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.
A lot of people don't like wearing glasses but they have to so they can see.
I often don't wear them outside so I can wear my sunglasses. I also don't wear them in bed if I'm just looking at my phone/tablet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland
People didn't want to wear seatbelts but since they save lives, people use them.
Why? I'm not seeing the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndroidAZ
Let's put it this way. If you were going into battle against an enemy with machine guns, would you wear a bullet proof vest and helmet only part of the time, or all the time?
We typically did not have masks to wear before. Now we do. Why not wear a mask if you have a cold and have to go out? It will be only days or weeks before we start hearing about the next seasonal flu. We can get a flu shot but a mask might be the 2nd option, especially for anti-vax folks. I don't expect there to be decrees or executive orders on the subject once we get away from Covid but it is common sense, especially in dense populations.
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.
In WA it is now a misdemeanor to go unmasked in public, except for outdoors when distancing can be done. But LE is not arresting people. I think declaring it a statewide misdemeanor is legal because of emergency powers the governor has., but I also think it has more to do with forcing businesses and employers to comply. And, of course, businesses are on firm footing telling customers they must wear masks.
Our infection rate is going up. Requiring masks is sensible.
I can’t imagine any government official deciding to make this requirement permanent. What purpose would it serve, other than losing the next election?
The right of tens of thousands of people to avoid a dangerous and possibly deadly disease outweighs the minimal liberty interest involved in choosing not to wear a mask.
I've seen this, 'many outweigh the few' argument before. Taking your example; lets expand on it. This disease is only dangerous and deadly to a fraction of people. The individual liberties of the extraordinarily high number of people who will see mild and no symptoms at all outweigh the few who will actually suffer from this simple upper respiratory bug, and the even fewer that will actually die. Not unlike every flu season since time immemorial.
Let's apply the same argument again. 129 thousand deaths, versus 41 million unemployed. The shutdown catered to the health of a few over the future of the many.
My point is that's not a good argument. And its off topic. The question is, do you think the government will agree with your stance and take away another personal freedom in the name of safety?
Lots of things could happen but what is the point of addressing hypothetical situations? At this point in time we have a patchwork of state and local orders that will at some point end. That was what I was addressing. And you comment that these sorts of things last forever was incorrect. Emergency orders by nature are temporary. And if this was to be federal law, likely the Democrats in the house would vote for it, it might barely pass the senate and Trump would almost certainly veto it. So at least until the end of January 2021 there will not be a federal law regarding masks. Again worrying about situations that have yet to happen is pointless.
Do you have examples of state and local emergency orders that quickly turned into federal law?
My suggestion. Wear a mask. If everyone did what is obviously the prudent thing to do there would be no need for the government to mandate them to do it. We would actually take back the power from the government. Pretty simple.
The whole point of this thread is examining a hypothetical. If we knew what the future held, I wouldn't be here hypothesizing it. The second part of your first response here addresses my question more directly. I have to wonder, (Now I'm fixing to get political), is this issue going to be kicked down the road far enough to get past election day, and if a democratic president is elected, then are efforts to write mandatory mask wearing laws going to suddenly occur? Remember, we have a super dangerous flu that attacks the population every year. Gotta keep people safe.
Second part; no I don't have examples of orders turning into laws. I just said they could. If government can turn a fight into an agreement, then it will be easy to write into law. That's why early in the pandemic this crusade started out with recommendations, for our safety and because we are all in this together. Then once enough people were on board, it turned into threats from governors to push the remaining holdouts into line.
In WA it is now a misdemeanor to go unmasked in public, except for outdoors when distancing can be done. But LE is not arresting people. I think declaring it a statewide misdemeanor is legal because of emergency powers the governor has., but I also think it has more to do with forcing businesses and employers to comply. And, of course, businesses are on firm footing telling customers they must wear masks.
Our infection rate is going up. Requiring masks is sensible.
I can’t imagine any government official deciding to make this requirement permanent. What purpose would it serve, other than losing the next election?
If you have enough supporters, than making it permanent would help win reelection. I live here in Washington State too. Our governor has a lot of power for two primary reasons. A. No term limits in this state. B. There are more voters in the city of Seattle and its surrounding suburbs than in the whole rest of the state combined.
That means all he has to do is win over Seattle every election season. He doesn't even have to campaign outside the city. that effectively leaves the rest of the state at his mercy with no voice to fight or change anything; ever.
It might not fly at the federal level, but I wholeheartedly believe governor Inslee has the support, power, and motivation to push a permanent state law into effect.
