To Mask or Not to Mask?

[foszoe]

Dude, if you have to put that much explanatory verbiage into convincing people what you 'really' meant or how you 'really' interpreted their replies, is it not time to seriously question your rhetorical technique and the clarity of your thought/writing?

Two points.

I always do. Especially when I write a post so long no one reads it.

I have plenty of people willing to tell me they clearly know what I meant while at the same time questioning the clarity of my thoughts and writing...

 

[chipbennett]

Utter quackery. There is a reason Alex Jones is pushing vitamins.

Yes, when you speak you spit on people, we all do. That is why we wear the mask to stop spitting on others and around things we touch, like door knobs, gas pump handles or counters.

Yes, the anti-maskers are snowflakes, unwilling to do their parts so they sputter nonsense about freedom and ryyyeeettts. Yeah, no, snowflake, you are not special.

People do not always know that they are positive for Covid-19. That is why we should act like we all have it and wear our masks as responsible citizens.

Your insistence that vitamins are "utter quackery" is utterly absurd, and contrary to actual science.

If you are spitting on people when you talk to them, you have a problem and should look into fixing it. Regardless, if you are observing social distancing, said spitting from speech is irrelevant. (Again, that pesky science.) As for things we touch: thus far, the science is fairly conclusive that Covid is not transmitted through contact exposure. And, again, if you are observing proper hygiene, surface contamination is essentially irrelevant.

The only people who are "snowflakes" are those who insist that others "do something" to mitigate the risk of the demanding party - particularly when the person being demanded to "do something" isn't contributing to that risk.

People do not always know that they are positive for being a felon in possession. That is why we (and police) should act like we are all felons in possession and detain and search everyone for a feloniously possessed firearm.

 

[chipbennett]

As you can but this is not a major felony level GOOJF card....

As I can, what? Sorry; I'm playing catch-up from the weekend.

 

[chipbennett]

Um, no, it's a pandemic, you don't get to "make choices" about hurting others. Not how any of this works.

You are not a special snowflake. Wear your mask, we are in this together and acting like a toddler having a fit in a grocery store does nothing to prevent the spread. Covid-19 does not care about your feelings.

Why do you keep implying that healthy people are the equivalent of Typhoid Mary.

We have the presumption of being healthy and otherwise not causing harm. We have the right of due process. Prove the harm.

 

[churchmouse]

As I can, what? Sorry; I'm playing catch-up from the weekend.

Reply to Bug in teal.....

 

[BugI02]

I have plenty of people willing to tell me they clearly know what I meant while at the same time questioning the clarity of my thoughts and writing...

Congratulations, you should now have enhanced empathy for Trump and Trumpers, who have been living that particular aggravation for 5 years

 

[Chewie]

That would be the Governor and his medical advisors.

The Governor and his medical advisors? You mean the states head sheep and his crew! Now that is funny!!!!!

 

[chipbennett]

Reply to Bug in teal.....

But, that takes extra effort...

 

[chipbennett]

"anti-masker" is not a correct term. We are not telling you to not wear a mask. We are not telling you what to do.
You do what you want to do and I will do what I want to do - you know - like in America.

Might as well refer to the two sides as pro-choice and anti-choice.

 

[nonobaddog]

But, that takes extra effort...

You are not catching on - the reply was to Bug - not to you.

 

[BugI02]

But, that takes extra effort...

The reply from CM you questioned is part of a side conversation between him and I, in the clear. The sort of thing commentary that might have been done through a quick and dirty PM via a zero points rep posting under the old system. The whole formal 'start a converastion thing is too clunky and slow, thus what you see

CM was telling you he was replying to me, without any larger indicated scope

 

[BugI02]

Might as well refer to the two sides as pro-choice and anti-choice.

IBSRTAPAP*

[In Before Somebody Recharacterizes That As Pro-life And Pro-death]

 

[Chewie]

Ive been going about my normal way in Johnson and Morgan County for the past 4 months or so and the only place that actually said anything about putting on a mask was menards. Every other of the dozen or so places I go on a regular basis never say anything about the mask so I just dont wear one anymore.

Same thing for me (Morgan county as well) about the only place I wear a mask is Menards. I carry one just in case but haven't needed it yet.
I did have one person in Lowe's ask me if I had a mask (not an employee) and I said yep, took it out of my pocket and showed her, put it back in my pocket and kept walking.

 

[foszoe]

Congratulations, you should now have enhanced empathy for Trump and Trumpers, who have been living that particular aggravation for 5 years

Why now? I voted for Trump twice. My presence isn't just limited to INGO.

I behave the same way when surrounded by Democrats.

Equally hated by all sides!

 

[Rookie]

Since there was still some discussion going on, here is my post mortem on the discussion that Rookie and I were having.




