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.
Those that are against masks will never be persuaded otherwise, much like those for wearing a mask will never be persuaded either. Debating over this is pointless. At the end of the day, it comes down to the fact that we should allow others to make choices that are best for them. We all look at the same data and interpret it differently and because of that, means there should be no right or wrong. Those that think only there way is right are the selfish ones.
No, everything is not a matter of perception, there are also facts. Facts are that masks may reduce risks, that is not a perception.
It is indeed a fact, that "masks may reduce risks". But note the language... "may", and "reduce". Not "will", or "eliminate". It becomes squishy and amorphous. How useful are such "facts"? How do they differ from mere perceptions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustangman66
Those that are against masks will never be persuaded otherwise, much like those for wearing a mask will never be persuaded either. Debating over this is pointless. At the end of the day, it comes down to the fact that we should allow others to make choices that are best for them. We all look at the same data and interpret it differently and because of that, means there should be no right or wrong. Those that think only there way is right are the selfish ones.
Strictly speaking, you are quite right. Hardened views will not be softened, by internet-banter. But there remain a couple of useful points.
First, there is presumably a large swath of people in the middle. They are sympathetic to both the concerns of attenuating spread of the virus, and managing the costs/burdens of said attenuation. Such "independent voters" can be swayed, through persuasive arguments.
- Second, the hardened partisans can remain seething in their personal grievances, or band together, to take concerted action. I am not impressed with how far social media can actually move beyond the internet, into physical action. But there are examples of this successfully happening. That being so, I take a particular joy, in trying to move the proverbial needle, of getting persons opposed to the excesses of masking and distancing and shutdowns, to go ahead and to take concerted action. One example is to write to our Congresspersons or state leadership. Could this Forum serve as a springboard for gathering signatures?
-Speaking personally, I would like - eventually - to run for Congress. Maybe now is the time?
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 08-06-2020 at 08:41 PM..
Could this Forum serve as a springboard for gathering signatures?
No.
But I nevertheless salute your decision to participate in democracy. I may not agree with all your views, but I do agree that every citizen has a right to participate in the Great Experiment that is the United States of America.
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?
I don't mind wearing masks or social distancing. I never liked smelling peoples' dragon breath or being sprayed with mist while they talk. Say it. Don't spray it. ewww Also anything that reduces my chances for catching a cold or flu this winter, sign me up!
I think there is a large percentage of the population that does not agree with mask mandates, however, they play the game anyway. The more everyone complies, the more it becomes the new norm. If all of these people stopped wearing masks, business stopped jumping on the bandwagon by requiring masks, and we started trying to live life normally again, maybe things would change. Isnt that a form of protesting? I mean our society seems to be quite familiar with that this year and if riots and looting are acceptable to get a point across, not wearing a mask should be ok. The mask Nazi's on the other hand have twisted this around to make those who don't agree with them the selfish bad guy that doesn't care about anyone. I am sure that this is how seatbelt and helmet laws originated...everyone is just so concerned about each others safety that they want everyone to do it.
As a society we have become too sensitive. I don't wish death on anyone, but looking at the numbers alone for Covid, I think the death rate is pretty miniscule in the big picture. The positive cases are going up, the death rate isn't following suit...this is a good thing. The more exposure we get the less severe it will become. Yes people will die but you cant make their stories personal which is what the media likes to do in order to scare you into thinking the same will happen to you or your family. Can it? Sure it can, but the risk is minimal. Life is about risk and when you try to eliminate or reduce everyones risk it leads to other problems.
Honestly, why do people care so much about wearing masks?
Good thing we don’t have a national campaign to wear pants, otherwise, 20% of the country would be going on and on and on about now pants restrict their movements, make their crotch hurt, make them trip and infringe on their freedom to go pantless.
