annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Now you've done it....
chrysostom
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
Now you've done it....
they care about climate change
they care about racism
they care about health care
they don't care about the unborn baby
let's talk about that
they care about racism
they care about health care
they don't care about the unborn baby
let's talk about that
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
If you're going to blame Trump for the deaths, you have to give him credit for the 6,025,378 recoveries.
Trump saved over six million Americans! Truly a great President! :banana:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Covid I read is now the third leading killer of Americans this year.
Third!
Cardiovascular or heart disease and cancer are numbers one and two, maybe not in that order.
Why isn't the president blamed for all these deaths! These diseases wreaked havoc on American people all this year and he did nothing! He sat on his thumbs while heart trouble and cancer killed even more people (each!) than the covid has! And all we do is vilify him for covid! He is guilty of murdering millions of Americans this year!
lain:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Covid I read is now the third leading killer of Americans this year.
Third!
Cardiovascular or heart disease and cancer are numbers one and two, maybe not in that order.
Why isn't the president blamed for all these deaths! These diseases wreaked havoc on American people all this year and he did nothing! He sat on his thumbs while heart trouble and cancer killed even more people (each!) than the covid has! And all we do is vilify him for covid! He is guilty of murdering millions of Americans this year!
The Trump-haters are living in this imaginary world where Trump COULD HAVE stopped the Kung Flu and didn't.
When I ask them what they would do differently, TODAY, they're clueless.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Is there something that can stop this that isn't oppressive, totalitarian, authoritarian, a power grab?
I just doubt it, I don't know, I mean, there are countries where the virus apparently isn't even there anymore, is there a way to get there, without indiscriminately falsely imprisoning people in their own homes---again? (England I hear is trying this again.) It breaks the right against false imprisonment or kidnapping.
Can you do this without violating the basic human right to breathe (to not wear a face covering)? That right shall not be infringed, and a mask infringes it.
Is "free" covid testing really free? If you're positive, someone's going to try to make sure that you don't leave your home, so think twice about getting the free test that can take away your freedom.
Anyway, election season. Can't trust anybody's motives unless they're just openly saying hey, I'm trying to get elected. You know, like what the president's doing. Not like the other actors campaigning right now. There's an existential threat of some variety. And I happen to be running for office. I'll save us. The only honest one's the president, he's just saying, please vote for me. Let me win. You can trust that. There's no ulterior motive with him.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
You really have to love Biden's pitch for sheer politician chutzpah.
" Vote for me to save you from the Kung Flu. If I win I'll tell you how!"
I am getting tired of winning
but
I guess we are going to have to win some more.
Maybe we will get used to it.
but
I guess we are going to have to win some more.
Maybe we will get used to it.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
You have to give him props for the Middle East peace accords. And for not starting another unnecessary war.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Okay, but there's nothing terrible about homosexuality in itself.
No argument there.
Well, a totalitarian system requires complete subservience from the populace to the state so I wouldn't support that and nor could it be regarded as liberal.
Ok, I'll give you a basic summation of his position. That children should be held as accountable for their crimes as an adult. So a five year old can be tried and executed for murder for example. He thinks we shouldn't have age of consent laws because sex should solely be between husband and wife. He hasn't addressed how this could result in 40 year old sexual predators marrying ten year old girls if such laws that protect children from such aren't in place. It would be a complete double standard to have laws that set a minimum age for marriage if children are accountable for their actions as adults.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Firstly, if you have a legitimate health condition whereby wearing a mask prevents or interferes with the ability to breathe, then you're exempt from having to wear one, at least that's how it is in the UK. Otherwise, they do not cause problems in breathing. I wear one and the biggest problem is my glasses steaming up.
Secondly, equating a lockdown with "imprisonment" and "totalitarianism" is pretty ignorant.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Hard pass there for me. Agree to disagree.
What if what the state requires of you is to defend well our universal human rights, but nothing more? If you infringe them then you are penalized, and if you don't, then you're left alone.
I have no idea how a jury could conclude that a five year old guilty of killing, is guilty of murder. Full knowledge and deliberate consent? Malice aforethought? How could a jury make such a determination?
Sometimes the laws as they already are are OK.