At this point, I am making an attempt to show, while not denying the "only" in Rookies statement in his personal experience, that he has an incomplete picture based on his membership in one group. Basically that the street does go both ways.

This is his response. I don't see the point that it is making. I see it as a straight up personal attack. After all, I've said on here I've already had it before in another thread. Yet he makes an assumption that I am cowering in fear over a virus I have already had and running away from him (or similar minded folks) if they come up to me.

Well that's not me. It is possible we are defining personal space differently. If someone walks past me in an aisle way, I don't think that's getting in my personal space. In fact, my definition of personal space hasn't changed since pre Covid. If I am standing in front of a display and someone basically moves into and remains in a bubble anywhere between me and the shelves or loiters within 3 feet of me.

Now, that doesn't mean I want to just stand in someone's way either. IF I am purposefully getting something, and you start reaching over or in front of me. That's gonna get a comment. If I am being indecisive, and I notice you, I will offer you the space if you know what you want. If I don't notice you and you say "excuse me" then I will move out of your way.

Another derogatory post with little or no point other than to insult but I include it because I replied to it and Rookie replied to me. It is a response to my yin to the yang post.

the reply to Maxi



Then I responded to the fear and running comment.

This is where I do something I usually try not to do, use second person pronouns. It was an visceral reaction to the fear and running comment. If he can make comments about me personally, without knowing me, then I will do the same. That was wrong and I apologize for making it personal.

However, the intimidation part is real. I have witnessed it and been a part of it. It's easy to say let the owner say something, but what about the 16-21 year old clerk that is usually the one placed in that position? They are intimidated. Especially if the person they are to confront is much older. Especially if the person they are to confront is wearing a gun. Especially if the person they are to confront is in a group. Now everyone here may be too tough to have had that happen to them, but it does happen and not everyone it happens to is a snowflake. There has been violence from people not wearing a mask when asked to put one on. Its not an unreasonable fear or expectation. Anyone who has carried a firearm with an extra mag for the just in case for 10, 20, 30 years is preparing for that one instance and there is no way a clerk can discern if this is his/her one instance. Now some may say go tell a manager....but at that point, intimidation has already occurred.

Secondly, Rookie did make the statement walking towards me, I could have interpreted that wrong, but in the context of me being personally afraid and running away, it didn't sound like he was walking past me in a nonchalant manner. He could have meant that and if he did I apologize for misunderstanding.

See just above.

Useless is a personal interpretation. IF the store has made the business decision to hang them up (the store has, that means not due to a government mandate), than to the business it's not useless. It has a purpose. For intimidating see above. The rest of the post is just another insult.


I am commenting on walking towards you vs making sure people have plenty of room to get around me...seems like two different approaches. One is more threatening than another, in my experience.

The predator comes into the territory and immediately establishes that he owns it. That's walking towards.

Giving people plenty of room....thats respecting other people. I can't dispute Rookies experience because its his....which is where this conversation all started. In my experience though his "only" statement in the first post fails and his "always" statement in this post fails.

Here I also begin trying to understand where Rookie falls on private property rights. In one sentence he is talking about giving room but every comment about the people wearing a mask (every is valid because of the use of "only" and now "always") includes an instance where that person is the lesser human being. One confronts him. I wouldn't do that unless he got in my personal space as defined above. The other is basically standing there.


Basically just another insult. No real point. Instead, elaborating on why no trespassing signs aren't related would have been more fruitful since I am making a connection between the two.


The following was a reply to another member but Rookie responded.







I am thinking of the two differently because in one situation its one constitutional right against another. Rookie disagrees.

It is here that I think the conversation really becomes about what is legal vs what is respectful and what is the difference between the meaning of required vs requested. Rookie, is I believe, taking it in a legal context. I am taking in a being respectful context.







I am not seeing any difference between walking past signs in a store vs hunting on unposted property etc...

Perhaps this is all a difference of experience. In mine, when you were invited to someone's house, you did not go into any room that you were not shown into, especially if the door is shut. To me, Rookie is sounding like the guy who comes over and views it as ok to venture anywhere in the house unless specifically told not to. It seems like a shifting of the decision concerning property rights to the visitor vs the owner.


Confusing sure...followed by an insult.

A new point seems to be coming up. Denial of Entry vs a Condition to Enter. It's not a framework I was considering. Another insult followed by a generalization that is not true and a point I had already conceded.

Many may interpret the first line to be a complaint. That's their right, but its meant as an observation of how things go on INGO.

I am basically returning to my main point. Being respectful matters.


I did read through the Indiana law on trespass this morning and I can see where Rookie is coming from on a legal standpoint. I still see it as a spirit vs letter of the law issue based on legality vs intent and being respectful. I am still not sure I am clear on denial of entry vs actual trespass.