Or good thing we don’t have a national campaign to make people go to the bathroom in actual bathrooms instead of just randomly in nature. If we did, we’d hear all kinds of complaints about how bathrooms smell horrible and it’s gross to have to use a toilet that other people used or that it costs a lot of money to install a bathroom in your house or that it restricts the places you can poop and it physically hurts to hold it in while you find a spot to go and above all it infringes on people’s freedom poop where they GD please!
You might think that these analogies are ridiculous, but they are not. Did you know that until a few years about 50% of the population of India did not have access to a bathroom. They just went and defecated in nature (or on the train tracks or some body of water or in some corner of their slum). Aid organizations have tried to solve the problems by installing lots of toilets. But surprise, surprise, the populace for the most part didn’t use them. They actually preferred pooping in the open and thought toilets were gross and bothersome. See: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/05/asia/...cli/index.html
So, really, stop the ridiculous excuses and debates and just start wearing masks. Who cares if mask-wearing goes on forever? We’ll just get used to it, like our ancestors got used to wearing pants and not pooping anywhere they felt like.
Honestly, why do people care so much about wearing masks?
Good thing we don’t have a national campaign to wear pants, otherwise, 20% of the country would be going on and on and on about now pants restrict their movements, make their crotch hurt, make them trip and infringe on their freedom to go pantless.
Or good thing we don’t have a national campaign to make people go to the bathroom in actual bathrooms instead of just randomly in nature. If we did, we’d hear all kinds of complaints about how bathrooms smell horrible and it’s gross to have to use a toilet that other people used or that it costs a lot of money to install a bathroom in your house or that it restricts the places you can poop and it physically hurts to hold it in while you find a spot to go and above all it infringes on people’s freedom poop where they GD please!
You might think that these analogies are ridiculous, but they are not. Did you know that until a few years about 50% of the population of India did not have access to a bathroom. They just went and defecated in nature (or on the train tracks or some body of water or in some corner of their slum). Aid organizations have tried to solve the problems by installing lots of toilets. But surprise, surprise, the populace for the most part didn’t use them. They actually preferred pooping in the open and thought toilets were gross and bothersome. See: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/05/asia/...cli/index.html
So, really, stop the ridiculous excuses and debates and just start wearing masks. Who cares if mask-wearing goes on forever? We’ll just get used to it, like our ancestors got used to wearing pants and not pooping anywhere they felt like.
I would rather die than live in a society that dictated mandatory masks forever in order to slow the spread a virus that is not at all a threat to humanity. People claim oppression still exists in this country and forcing the entire population to comply with something like this is oppression at it's finest.
Just because some people fear this virus does it mean everyone needs to. That's the issue, mask supporters only see it their way and don't care what anyone else thinks. There are far bigger threats out there that seemingly get overlooked, but suddenly this virus tops everything. Cherry picking at it's finest, yet people only see what the media wants them to. The media has caused this divide.
Honestly, why do people care so much about wearing masks?
Good thing we don’t have a national campaign to wear pants, otherwise, 20% of the country would be going on and on and on about now pants restrict their movements, make their crotch hurt, make them trip and infringe on their freedom to go pantless.
Or good thing we don’t have a national campaign to make people go to the bathroom in actual bathrooms instead of just randomly in nature. If we did, we’d hear all kinds of complaints about how bathrooms smell horrible and it’s gross to have to use a toilet that other people used or that it costs a lot of money to install a bathroom in your house or that it restricts the places you can poop and it physically hurts to hold it in while you find a spot to go and above all it infringes on people’s freedom poop where they GD please!
You might think that these analogies are ridiculous, but they are not. Did you know that until a few years about 50% of the population of India did not have access to a bathroom. They just went and defecated in nature (or on the train tracks or some body of water or in some corner of their slum). Aid organizations have tried to solve the problems by installing lots of toilets. But surprise, surprise, the populace for the most part didn’t use them. They actually preferred pooping in the open and thought toilets were gross and bothersome. See: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/05/asia/...cli/index.html
So, really, stop the ridiculous excuses and debates and just start wearing masks. Who cares if mask-wearing goes on forever? We’ll just get used to it, like our ancestors got used to wearing pants and not pooping anywhere they felt like.
