To Mask or Not to Mask?

[buckwacker]

That was the first several hundred posts on the topic. What I learned is that many on INGO have such an anti-authoritarian bent that they see masks as big government control and an anti-intellectual bent such that they choose to reject any evidence that goes against their preconceptions. They've already made information a dead end, so I'm done trying to go down that road.

If Person A infected Person B and didn't make reasonable efforts to prevent transmission, Person A is responsible for that. Freedom comes with responsibility; that's simply the corollary of the individual rights our society is built on.


Are stop signs voted on by the legisture, or does the legisture sometimes empower the executive branch to set regulations?

How do mask requirements inherently violate the Constitution if pants requirements don't? Are you then REQUIRED to go around nude in civil disobedience?

What gives the governor the authority to issue a mask mandate for months on end? Emergency powers are for EMERGENCIES. In other words he has the authority to issue edicts of limited nature in extenuating circumstances during the intervening time it takes the legislature to take up the issue. Nine months is NOT an emergency.

 

[buckwacker]

Duplicate post deleted

 

[CampingJosh]

What gives the governor the authority to issue a mask mandate for months on end? Emergency powers are for EMERGENCIES. In other words he has the authority to issue edicts of limited nature in extenuating circumstances during the intervening time it takes the legislature to take up the issue. Nine months is NOT an emergency.

Then take him to court.

 

[buckwacker]

Then take him to court.

Ignoring the order is much easier.

 

[Rookie]

Ignoring the order is much easier.

QFT

 

[BigRed]

Ignoring the order is much easier.

Particulary when it is FULL OF ****.

 

[CampingJosh]

Ignoring the order is much easier.

That was a pretty quick move off of your duty to defend.

 

[ditcherman]

I think you just skewered the opposition.

Then again, the real opposition is formed of your fellow countrymen, people terrorized into submission.

His keyboard sure thinks so!

eta; tried to bolden “I think you just skewered the opposition” and it didn’t take, still learning the new site.

 

[bwframe]

Then take him to court.

The court is no longer our friend. Hopefully we won't have to find that out the hard way on the 2nd Amendment.

From the SCOTUS on down, the courts have shown that they are scared less to make any controversial decisions that could be construed to favor the right.

They a scared to death from what the left has done to dox anyone they don't like and encourage ANTIFA and other criminally insane anarchists to hunt down their families.

 

[CampingJosh]

The court is no longer our friend. Hopefully we won't have to find that out the hard way on the 2nd Amendment.

From the SCOTUS on down, the courts have shown that they are scared less to make any controversial decisions that could be construed to favor the right. They a scared to death from what the left has done to dox anyone they don't like and encourage the criminally insane to hunt down their families.

None of the 200+ Article III judges that Trump appointed have the courage?

 

[buckwacker]

That was a pretty quick move off of your duty to defend.

Do you refute what I said?

 

[CampingJosh]

Do you refute what I said?

Sure, ignoring any regulation is easier than defending the republic from the overreach of our current elected officials.

But that hardly fulfills the duty you claimed. You said that you had a duty to defend. Why, then, are you not doing it?

 

[buckwacker]

Sure, ignoring any regulation is easier than defending the republic from the overreach of our current elected officials.

But that hardly fulfills the duty you claimed. You said that you had a duty to defend. Why, then, are you not doing it?

What did I say I had a duty to defend.

 

[CampingJosh]

What did I say I had a duty to defend.

Sorry, I've apparently not been keeping good enough track of who was responding. MinutemanPatriot is the one who claimed a duty to disobey. I responded to him, and when you responded to my response, I thought you were he.

My mistake, and I apologize.

But that means my question still stands.

 

[buckwacker]

Sorry, I've apparently not been keeping good enough track of who was responding. MinutemanPatriot is the one who claimed a duty to disobey. I responded to him, and when you responded to my response, I thought you were he.

My mistake, and I apologize.

No worries.

But do you dispute that the governor has exceeded his emergency powers with covid mandates? You didn't answer and seemed to make an attempt at deflection, though I could be wrong.