About the only sign I can think of I ignore is a no guns allowed sign. Any other sign, I honor. "No shirt no shoes no service", "Masks Required", Labeled bathrooms, (although I am a hypocrite on that one too because if the mens is occupied and I GOTTA go....well I will be found in the womens restroom.

I have to give you credit on the excellent job of multiple quotes. Unfortunately, I don't have that ability, so I'll try to cover the things that stood out.

In regards to "run away", my example was of me simply minding my own business while shopping sans mask. I never thought that it could be misconstrued that I would be walking towards anyone acting intimidating. You chose to interpret it that way. But, whatever. My point is, if anyone wearing a mask is so troubled by the fact that I'm not, they can feel free to go to the next aisle and come back later. I do it all the time, if the aisle is a little crowded or there seems to be the majority in the aisle are wearing masks, I'll come back. Believe it or not, that's common courtesy. I choose not to wear a mask and others choose to. Good for them, but leave me alone. You (a general term, not specifically aimed at anyone) as a shopper have no right to tell me what I should do. I've had one confrontation since this ******** started and it wasn't started by me. It was started by some nosey lady who thought she had the right to tell me what I should be doing. She left with hurt feelings.

"Private property rights"
The only RIGHTS you or I have is a person's presence on property. Everything else is a request. If requests are ignored, then the owner can decide if the person is still welcome. You kept bringing up hunting on posted or unposted property. This doesn't apply to the discussion. Grocery stores and the like are generally open to the public. Private property such as your house or your woods are generally closed to the public. A different situation that doesn't fit into the discussion.

Now you get to the point I've been trying to make...
"About the only sign I can think of I ignore is a no guns allowed sign. Any other sign, I honor. "No shirt no shoes no service", "Masks Required", Labeled bathrooms..."

You choose to ignore the "no guns" sign because you don't agree with it. I have no problem with that. The problem I have is that you can't see why someone would be so bold as to ignore other signs that you do agree with. You made a general statement that guns is a 2a issue, but it's not. If you went into a store and got asked to leave because you ignored the "no guns" sign, how do you think it would play out if you told the owner and police that you were staying due to your constitutional rights?

All I've been saying is, if you disagree with and choose to ignore any sign, that's your prerogative and I don't see anything wrong with it. Be prepared to leave without discussion if asked to.

You've been saying ignore some signs that you disagree with, but obey the signs that you do agree with. That's hypocrisy. To be clear, that's not a personal attack, that's an accurate description of what it is. You can't have it both ways. Either follow all posted signs or don't, but don't fault people for making the decision to ignore signs you happen to agree with when you're ignoring signs that others happen to agree with.

 

[churchmouse]

The Governor and his medical advisors? You mean the states head sheep and his crew! Now that is funny!!!!!

Yeah I am ear to ear smiling giggles with "ANY" reference to any state apointed expert.

I refer to the circus freaks on Bidiots team.

 

[jamil]

So you're saying...


People are sheeple?

To clarify, I’m not agreeing that people are sheep-like. People aren’t “herding” creatures per se. I think we are group-ish, but more like tribal than herd-like. So to a large extent we’re susceptible to believing information from our own side without skepticism. We all are reluctant to change our own views unless the sources of new information are from ones we trust.

 

[churchmouse]

To clarify, I’m not agreeing that people are sheep-like. People aren’t “herding” creatures per se. I think we are group-ish, but more like tribal than herd-like. So to a large extent we’re susceptible to believing information from our own side without skepticism. We all are reluctant to change our own views unless the sources of new information are from ones we trust.

I am seeing another side to people in this time of confusion. Many are becoming sheep as they get deeper into the addiction of the 24/7 MSM cycle.

 

[Chewie]

Since there was still some discussion going on, here is my post mortem on the discussion that Rookie and I were having.




At this point, I am making an attempt to show, while not denying the "only" in Rookies statement in his personal experience, that he has an incomplete picture based on his membership in one group. Basically that the street does go both ways.

This is his response. I don't see the point that it is making. I see it as a straight up personal attack. After all, I've said on here I've already had it before in another thread. Yet he makes an assumption that I am cowering in fear over a virus I have already had and running away from him (or similar minded folks) if they come up to me.

Well that's not me. It is possible we are defining personal space differently. If someone walks past me in an aisle way, I don't think that's getting in my personal space. In fact, my definition of personal space hasn't changed since pre Covid. If I am standing in front of a display and someone basically moves into and remains in a bubble anywhere between me and the shelves or loiters within 3 feet of me.

Now, that doesn't mean I want to just stand in someone's way either. IF I am purposefully getting something, and you start reaching over or in front of me. That's gonna get a comment. If I am being indecisive, and I notice you, I will offer you the space if you know what you want. If I don't notice you and you say "excuse me" then I will move out of your way.