Right. The word I used was infringed. When it comes to rights and whether to restrict them, concepts like whether a restriction causes problems are consequentialist, and for liberals who take our rights seriously we don't take consequentialist arguments seriously.
If you're literally arguing that having fabric, cloth, or other material right in front of your mouth and nose doesn't restrict your breathing then you're not being honest or serious, one of those. And if you're arguing that restricting the right to breathe is justified, for any reason, then we are just not near each other in our political, moral, or legal philosophies.
False imprisonment. We don't have an absolute right against imprisonment (if we commit a crime for example), but we do have a right against false imprisonment. False imprisonment is inherently immoral, and thereby inherently illegal, according to my natural rights legal theory and moral philosophy.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding lockdowns. Maybe it's not what it sounds like? It sounds like you can't just leave your home and go where you want to go. Is it something other than that?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Okay.
Sounds pretty much like what we already have. If you don't murder, assault, rape, molest etc then you won't get penalized. Hardly a totalitarian state.
That's simple, they can't and nor should they. The only rational decision in play is to recognize that a five year old child is in no way as accountable for and cognizant of its actions as a fully developed adult.
Agreed, but do you see now why that kind of stuff is abhorrent?
I'm being entirely honest and serious when I tell you here and now, that for me, personally, wearing a mask does not interfere with my ability to breathe at all. I did a supermarket shop yesterday and was in there for forty minutes, all the time wearing a mask. The only thing that was a concern to me was my glasses steaming up. Not once did I experience any breathing difficulties or shortage of breath, it didn't even occur to me. If I had, then I'd be honest and admit that in turn. So, unless you want to accuse me of lying then I hope you'll accept that. If not, then we might as well part ways in this discussion. Now, if you are having breathing difficulties with face coverings then you may have problems already whereby a mask might exacerbate them. If so, I fully support your right not to wear the things as a few people I know are exempt from having to.
We're in the middle of a pandemic. Maybe rationing during the war was also an infringement of civil liberties? Having to put lights out during an air raid? You are exaggerating this into something it isn't. It's not like people can't leave their homes full stop and with the second upcoming lockdown, it's actually less restrictive.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
These boys were ten: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger
Many here argued that they were convicted unjustly, due to their age.
fbi investigating trump train
it may be russian interference
this was not a peaceful protest
there was not any looting, fires, or bricks thrown
where were the police?
it may be russian interference
this was not a peaceful protest
there was not any looting, fires, or bricks thrown
where were the police?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
It's masturbatory, and masturbation is terrible, and while I support the right of homosexuals entering into valid marriage contracts, I take it as an offensive joke made at the expense of the institution of marriage, since married homosexuals can only masturbate with each other.
But in spite of this flagrant disrespect, I try to not take it personally, and I do defend their right to get married, I just hold the view that all other things being equal, masturbation is undesirable. So long as the right to express this idea is defended, then I probably wouldn't engage in retaliatory ideas that would nullify their right to enter into a contract.
And so there is a spectrum, all the way from anarchism on the one side and on the other totalitarianism. Sometimes liberals are thought to be those who prefer to always err on the side of anarchism but this isn't correct in my view. Liberals don't care really about how much of our lives are imposed upon us from the government, we care that the impositions well defend our rights. In that pursuit, we'll happily yield to our liberal government because we know and believe that defending well our rights is actually the only, and the only proven route to true freedom and happiness, at least politically.
I take totalitarian not to be necessarily exhaustive in the extent of the regime's laws, nor to be found in the ratios of police personnel to civilians, but to be rigid and unforgiving in the face of non-compliance. In this sense, indeed I agree that we can be thought to already dwell in a totalitarian regime, and it should alarm us, but not due to status quo, but to any movement in the wrong direction.
And what is the wrong direction. This is the question that our political and legal and even moral theory answers, or seeks to.
Are you aware of what British judges have ruled on this matter in your common law? Sometimes judges have tackled issues before, sometimes even centuries before, this might be one of those issues. Do you know how to access common law jurisprudential rulings? Your nation's jurisprudence goes back many many centuries.