What gives the governor the authority to issue a mask mandate for months on end? Emergency powers are for EMERGENCIES. In other words he has the authority to issue edicts of limited nature in extenuating circumstances during the intervening time it takes the legislature to take up the issue. Nine months is NOT an emergency.

Then take him to court.

 

[MinutemanPatriot]

That was the first several hundred posts on the topic. What I learned is that many on INGO have such an anti-authoritarian bent that they see masks as big government control and an anti-intellectual bent such that they choose to reject any evidence that goes against their preconceptions. They've already made information a dead end, so I'm done trying to go down that road.

If Person A infected Person B and didn't make reasonable efforts to prevent transmission, Person A is responsible for that. Freedom comes with responsibility; that's simply the corollary of the individual rights our society is built on.


Are stop signs voted on by the legisture, or does the legisture sometimes empower the executive branch to set regulations?

How do mask requirements inherently violate the Constitution if pants requirements don't? Are you then REQUIRED to go around nude in civil disobedience?

There you go again about stop signs. That kinda tells me you have no reasonable point to articulate.

This is a liberty issue, period. You know, that thing for which governments are instituted. When they go beyond their mandate, they lose legitimacy.

Oh btw, how does that boot polish flavored ice cream taste?

 

[buckwacker]

Sorry, I've apparently not been keeping good enough track of who was responding. MinutemanPatriot is the one who claimed a duty to disobey. I responded to him, and when you responded to my response, I thought you were he.

My mistake, and I apologize.

But that means my question still stands.

Since you edited your post after I responded, what question still stands?

And again do you believe the gov exceeded his emergency powers?

 

[bwframe]

The court is no longer our friend. Hopefully we won't have to find that out the hard way on the 2nd Amendment.

From the SCOTUS on down, the courts have shown that they are scared less to make any controversial decisions that could be construed to favor the right.

They a scared to death from what the left has done to dox anyone they don't like and encourage ANTIFA and other criminally insane anarchists to hunt down their families.

None of the 200+ Article III judges that Trump appointed have the courage?

Thats exactly what I'm talking about. From Robert's down, they are scared of the mob.

ANTIFA, BLM, NFAC, whoever the next flavor of anarchists, they are all chomping at the bit for their next cause to burn down a city.

Let alone the doxing, "protesting" at individual's homes, etc.

Doesn't matter whether Trump appointed the most conservative judges under the sun. They all live and work in cities run by liberals who will let the mob heathens have their way with little or no repercussions.

 

[hoosierhawkeye]

I wear a mask if I am expect to be within six feet of people I do not know. Wearing a mask does not limit my ability to shop, travel or visit with people. I don't agree that wearing a mask infringes on my freedom. Wearing a mask increases my freedom of movement.

 

[jamil]

That was the first several hundred posts on the topic. What I learned is that many on INGO have such an anti-authoritarian bent that they see masks as big government control and an anti-intellectual bent such that they choose to reject any evidence that goes against their preconceptions. They've already made information a dead end, so I'm done trying to go down that road.

If Person A infected Person B and didn't make reasonable efforts to prevent transmission, Person A is responsible for that. Freedom comes with responsibility; that's simply the corollary of the individual rights our society is built on.


Are stop signs voted on by the legisture, or does the legisture sometimes empower the executive branch to set regulations?

How do mask requirements inherently violate the Constitution if pants requirements don't? Are you then REQUIRED to go around nude in civil disobedience?

The anti-authoritarian bent. You don't see that as an issue of distrust? Of course they reject evidence that goes against preconceptions. That's natural. That's the default human behavior. You have to ovveride that NOT to. And there's plenty of literature that says trust is the key to getting someone to change their minds about something, NOT belittling them or trying to shame them.

And then you try to simplify it into terms you can use to justify it. I agree that freedom comes with responsibility. And I'd bet you Bug's paycheck that if people believed that masks were useful, and yes, also believed that they're not a big government control mechanism, they'd wear them voluntarily. I suspect you're a bit stuck in your own world. You're frustrated because you can't convince people of the truth you think you know, and then throw your hands up and decide it must be because they're all immoral. You don't have to think badly of the people you disagree with. But you still choose to.