Another derogatory post with little or no point other than to insult but I include it because I replied to it and Rookie replied to me. It is a response to my yin to the yang post.

the reply to Maxi



Then I responded to the fear and running comment.

This is where I do something I usually try not to do, use second person pronouns. It was an visceral reaction to the fear and running comment. If he can make comments about me personally, without knowing me, then I will do the same. That was wrong and I apologize for making it personal.

However, the intimidation part is real. I have witnessed it and been a part of it. It's easy to say let the owner say something, but what about the 16-21 year old clerk that is usually the one placed in that position? They are intimidated. Especially if the person they are to confront is much older. Especially if the person they are to confront is wearing a gun. Especially if the person they are to confront is in a group. Now everyone here may be too tough to have had that happen to them, but it does happen and not everyone it happens to is a snowflake. There has been violence from people not wearing a mask when asked to put one on. Its not an unreasonable fear or expectation. Anyone who has carried a firearm with an extra mag for the just in case for 10, 20, 30 years is preparing for that one instance and there is no way a clerk can discern if this is his/her one instance. Now some may say go tell a manager....but at that point, intimidation has already occurred.

Secondly, Rookie did make the statement walking towards me, I could have interpreted that wrong, but in the context of me being personally afraid and running away, it didn't sound like he was walking past me in a nonchalant manner. He could have meant that and if he did I apologize for misunderstanding.

See just above.

Useless is a personal interpretation. IF the store has made the business decision to hang them up (the store has, that means not due to a government mandate), than to the business it's not useless. It has a purpose. For intimidating see above. The rest of the post is just another insult.


I am commenting on walking towards you vs making sure people have plenty of room to get around me...seems like two different approaches. One is more threatening than another, in my experience.

The predator comes into the territory and immediately establishes that he owns it. That's walking towards.

Giving people plenty of room....thats respecting other people. I can't dispute Rookies experience because its his....which is where this conversation all started. In my experience though his "only" statement in the first post fails and his "always" statement in this post fails.

Here I also begin trying to understand where Rookie falls on private property rights. In one sentence he is talking about giving room but every comment about the people wearing a mask (every is valid because of the use of "only" and now "always") includes an instance where that person is the lesser human being. One confronts him. I wouldn't do that unless he got in my personal space as defined above. The other is basically standing there.


Basically just another insult. No real point. Instead, elaborating on why no trespassing signs aren't related would have been more fruitful since I am making a connection between the two.


The following was a reply to another member but Rookie responded.







I am thinking of the two differently because in one situation its one constitutional right against another. Rookie disagrees.

It is here that I think the conversation really becomes about what is legal vs what is respectful and what is the difference between the meaning of required vs requested. Rookie, is I believe, taking it in a legal context. I am taking in a being respectful context.







I am not seeing any difference between walking past signs in a store vs hunting on unposted property etc...

Perhaps this is all a difference of experience. In mine, when you were invited to someone's house, you did not go into any room that you were not shown into, especially if the door is shut. To me, Rookie is sounding like the guy who comes over and views it as ok to venture anywhere in the house unless specifically told not to. It seems like a shifting of the decision concerning property rights to the visitor vs the owner.


Confusing sure...followed by an insult.

A new point seems to be coming up. Denial of Entry vs a Condition to Enter. It's not a framework I was considering. Another insult followed by a generalization that is not true and a point I had already conceded.

Many may interpret the first line to be a complaint. That's their right, but its meant as an observation of how things go on INGO.

I am basically returning to my main point. Being respectful matters.


I did read through the Indiana law on trespass this morning and I can see where Rookie is coming from on a legal standpoint. I still see it as a spirit vs letter of the law issue based on legality vs intent and being respectful. I am still not sure I am clear on denial of entry vs actual trespass.

About the only sign I can think of I ignore is a no guns allowed sign. Any other sign, I honor. "No shirt no shoes no service", "Masks Required", Labeled bathrooms, (although I am a hypocrite on that one too because if the mens is occupied and I GOTTA go....well I will be found in the womens restroom.

Sorry, fell asleep in the chair reading that. Fast forwarded to the part of the post (commonly referred to as the "end") with the little red oval that says reply and here we are!
No point intended.

 

[Ingomike]

To clarify, I’m not agreeing that people are sheep-like. People aren’t “herding” creatures per se. I think we are group-ish, but more like tribal than herd-like. So to a large extent we’re susceptible to believing information from our own side without skepticism. We all are reluctant to change our own views unless the sources of new information are from ones we trust.

The whole trusted sources discussion is beginning to resemble the chicken or egg debate.

Although I don't believe there are any sources that can be trusted.