So let's go back to the spectrum, from anarchism to totalitarianism. Anarchism is no government. Totalitarianism is rigid government. A restriction, an infringement, upon a right, is in the direction of totalitarian, as compared to no restrictions. The rights are like government-free zones, and good government itself actively polices our rights, against not only our government itself, but against any civilian rights violations as well.
To say that wearing a face covering or mask doesn't interfere with your breathing is simply false. Even though it might not restrict air-flow into and out of your body, it does, unless it's also a self-contained breathing apparatus, increase the carbon dioxide content of the air that you inhale, compared to breathing open air without a mask or face covering. That's interference. It might only be a little bit of interference, but to call it non-interfering is not accurate.
I wear one every Mass, it's the archdiocese's direction, I also wear them in stores, other public buildings. i m o government should issue a strong and urgent recommendation to wear masks publicly, but there should be no enforcement. If someone for whatever reason, whether a medical condition or just wanting to breathe freely, or just forgetting, doesn't wear one, then I wouldn't want them harassed or arrested or fined or bothered at all by any police. It'd be a personal plea from elected officials to free citizens, imploring us to please do it, but it wouldn't have any legal force. If we individuals want to ostracize people into wearing masks or face coverings, it just can't leverage police in any way.
Well that's good news as far as it goes. The answer is never to infringe, restrict or interfere with our absolute universal rights. The trick is to identify them well, using as models the rights against being murdered, being raped, having your stuff stolen, being false imprisoned, these are absolute rights, all of our rights that are like this must never ever be infringed, no matter what, and we should aim to identify all our rights in this same way, with an absolute nature.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I just don't know. It feels like this is a topic that judges may have tackled at some point in history, I'd be curious to see what they thought. Jurisprudence is surprisingly thoughtful in many cases, it's almost like philosophy but with a bite because a person's or party's life experience hangs in the balance, along with our nation's subsequent laws. Philosophy tends to just remain in abstraction with some political philosophy being exceptional, but jurisprudential rulings enter into the world in a very real way, due to the power of courts in our liberal democratic countries. And judges rise to the occasion not infrequently i m o. Setting aside that they're all lawyers, when they do it well they give the question just as much thought and examination as you'd hope the topic would receive in a perfect world. They don't mail it in, but carefully address multiple aspects, in order to arrive at something they can unironically say is the truth, and that can stand as a precedent in future court cases.
f w i w
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It's something that 99% of humans have engaged in at one time or another if they're honest on the subject and you might consider it an issue of flagrant disrespect but gay couples won't. You may have personal or religious reasons to think like that but that doesn't apply to those who don't have the same opinions/sensibilities.
You might as well argue that any country that has laws that its citizens are expected to abide by is totalitarian. I don't agree with that kind of reasoning. Any civilized country has laws that are for the wellbeing of its populace. You get into totalitarian territory where laws infringe upon basic human rights. Somewhere like North Korea for example.
There's no way a court in the UK would even entertain trying a five year child as an adult, for obvious reasons.
This is getting pedantic as it gets. If there's any interference with air flow then it's negligible unless you have some condition where wearing one is pronounced. Otherwise, I stand by what I said. I have no difficulty in breathing while wearing a mask and I have no problem with it being a rule. I would voice dissent if it was enforced onto people where wearing them would be problematic but otherwise, deal with it, it's for public safety.
Recommendations themselves wouldn't work. It's like when the UK administration encouraged people not to drink in pubs before the initial lockdown, just not gonna happen. When we have a crisis then normal measures and the usual is affected and sometimes laws need to come in to reflect that. There's already provisions made for people who have legitimate health reasons for not wearing them and in turn, I would object to any harassment or penalty for that.
There are times where laws or rules need to be changed depending on circumstance. There needs to be balance regarding any measures that curb normal freedoms and they have to have reason. If they're for the overall public good then sometimes you have to just suck it up as with the present situation. You think I'm looking forward to going into another lockdown come Thursday? Not in the slightest.
we have to make room for the homeless
art and ido have no place to go
what are they talking about?
I want to talk about all this support for Trump
they really love him
they love this country
they want to preserve our freedom
why don't they believe the fake news?
art and ido have no place to go
what are they talking about?
I want to talk about all this support for Trump
they really love him
they love this country
they want to preserve our freedom
why don't they believe the fake news?