IMO, this post is very instructive as to why this particular topic with this particular title exists. Masks very rapidly became a one-size-fits-all solution and mandate simultaneously; the rapidity of this adoption has, one could argue, left a lot of questions about the fine details unanswered. That the biggest one - "When does this end?" - still has received zero numerical (goal-based) answers in here certainly justifies the "forever?" in the thread title.
But there are others: have we measured how much mask-wearing makes a difference, and under what circumstances? Measured at what point might they backfire (excess wear, saturation with breath/droplets, etc)? Can we distinguish between necessity while indoors and necessity while outdoors? Can we distinguish between necessity while briefly passing someone versus necessity while maintaining close exposure for more than a few minutes? Is the change we want to make (or, empirically, should make) that every single person must always wear a mask, or only those who are symptomatically sick? Can any conversation be aired as to what we lose emotionally and psychologically if, from this point forward for the rest of human history, we never again see each other's unguarded faces except for very intimate moments? Are we sure a world where a child comes out of the womb and is greeted for the first time by its mother's masked face is the right one to careen towards?
Ringing all these questions like plastic around a six-pack is the biggest quandary of all: Are we even allowed to ask any of this?
Jill, your post answers this with a resounding "no". By invoking comparisons to wearing pants and not defecating in the streets, you are asserting a ubiquitous and authoritative hygienic mandate and likening anyone who dislikes your conclusion - or the way you arrived at it - to uncivilized, or at least unvirtuous, prokaryotes. It's a sweeping, moralistic judgment that furiously shuts the door on any room for debate.
There are two things I'd offer in response to your post. The first is reassurance: sweeping moral judgments and refusal to debate are values that are in charge of society right now, and because of this, your viewpoint is all but certain to prevail for the long haul. Whatever the "new normal" becomes, it will be shaped by outrages like yours, rather than by evidence.
The second is just about redundancy. You don't need to end your post by declaring that you're fine with it going on forever. When you paint your opposition so aggressively that anyone who dares question the ubiquity or empiricism of the mask mandate is no better than a cartoonish pantsless street-pooper, you've already shut the door forever on the possibility of an off-ramp from masking. There's no need to say it twice.
IMO, this post is very instructive as to why this particular topic with this particular title exists. Masks very rapidly became a one-size-fits-all solution and mandate simultaneously; the rapidity of this adoption has, one could argue, left a lot of questions about the fine details unanswered. That the biggest one - "When does this end?" - still has received zero numerical (goal-based) answers in here certainly justifies the "forever?" in the thread title.
But there are others: have we measured how much mask-wearing makes a difference, and under what circumstances? Measured at what point might they backfire (excess wear, saturation with breath/droplets, etc)? Can we distinguish between necessity while indoors and necessity while outdoors? Can we distinguish between necessity while briefly passing someone versus necessity while maintaining close exposure for more than a few minutes? Is the change we want to make (or, empirically, should make) that every single person must always wear a mask, or only those who are symptomatically sick? Can any conversation be aired as to what we lose emotionally and psychologically if, from this point forward for the rest of human history, we never again see each other's unguarded faces except for very intimate moments? Are we sure a world where a child comes out of the womb and is greeted for the first time by its mother's masked face is the right one to careen towards?
Ringing all these questions like plastic around a six-pack is the biggest quandary of all: Are we even allowed to ask any of this?
Jill, your post answers this with a resounding "no". By invoking comparisons to wearing pants and not defecating in the streets, you are asserting a ubiquitous and authoritative hygienic mandate and likening anyone who dislikes your conclusion - or the way you arrived at it - to uncivilized, or at least unvirtuous, prokaryotes. It's a sweeping, moralistic judgment that furiously shuts the door on any room for debate.
There are two things I'd offer in response to your post. The first is reassurance: sweeping moral judgments and refusal to debate are values that are in charge of society right now, and because of this, your viewpoint is all but certain to prevail for the long haul. Whatever the "new normal" becomes, it will be shaped by outrages like yours, rather than by evidence.