I've seen this, 'many outweigh the few' argument before. Taking your example; lets expand on it. This disease is only dangerous and deadly to a fraction of people. The individual liberties of the extraordinarily high number of people who will see mild and no symptoms at all outweigh the few who will actually suffer from this simple upper respiratory bug, and the even fewer that will actually die. Not unlike every flu season since time immemorial.
Let's apply the same argument again. 129 thousand deaths, versus 41 million unemployed. The shutdown catered to the health of a few over the future of the many.
My point is that's not a good argument. And its off topic. The question is, do you think the government will agree with your stance and take away another personal freedom in the name of safety?
The difference between my argument and yours is that mine so far at least enjoys the backing of the group that interprets liberty under our Constitution. I'm speaking of the courts. The Pentecostal Church v. Gavin Newson case which was decided by Chief Justice John Roberts balanced the liberty involved in exercising religious worship against a state decision to close churches and ruled for the state of California. There are some things to unpack here, but the basic proposition is that you can't just go telling everyone that your right to go drink in a bar, eat in a restaurant, go to theater, or recreate at a pool, or not wear a mask is somehow more important than the rights of thousands of people to avoid catching a dangerous disease. States have police powers to enact rules to protect the health, welfare, and safety of their citizens. If the state is legitimately seeking to protect health and safety the courts don't get into a lot of detail. They reason the details can be better handled by the Governor and by legislative bodies.
My post is directly on topic. I think government can and will require masks and close some businesses if coronavirus cases continue to rise sharply. There is no freedom that is absolute under our Constitution.
The difference between my argument and yours is that mine so far at least enjoys the backing of the group that interprets liberty under our Constitution. I'm speaking of the courts. The Pentecostal Church v. Gavin Newson case which was decided by Chief Justice John Roberts balanced the liberty involved in exercising religious worship against a state decision to close churches and ruled for the state of California. There are some things to unpack here, but the basic proposition is that you can't just go telling everyone that your right to go drink in a bar, eat in a restaurant, go to theater, or recreate at a pool, or not wear a mask is somehow more important than the rights of thousands of people to avoid catching a dangerous disease. States have police powers to enact rules to protect the health, welfare, and safety of their citizens. If the state is legitimately seeking to protect health and safety the courts don't get into a lot of detail. They reason the details can be better handled by the Governor and by legislative bodies.
My post is directly on topic. I think government can and will require masks and close some businesses if coronavirus cases continue to rise sharply. There is no freedom that is absolute under our Constitution.
Unfortunately, you are right. There is no absolute freedom. If the safe thing to do is to strip freedoms, than that is what the government has appointed itself the power to do. Some believe in individual liberty others believe in collective security. regardless of my arguments, the fact is here and now, the world does indeed largely agree with you.
Being tough is believed to be archaic these days, isn't it? Only those in power are allowed to be strong. The rest of us are to be protected and sheltered.
Being tough is believed to be archaic these days, isn't it? Only those in power are allowed to be strong. The rest of us are to be protected and sheltered.
With a well-educated, empathetic populace I would definitely agree that legislating common sense public health measures would be counterproductive and unnecessary; but if the numbers these past months have taught us anything it is that large swathes of the American population cannot be relied upon to exercise good judgment or hygiene and therefore there is little else to do than to introduce legislation to coerce the behavior that we cannot rely upon our citizens to do voluntarily. Otherwise we will continue to see the infection and death toll rise.
Our culture is simply ill-equipped to deal with a situation that asks for voluntary, individual sacrifice for the benefit of the collective; it is literally the opposite of the American ethos of rabid individualism. Selfishness is baked into our collective consciousness and millions of preventable infections and 100k+ deaths haven't done anything to change this.
I haven't been the best at wearing my mask. But I started thinking about it. My 69 year old wife, as some of you have read in some of my other posts, isn't in the best of health. The main problem is Addison's Disease. Her body doesn't produce any adrenaline. If she gets sick from this, or anything, and starts throwing up, she has to go in the hospital and it usually takes 3 or 4 days to get her settled down again. Dr. said one of these days things will kick in and they won't be able to stop it, and it will kill her. I couldn't put her on my life insurance at work because of this illness. Addison's is on top of heart problems. That means if I go out without my mask, I could bring this virus home to her. I don't want to do that. I want to keep her around as long as possible. So I've started wearing "the suffacator" any time I go in a store. And I will as long as I have to.
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.
