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.
many Americans object to Islamic -style 'hijab' head coverings
but you have to go beyond that to the 'niqab' so everybody would look like a ninja. What if we ALL looked like Islamic ninjas?
It is illegal to drive a car with a full-face helmet on, on public roads. Think about all them speeding cameras, those traffic pole survellience cameras, can no longer identify individuals. Crimes would certainly go up.
Think about, all the people, who have spent a small fortune on botox duck lips, facelifts, micro-dermabrasion, acid peels -
and suddenly all that is wiped away by a govt enforced mandate to wear a mask everytime you are out in public.
Skin cancer on nose face lips and maybe ears would probably go down to ZERO, the same way schoolshootings went down to zero during the lockdown.
Even makeup like 'lipstick' would be obsolete, and the value of teeth bleaching and would go down.
Your naked face, would become something hidden, something sexualized, covered by lingerie. Revealing your bare face, would be akin to removing your underwear.
How draconian will the enforcement be? Will you get a ticket for not having a mask? Will they shoot you on sight with tranquilizer darts?
With this post be ludacris and irrelevant when read in the year 2022?
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.
I definitely worry about enforcement if it is a law on the books. Now police officers use minor traffic violations and other random small stuff to stop mostly poor people and people of color. And I can imagine uneven enforcement (which happened in New York with social distancing.)
No one should go to jail or all have a huge fine for not wearing a mask.
I would like it if we moved to a model where people who are feeling sick (no matter what kind of sick) would wear masks.
No because that would mean likely I'd be wearing a mask 9 full months out of the year and maybe even 2 days for the rest of the months for no good reason.
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 have thought that this might be a possibility - at least in my lifetime.
I have thought "so what?"
If scientists, biologists. epidemiologists, doctors etc. say we need to do that, I will.
You are looking at it through a political lens.
Stop it. It's stupid.
It's NOT POLITICAL - it's SCIENTIFIC.
If we "have to wear masks: to be healthy - we wear them.
I have thought that this might be a possibility - at least in my lifetime.
I have thought "so what?"
If scientists, biologists. epidemiologists, doctors etc. say we need to do that, I will.
You are looking at it through a political lens.
Stop it. It's stupid.
It's NOT POLITICAL - it's SCIENTIFIC.
If we "have to wear masks: to be healthy - we wear them.
For as long as needed.
Agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylentvoyce
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.
Safety/security-related practices tend to get entrenched. Remember the “Patriot” Act? It was supposed to be a temporary, emergency law, in the wake of 9/11… set to expire. But it has been renewed ever since. It just doesn’t sound like a compelling argument, that we ought to be “less safe”. Ergo, hardship or inconvenience in the name of safety, comes to be regarded as necessary and proper.
The one counterexample that comes to mind, is the national 55 mph speed limit. It was instituted in the 1970s, as a fuel-savings measure during the oil crisis. Originally temporary, it persevered for decades… but it was eventually rolled back. Today there are parts of America where 80 mph highway speeds are legal, and 70 mph has become quite common.
While some persons opposed to masks, can justifiably be excoriated for this or that short-sightedness, there nevertheless remains a compelling argument: if such-and-such measure is mandated for the moment, how can we be sure that it won’t be mandated in perpetuity? In other words, if you want for me to comply now, guarantee that the compliance-period is temporary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K12144
...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.
The above is sometimes portrayed as an unreasonable and outright puerile viewpoint. But is it? If an action is explicitly for the benefit of others, while carrying inconvenience for oneself, is it unreasonable to resent it?
For instance, if I drive drunk, not only am I placing other drivers at risk, but I'm also placing myself at risk. The accident that I'm likely to cause, could just be my car, careening off of the road, into a telephone-pole. And so we accept drunk-driving laws, as a necessary imposition. But what if it were the case, that accidents caused by drunk drivers caused injury or damage to the other party? In other words, what if the drunk's own car and body, were magically untouched? Would the justification for drunk-driving laws be just as compelling?
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.