The second is just about redundancy. You don't need to end your post by declaring that you're fine with it going on forever. When you paint your opposition so aggressively that anyone who dares question the ubiquity or empiricism of the mask mandate is no better than a cartoonish pantsless street-pooper, you've already shut the door forever on the possibility of an off-ramp from masking. There's no need to say it twice.
There is no credible evidence that masks “backfire” as you put it. Nice try.
And if they help even a little, why not wear them? Asian countries got into the habit of wearing masks and it seems as if the new custom is serving them well.
Also, no one is saying that we will have to wear masks 100% of the time forever. Even now, it doesn’t make sense to wear masks outside (under most circumstances).
There is no credible evidence that masks “backfire” as you put it. Nice try.
There's no "game" that I'm trying to play at here. A mask covered on the inside with snot from dozens of sneezes and left that way for hours certainly causes more problems that it solves. That's an obvious extreme case (although you'd be surprised how many people I see no longer covering up their mouth when they cough or sneeze because they're wearing a mask) but surely we ought to work backward from it, investigate the facts, and establish a groundwork for how frequently they need to be changed under varying circumstances before they start harming more than they help. Your response asserts that these are basically magical talismans which will never harm more than they help, and I'd be fascinated to see what backs this up.
You continue to imply that any question about the evidence deserves a bludgeoning, so points for consistency, I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill_Schramm
Also, no one is saying that we will have to wear masks 100% of the time forever. Even now, it doesn’t make sense to wear masks outside (under most circumstances).
You say this, but you "misunderestimate" (thanks, GWB) the boundary-bypassing power of the moralistic sweeping outrage that served as your on-ramp to the mask mandate.
"It might help even a little, and it costs nothing, so just do it!" When you say this, you're probably picturing people in grocery stores and on the bus (and I even agree with you! - at least temporarily). But all it takes is for one person fueled by even more aplomb than you to insist on the same thing outdoors: every person, every sidewalk, every park, every beach and pier and wooded running trail and mountain path and stroll on a moonlit night.
Try to stop them with evidence about the extremely low rate of outdoor transmission - and it won't matter. The mandate isn't about evidence, it's about the fact that masking up costs nothing - and is therefore beyond objection so long as it may help even a little.
Pretty far out there, right? But that's what happens when you play with fire.
And if they help even a little, why not wear them?
Because they are also an impediment, "even a little". The benefit has to be balanced with the harm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill_Schramm
Honestly, why do people care so much about wearing masks?
Because some of us found ourselves thrust into environments where we're forced to wear masks 12 hours a day - and no, we're not medical doctors or hazmat workers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill_Schramm
Good thing we don’t have a national campaign to wear pants, otherwise, 20% of the country would be going on and on and on about now pants restrict their movements, make their crotch hurt, make them trip and infringe on their freedom to go pantless.
No, bad thing. I'll take your facetiousness and will reverse it, to face-value (pun intended). I hate wearing pants, and would be more comfortable in a clothing-optional society. But at least we're conditioned to wear pants, almost from infancy. We get used to it, and acquiesce from infancy. Perhaps future generations will be thus conditioned, regarding masks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill_Schramm
Or good thing we don’t have a national campaign to make people go to the bathroom in actual bathrooms instead of just randomly in nature. If we did, we’d hear all kinds of complaints about how bathrooms smell horrible and it’s gross to have to use a toilet that other people used or that it costs a lot of money to install a bathroom in your house or that it restricts the places you can poop and it physically hurts to hold it in while you find a spot to go and above all it infringes on people’s freedom poop where they GD please!
I'll rebut this one as well. Yes, sanitation-considerations tip the balance in favor of toilets, but at least in lower population-density places, what's the harm in urinating in the bushes? And yet, our "culture" prohibits this. Modern sophistication, and all that. To what end?
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.
