom" not to take "personal responsibility" and wear a mask.
Do you really think most people would put on a mask when they're sick of their own volition?
If people would be socially responsible, we wouldn't need the rules to force them to be. Businesses got shut down because people were told to stay home and they didn't. Masks were mandated because people were told it was good to wear them and they didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSox 15
But hopefully the biggest thing to come out of this is that people can realize that our interactions do have repercussions and we should be alert to germs. I think that there's a misconception that masks are to prevent you from getting sick, when it reality it's the opposite.
As mentioned further up in the thread, someone had a coworker who diligently wore a mask when he got the sniffles. He didn't wear it for his benefit, he wore it for your benefit.
And this is precisely why some people balk at it. If it was to protect them, they'd be more likely to do it. If it's just for other people, no way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylentvoyce
That is a fair statement Bosox 15. hopefully these rules don't last in some form in perpetuity. The biggest thing is individual responsibility. As with the poster above I believe in individual responsibility. But that means those people have to understand the importance of protection, but still maintain the freedom to choose.
Many say your freedom stops where my health begins, that's why mask rules are necessary, but I argue on the flip end of the end coin. That our combined freedom allows you to choose to only hang out with people who wear masks. Enforcing rules on others for your comfort or health takes away from that individualism.
It's not that simple, no. If you have to buy food and people in the grocery store aren't wearing masks, you haven't much choice. If you have to go to work and people aren't wearing masks, you don't have much choice. Social interaction isn't only about being able to choose whether to go to a friend's house for dinner.
And now we're on the "blocked" list to travel to the EU. Think about that - the wealthiest, most sophisticated, most advanced country with the best healthcare facilities in the world is on the block list for the European Union. Let that set in for just one minute.
OK, since there is an abundance of COVID 19 and mask wearing threads; I'll be very clear about the purpose of this thread. To moderators, let me know if this particular topic has been addressed already.
The question here concerns the legal aspect of mandating masks. The primary concern is: When the pandemic ends, next month or next decade, will the rules about wearing masks ever be rescinded?
Think of every law, rule, policy, and ordinance that has been enacted in response to a threat. Be it war, disease, or corruption; and ask yourself: Has any of these ever been repealed or rescinded after the threat had ended?
It seems once a politician has enacted new policy. It just gets forgotten, forever to be left in place under threat of criminal action.
Thoughts?
You are referring mostly to federal laws passed by congress and comparing them to mandates enacted by states and local governments in a emergency. I have lived in Hurricane areas. They have mandatory evacuation orders. They do not last forever. We have had curfews put into place this year and previous years. They also do not last forever.
There should not have been a pandemic, as this Coronavirus got spread by jet planes, as there was Ebolavirus in the Congo back in the 2013-16 and it was contained in a couple of nations and Sares virus which was the Hong Kong virus which in 2003 had some 8,000 cases throughout the earth, and then the Spanish flu which in three years from 1918-1921 some 500 million people got infected ........ All of these had people wearing masks to slow spreading the virus, and then they all ended and people stopped wearing masks
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
